Art vs. Design

I believe that design has the potential to be art. To me, art is a term that encompasses many different forms of expression, one of which can be design. Design is not always art because in its most basic form, it is simply a plan to fulfill a purpose, and its intention is functionality. For design to become art, that plan must include greater implications for society, hence no longer limiting itself to its purpose. The plan should involve risks, surpassing the boundaries that one would have previously mistaken for constraints. It is the designer, now artist, that judges what is considered innovative and daring and it is also his or her responsibility to persuade and generate talk amongst his or her audience. Because there is no common standard as to what is art, then it can be said that art is generally subjective. And if that is the case, then here is where opinions come into play, though opinions can be influenced and changed by the artist, who can provide a frame for the interpretations of his or her's design. Of course, there are more elements to art that design must fulfill aside from risks and big ideas; art must have a quality of being unique. However, that is not to say that it must be exclusive. Society has the misconception that art is reserved for a select few and that only those rare individuals can decipher its esoteric messages. A design can be mass produced, allowing it to be available to a wider population, though that does not make it any less unique nor any less of a work of art. The design remains distinctive because it is different from others' designs and replications of the same design has no impact on its singularity. If a design can satisfy the aforementioned prerequisites, only then can it be considered art.