It's really hard to differentiate art and design nowadays. And I think there are indepensible relationships between them. The boundaries of both art and design are becoming boarder and boarder now. Maybe in the future art will be called design, and design will be called art. But I still think the key part of design is its functionality. If artworks are created mainly for functionality purposes, they would be less attractive. Life is just the art. That’s why I find it interesting to express the feeling of my life by using art languages. I totally agree with Isamu Noguchi’s statement: “Everything is sculpture, any materials, any idea without hindrance born into space, I consider sculpture”. But if we couldn’t let people know the conception or feel the emotion inside our artworks, anything we make and any materials we use are meaningless.
It seems as soon as someone sets out to define art as separate from design, somebody else sets out to prove otherwise. I like that any view of the relationship between art and design can create cool stuff--be it "art is not design," or "art is design." I don't think they can get away from each other. The reading gave an interesting account of how intertwined art and design can be. As long as cool stuff happens, does it matter if the stuff's called art or if it's called design? I guess the term "art" is more prestigious, which is part of the problem of this debate. To not allow something cool to be called "art" seems to be elitist, since art continues to be redefined with broader and broader strokes. What's cool, you ask? What's art? I ask.
Btw, the author seems to have confused the painter Robert Delaunay with his wife, Sonia. Sonia Delaunay painted as well, but she was the one who was into furniture and fashion design too. I had to research Robert Delaunay for a class once.
I believe that art and design do not exist independently of each other. Design must always be taken into consideration when composing works of art. The use of line, form, and color to lead the viewer to specific destinations within a piece or along a certain path must always be considered; even if it is specifically rejected to reinforce some conceptual purpose, it must be understood in order to be rejected. Whether your aesthetic is clean and polished or rough and loose, design must always be a consideration.
I was excited to read this. I often feel art should have a function, should do something. weather it is a kind of emotional machine that produces a reaction in the viewer, or it functions as a wall covering to make a room more interesting. I occasionally feel guilty about my urges to create functional objects, perhaps even fearful that I am somehow negating my designation as "artist" by spending time making functional things instead of "art". When does an object become or cease to be art?
What about engineering? How does that differ from design? Is an expensive limited production super car an artwork? How about a custom one of a kind motorcycle? It seems to me that both function much the same way as "art". An expensive car is an object of desire, it decorates the driveway and makes the neighbors jellous, it raises the prestige of people with money, and it provides something to look at on the road.
The most interesting part of this article for me was the beginning in which she discusses the history surrounding our perceptions of art and design. It seems logical that early on there is little separation between the two, but as time moves forward the separation grows. I'm still puzzling over the quote by Matisse about art being like "a good arm chair in which to rest".
5 comments:
It's really hard to differentiate art and design nowadays. And I think there are indepensible relationships between them. The boundaries of both art and design are becoming boarder and boarder now. Maybe in the future art will be called design, and design will be called art. But I still think the key part of design is its functionality. If artworks are created mainly for functionality purposes, they would be less attractive.
Life is just the art. That’s why I find it interesting to express the feeling of my life by using art languages. I totally agree with Isamu Noguchi’s statement: “Everything is sculpture, any materials, any idea without hindrance born into space, I consider sculpture”. But if we couldn’t let people know the conception or feel the emotion inside our artworks, anything we make and any materials we use are meaningless.
It seems as soon as someone sets out to define art as separate from design, somebody else sets out to prove otherwise. I like that any view of the relationship between art and design can create cool stuff--be it "art is not design," or "art is design." I don't think they can get away from each other. The reading gave an interesting account of how intertwined art and design can be. As long as cool stuff happens, does it matter if the stuff's called art or if it's called design? I guess the term "art" is more prestigious, which is part of the problem of this debate. To not allow something cool to be called "art" seems to be elitist, since art continues to be redefined with broader and broader strokes. What's cool, you ask? What's art? I ask.
Btw, the author seems to have confused the painter Robert Delaunay with his wife, Sonia. Sonia Delaunay painted as well, but she was the one who was into furniture and fashion design too. I had to research Robert Delaunay for a class once.
I believe that art and design do not exist independently of each other. Design must always be taken into consideration when composing works of art. The use of line, form, and color to lead the viewer to specific destinations within a piece or along a certain path must always be considered; even if it is specifically rejected to reinforce some conceptual purpose, it must be understood in order to be rejected. Whether your aesthetic is clean and polished or rough and loose, design must always be a consideration.
I was excited to read this. I often feel art should have a function, should do something. weather it is a kind of emotional machine that produces a reaction in the viewer, or it functions as a wall covering to make a room more interesting. I occasionally feel guilty about my urges to create functional objects, perhaps even fearful that I am somehow negating my designation as "artist" by spending time making functional things instead of "art". When does an object become or cease to be art?
What about engineering? How does that differ from design? Is an expensive limited production super car an artwork? How about a custom one of a kind motorcycle? It seems to me that both function much the same way as "art". An expensive car is an object of desire, it decorates the driveway and makes the neighbors jellous, it raises the prestige of people with money, and it provides something to look at on the road.
The most interesting part of this article for me was the beginning in which she discusses the history surrounding our perceptions of art and design. It seems logical that early on there is little separation between the two, but as time moves forward the separation grows. I'm still puzzling over the quote by Matisse about art being like "a good arm chair in which to rest".
Post a Comment