Design vs. Art

While the concepts of art and design certainly overlap in many ways, I believe that there are definite distinctions between the two. Charles Eames and Norman Potter identify many of these distinctions in their articles. As Eames states, design must serve a purpose or function. In contrast, art can serve a practical purpose, but does not have to. Potter further explains how design remains dependent upon the constraints of the problem being tackled as well as the desires of the client. Art can evolve throughout the creation process, while design must almost always regard the original plan. As a result, an artist can have a much more personal growing relationship with his or her creation than a designer, who must consult the original aims of the design and is bound by it. As both Eames and Potter note, the design process is, by nature, much more collaborative than creating art.

It seems that design can be considered art, but not all design is art. In class, we discussed how art must be aesthetically pleasing and it must be appreciated in the sense that Dave Hickey commented on. However, we also noted that an iPod, as a design, is both pleasing to the senses and appreciated, and yet we do not consider it to be art. I feel that design can be considered art when it can be appreciated for reasons outside or beyond its planned purpose. The meaning of a painting or sculpture can be interpreted in many different ways. Its value, for people, is measured in what it means to them, however many different meanings there may be. Art differs from design in that it does not have to meet a standard meaning or function. Design, first and foremost, must serve a specific purpose identified from the outset. If design can be widely appreciated for more than just achieving its specific predetermined purpose, then I feel it begins to resemble art.