Design Is Not Art / Daniel Eden

This is something that’s taken me the better part of 5 years to fully come to terms with. Design is not art.

Charles & Ray Eames’ iconic Lounge Chair & Ottoman

We are not artists. We aren’t “creatives”, whatever that means. We weren’t hired to give those corporate brochures some flair, or impart our creative opinion on your colour choices. We are problem solvers.

Art is, in its very nature, subjective. It achieves no goal, other than to serve as a decorative object. Art raises questions.

Art is a question. Design is an answer.

Bruno Munari’s “Design As Art” challenges many traditional perceptions of design

Design is entirely objective. Design is a solution; a recipe. A product. Design doesn’t strive for attention or demand a solution — it is the solution. It stands aside and performs a function. Everything you interact with every single day has been designed by someone. Each curve and contour and line a colour has been chosen, and considered. But very few things you interact with can (or should) be described as Art.

Art is influenced by time. In art, we have trends and periods — Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism, Cubism, Minimalism — where design stands still. Design cannot afford to shift with these trends; it has to stand strong and serve its purpose. Of course, design has and will continue to feel the influence of trends; but so long as the design completes the corporations objective, and delivers the message to the consumer, it has succeeded.

Of all the things I’ve grown to learn, this I am most certain of. We can inject our own personal preferences into a design, but we must strive to solve the problem at hand. We have questions to answer; deliverables to produce. Clients to please. Bills to pay. We aren’t distracted by the influence of our own likes and dislikes. Every detail is measured and every decision accounted for.

Design is not Art. Design is objective. Design is an answer.

http://twitter.com/AHDezigns Ashton Harris

I wish more people understood this.
http://twitter.com/chrisveto Chris Veto

The one thing that get’s me down when someone calls us (me, you, whoever else does what we do) problem solvers. Not because of how we solve those problems, but because I know that those problems are never going to end. That’s why it’s the perfect place to be, work will never end, no one will never be able to lay us off completely. But, it’s a routine. Sure, tools change, methods change, but the number of problems is not going to grow smaller — it’s going to grow bigger. And exactly how long will one be able to do this without going insane or losing any kind of interest in providing answers?

I don’t know and I don’t want to care either. But I think about that and that’s what bothers me.
- http://daneden.me Dan Eden
  
  I guess I share the frustration. Our job is never done. But we can rest assured that the work we’ve done has helped make the world that little bit better. There will always be more work to be done, but that’s ok. There’s time. And there’s a few of us around to do it.
- http://www.kylemstevens.com/ Kyle Stevens
  
  The reality is if you are not solving problems, you are stationary. Are you going to continue to improve? Or will you settle for where you are?
- chrisveto
  
  Avoiding improvement is next to impossible in this field of work where even one click can make your brain eat new knowledge whether you like it or not and that was not my point.
- Kyle Stevens
  
  You won’t go insane if you continue to answer questions and solve problems in the area you are most passionate about. If that changes over time as well, so be it. Move on (or go crazy). Sorry I missed the point the first time
http://jordanstaniscia.com/ Jordan Staniscia

I kind of agree, but yet… good design invokes emotion. People love certain things, hate certain things, and fear certain things because they were designed that way. Invoking emotion–isn’t that the end goal of art?
- http://daneden.me Dan Eden
  
  You’re right about that — great design is emotional. But you could argue that an emotional response is an objective — one that draws the audience closer to the ‘thing’. The “Buy Now” button.
  
  In the advertising world, this is true. You can’t argue that the fear created by anti-smoking advertisements is in pursuit of art — it was designed. Just as the smiling faces for holiday brochures are there to get us one step closer to the checkout. The emotion is an objective in itself.
danir

Congratulations on your realization, now you are one step closer to realizing that design is not entirely objective either. Design resides in a gray area between problem solving and art.
ollieread

Developers are the true artists, and I mean ACTUAL developers
http://twitter.com/micrypt Ṣeyi Ogunyẹ́mi

Have you actually read “Design as Art”?
- http://daneden.me Dan Eden
  
  Yes, I have. It’s a great read.
- http://twitter.com/micrypt Ṣeyi Ogunyẹ́mi
  
  In that case that you have, you should probably note that he describes design in the popular sense as a subset of art — which doesn’t lend much credence to your views.
- http://daneden.me Dan Eden
  
  I suppose you’re right. But for me, the book talks largely about the vast differences between art and design, singling them out from one another.
http://twitter.com/ziyadbasheer Ziyad Basheer

The arguments made in this blog post are inconsistent, self-contradicting, and not well-thought out.

“Art is, in its very nature, subjective. It achieves no goal, other than to serve as a decorative object”

» That is an incorrect perspective. Art, in its many forms, is widely studied. The standards of beauty have long been decided to be objective, at least as limited to human observers.

The groundbreaking research on this subject was performed by philosophy professor Dennis Dutton, as highlighted in his book, The Art Instinct, and his TED talk, A Darwinian Theory of Beauty, alluding to the fact that the appreciation of beauty, art, design, and aesthetics in general has evolutionary roots, and thus serves an actual purpose as opposed to your claim that it has no goal. http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

“Design is an answer.”

» To what exactly? You seem to be referring to design in the product/industrial design sense.

“Everything you interact with every single day has been designed by someone.”

» Of course, in that sense, everything, ever-made, is “designed”. But based on your previous definition of design, this is not true. As not all products are created with maximal utility, or aesthetics in mind. This is especially predominant in commodity goods or things perceived as means or tools.

“Art is influenced by time”

» Yet another baseless claim. Art is independent of time, that a particular philosophy or school of art dominated landmark works of a certain era indicates the influence of various societal attributes. However, it is most certainly epochal, but that merely indicates a correlation with time, not causality. Art forms are especially diverse today, as geographical barriers to the exchange of ideas and information have diminished. All forms are cultural art produced today, ranging from Islamic calligraphy, to contemporary Bauhaus design.

“In art, we have trends and periods.….where design stands still. Design cannot afford to shift with these trends; it has to stand strong and serve its purpose. Of course, design has and will continue to feel the influence of trends”

» That paragraph is self-contradictory. You claim that design stands still, yet it feels the influence of trends. A more accurate observation would be to note that design is ever-evolving and is dynamic in nature, this is required in order to compliment whatever a particular society deems pleasant.

“We aren’t distracted by the influence of our own likes and dislikes.”

» Wrong. As human beings, neither you, nor I can override our cognitive biases.
- http://daneden.me Dan Eden
  
  Don’t forget that this is all very much “in my opinion”.
  
  - I’m happy to admit that Art is an important part of our culture and evolutionary process. So in that sense, yes; Art does have a purpose beyond decoration.
  
  - You’re correct in pointing out that I’m referring to Design in the product/industrial design sense, but to what else would I refer? This entire post is talking about Design as a commercial tool.
  
  - Everything is designed. This is 100% true. The cup was designed. The wrench. The keys on a payphone. All means and tools are designed. To state otherwise is foolish.
  
  - How is my claim that Art is influenced by time a baseless one? You just said yourself that Art is dictated by the dominant philosophy or school — which is in itself affected by the passing of time. Art (maybe not directly) is affected by time.
  
  - You’re right, that was a contradictory paragraph. Design does follow trends, but great design is effective regardless of ‘now’.
  
  - True. What I meant was we shouldn’t be affected by them. We should strive to remain objective.
  
  I’m not trying to start a fire with this post; I’m just sputtering out my thoughts on the subject.
Comicart1st

Art is a mother nature and to me design is a son, an application due to the function. Art inspires, Design solves. those are inspired and influenced to each of one another nowadays in quite awhile.
Comicart1st

it ain’t easy to make a real Art, only for a gifted one who has a vision (art of seeing thing unseen). while people can do many designs in many forms for something that looks an art. Art can do no wrong, but a design can do.
Marc-Oliver Gern

It’s all about communication – no matter how you want to call it or what you’ve been hired to to.
Lee mason

So true. Lovely article daniel. I know a few people who could learn from this. And most of them have been “designers” for as long as we’ve been alive.