Design is not Art
Joshua Porter hit the nail on the head with a recent post titled Five Principles to Design By
Art is about personal expression. It is about the life, the emotions, the thoughts and ideas of the artist. It matters very little what observers do, their activity is not required, only their appreciation. The practice of Art doesn’t require them. It is a necessary activity for the artist, and the artist alone.
Design, on the other hand, is about use. The designer needs someone to use (not only appreciate) what they create. Design doesn’t serve its purpose without people to use it. Design helps solve human problems. The highest accolade we can bestow on a design is not that it is beautiful, as we do in Art, but that it is well-used.
Unlike Art, Design is always contextual. It matters when a design was created because of the context of its use: what problem is it supposed to solve? And for whom? At what point in time? This is why design is so related to technology, because technology changes so quickly, so must our designs. A design that worked ten years ago might not even be worth considering today. History is littered with wonderful designs that are no longer necessary.
…
The litmus test. When people enjoy Art, they say “I like that”. When people enjoy Design, they say “That works well”. This is not by accident. Good Design is something that works well.
3 years ago
I’m falling more into these camps these days:
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/01/reverseengineer.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/15.html
Not sure if you should /notice/ design at all.
3 years ago
@Sammy: i think its one thing to talk about how invisible design should be to an average user; but I think a good designer should be able to easily notice it… how else could they study and achieve it themselves?
both the links you posted are excellent by the way
3 years ago
While I agree in part with Joshua’s sentiments, I have seen this argument used too frequently to sell ugly designs as “good” designs. “It works well” is not the only mark of good design, although it is essential. Beauty is another mark of good design. In the end, you want your customers to say “That works well, AND I like it”.
Take the logo on this blog, for example. The function of a logo is to serve as a memorable identifier. But who wants to be associated with something extraordinarily ugly, no matter how memorable it may be? In this case, the logo is created artfully and with beauty, which tells me something about the person it represents.
All design, in fact, tells us something about the people who made it. It is an expression of the thoughts and ideas of the company who creates the product, and it functions as such in the subconcious mind of the consumer.
ALL design is art, and we would all do well to remember that. A company that prospers WITH ugly design prospers in spite of it, not because of it.
3 years ago
@Tom: Thanks for the compliment on the logo; I think you’ve hit a good way to marry the beauty of design to it’s usefulness. You clearly need to be focused on the usefulness when trying to design; but that certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of making something beautiful at the same time.
I think that Joshua still makes a good point though that it isn’t art in the normal art sense, In design beauty is tied directly to usefulness
That isn’t to say that there are no qualities and grades of design just because they are all in a ‘design’ bucket; it gives us a better understanding of how to evaluate and be critical of design.
I am often fascinated by elegant (and practical) solutions to real world things; for instance i find bathrooms in restaurants and hotels fascinating both for the esthetic’s beauty, and for their usefulness; It is a place that diversity of design abounds which makes it easy to evaluate and notice differences; but it’s not art, it’s design.
2 years, 12 months ago
I agree with Tom completely — It’s a balance — you can’t say design is not art or art is not design. Nothing in the whole world is black and white like that!
Come on, we should realize that something can be beautiful and work well at the same time, and that a perfect balance between aesthetics and functionality in fact enhances usability!
Who said that? I’m heading over there to set them straight…
2 years, 9 months ago
Yep!…Tom makes a seemingly complete sense! =)
Let’s face it logically (or so I thought):
Postulate 1: We all agree that art is an application of human creative skill.
Postulate 2: We all agree that graphic design involves an application of human creative skill.
Conclusion: Then we should all agree that graphic design involves art.
It’s as simple as: if A=B, B=C, then A=C.
Einstein said: Life should be simple but not simpler.
Exupery said: In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away.
They’re from totally different fields, but they both share the same idea on the essence of simplicity. Left reconciled. Why can’t we do that with design and art? Harmony is good! Trust me.
Did I make sense?
2 years, 8 months ago
I’d suggest that beauty is part of the functionality of design. If a design is “ugly”, users may be distracted by the ugliness, or feel less interested in using it. This can have, I think, a real effect on the overall user’s experience, and may affect their inclination to meet the design halfway. Since nearly all interfaces (for example) require the user to do some learning, some thinking, an interface that is unpleasant for whatever reason will be less likely to interest the user enough that the user will meet it halfway, really learn it, and become an “expert” user — here, “expert” can mean “knows what all the buttons on the remote do”.
Wouldn’t you be more interested in learning how to use a startlingly gorgeous glass-and-gem remote control (tasteful, imagine it as beautiful in your own mind) than the same layout done in boring old black and gray plastic, in an utterly predictable, but logical, design? Woudn’t that interest perhaps translate, in time, to your becoming so good at using the remote that it would seem more usable to you?
2 years ago
Design is art. It’s art with a specific goal in mind. Functionality yes, but design also expresses emotion. It convey’s a feeling. I would go so far as to say functional design is not really design in the true sense, because design is not functionality it is communication. Functionality is the result of a good communication that is expressed through the art of design.
In other words… Functionality and Communication are both parts of design. Functionality is not art, but communication through design is. And functionality is a product of that.
1 year, 4 months ago
[...] I like these two posts(do read all the comments — shows all sides of the debate) Design is not art Five principles to design by [...]
7 months, 3 weeks ago
[...] http://jehiah.cz/archive/design-is-not-art « work vs. creativity [...]