"against design"

This showcase of artists/designers brings up a good topic.

How close art and design are, and how close can you bring them together without leaning towards one or the other.


This is something I addressed in my thesis in undergrad school.

i take it there is not much interets in this?

Ok I’ll bite.

but first: When initiating discourse on a group of works, never soley rely on second hand critique as your single conduit for the discourse, because it corrupts the exchange and its bias taints the (re)viewer’s opinion.

Second: if this topic was something you addressed in grad school, by all means please present a context for the discourse, a quorum if you will, to frame your view or argument. Present your views, thoughts and opinion on this topic as a “frame” so that your (re)viewer’s can understand where you are coming from, your “biases” and your thinking process on the discourse. In short introduce yourself. It makes it much easier to initiate conversation if you establish a point of view.

Unfortunately reviewing the works and the context which they provide second handedly is difficult, but notions aside, one can surmise that with this show the “academic” art is trying to critique the “utility” of design. The result of the critique is that when utility is removed design becomes art.

The article reflects the question of art as a an insular academic pursuit which is constantly in critique of its surroundings. Blissfully unaware of the greater contexts of those surroundings and often veiwing them through a skewed prismatic lens. So this Show Focuses the lens on design.

So, How does one critique utility beyond facetiously “Transubtantiating” the utility into “Art”? One way is by an inside joke, or by treating the ultimate use as a joke. Remove the use and you have art, is another direction. But in the end the best way is just a “killer app” of a well written joke; set it up, deliver the punchline, drum roll, “I"ll be here all week, please try the veal.” Which in its own candid and introspective way is the core application of design today: to use a process to find that killer app to be exploited and applied in a useful way.

Either this show is beaing preternaturally smart enough to acheive this goal by design, or fundamentally lucky enough to stumble on it by chance; it is an interesting question to be discussed. In that I mean without art would there be design? Because I think without design there would be no art.

people may not agree with this … but I am still trying to answer the riddle myself, or at least come to a better understanding of what some of these designers and artist are trying to do, because I would like to be an active artist/designer hybrid that can create things that walk in these boundaries.

so … here is a bit of my thesis writing … simple but that is how I write … and I have to say reading it now I really am starting to understand more about it I think, I am still learning though so I thought it would be nice to start topic of this on here to see what others think and maybe shoot theories and learning off one another.

There are many theories on how closely Design and Fine Art are related, and where the line that distinguishes one from the other lies. The philosophies that I hold about art and design exist within the gap that is not yet definable. The idea of everyday objects, consumerism, organization, arrangement by color, and display become an important part in distinguishing a visual language for artists and designers. This enables them to cross the barrier and make things that are not only well designed but also compelling to look at. There is a noticeable acceptance of art that tends to lean towards design, and of design that emulates art. Many artists like myself are trying to create art that maintains fine art sensibilities, and yet embraces design concepts, principals, and a design aesthetic. Is it relevant for art to be kept so separate from design, when design holds so many of the same traits?
Artists are starting to become more interested in combining both fine art and design. The responsibility of artists to defy conventions allows them to strike at the foundations of artistic and design structures, and yet build something new. The work imposes disorder in both fields, by challenging it, and by dancing upon the thin line between fine art and design. The artist producing the work in this vein is drawing from both design and fine art and owes something to both. They are not inventing a type of art that works against design, but rather creating art that employs or incorporates design and it’s unique creative challenges. By finding a middle ground between convention and defiance, artists are not simply utilizing art or elevating design; they are regaining control of their own environment one object at a time. They are not addressing the whole world, but interpreting the world with ordinary objects like a house, a cabinet, an umbrella, or a patch of grass.

without drawing a line in the sand:

art is about expression, communicating feelings

design is about making an idea a reality, perform a function

either can incorporate elements of the other

see the “really excellent furniture design” thread for more entertainment value

oh but you did…

see i agree … you did draw a line. Its about makeing the line disapear and makeing the two words/ideas blend and become eachother.

Most of this can be and is done in the viewers eyes, but its is interesting to see how much you can bring it out in the work, so that its less questions and more interest. Now i know all design and art is objective, but just to think if we could make something that did not pose the questions “is it art?” “is it design”

there is a meaning where design is a process that can be applied to any idea making it a reality, either functionally or thru expression.

therefore by saying something is done “by design” means that is was done purposefully with intent on an end result.

You can’t draw a line in the sand or define it black or white terms, its linked. For example when design uses a visual Metaphor to describe a use is that not an expression or communication of a function?

(I don’t think one should touch that third rail, you mind will explode just debating it. But if you can define a competant middle ground for both then you will have an answer. )

The difference is in the recipient, or users, intent, not in the designer’s or artists intent and this where art and design intertwine. Both art and design have audiences, recipients, if you will, of their intents. But its ultimately the audience who picks or pans the winners choosing the intents as they see fit to their applications. Is it useful in a certain way? depnds on who wants, needs and desires it, and for what differential reasons do they want, need and desire it.