How much design is art? How much art, is really design? What's the difference?
I was reading through a series of posts on the Guardian about design called My Design, and it seemed to me that there was a strong focus on the artistic nature of design in the stories that were highlighted. But I'm not really sure how I came to that conclusion.
First off, I want to apologise for what might turn out to be a particularly academic post. I should explain that my partner Sharon is a contemporary artist, and we have had many conversations about the nature of art and how something can be considered art by some people, and just a twig with some paint on it by a lot more people. As a result I can dive a little too deep into this subject!
Anyway, moving on... Here's an example of the sort of post that got me thinking. Max Lamb invites us to look at what is ultimately a functional object, china crockery, in a new light; from the perspective of the maker, framed by the rough textures and imperfections that come from the hand made process. And then he flips it, turning this hand made object into a mass produced one.
The great American designer Charles Eames, creator of fabulous chairs and one half of the powerhouse collaboration team that was the Eames once said:
Design is an expression of the purpose, and it may (if it is good enough) later be judged as art; design depends largely on constraints and it is a method of action (there are always constraints and these usually include ethic).
I think that is a valid point. But perhaps the distinction between the two is too complex to encapsulate in one pithy quote. Perhaps there isn't a distinction in the work, but in the framing of the work; or rather in us as viewers/users.
When is a chair not a chair? If I stand looking intently, contemplating the artistic merit of an Eames lounger, I can judge that chair to be art. However, I am conspicuously not doing something important for a chair – sitting in it.
Many chairs have been presented as art exclusively. There are a number of distinctions that must take place for them to be considered art though.
The first is context. Where is the chair? The answer doesn't matter. The fact that the question is asked, and thus an answer expected makes it impossible for us to just experience the chair as a perch for ones tired butt.
The second is abstraction. This is a bit more woolly to define, as there are levels of abstraction that some may feel comfortable with as almost everyday or mundane. The point here is that the abstraction itself must cause you to not USE the chair for any other purpose. Again, is begs you to question it's motives, contemplate the reason for the abstraction. Is there a purely aesthetic purpose? That is still allowed in art.
Finally there is utility, or lack thereof. A chair that cannot be used, or if used creates an experience at odds to that of expectation (ex: is purposefully uncomfortable) also invites examination of the purpose of the chair in the first place.
All of these ideas of what constitutes art, don't really speak to the purpose of design though. I could conclude at this point that art is anything that begs a question, while design is anything that provides a use. But as Charles Eames points out, some designed objects can become art, and vice versa.
I believe that the truth is more subtle than that. In fact I am beginning to believe that art and design are not polar opposites on a spectrum of taste and utility at all. I think that an object, designed for everyday use, can provoke enquiry... everyday. A designed object can thus have art “in it”. Art then becomes a quality whereas design a form of action.
One thing that is certain, is that we place a higher value on objects that we consider to be art (or have art in them), even if you don't like them, or they fail to serve a purpose. Placing a value on something may be the defining factor as to whether an object is or isn't art at any given moment. Being a purely subjective judgement, value (and art) is of course, in the eye of the beholder.
So, today's questions are: Does imbuing our designed objects with art make them art? And they be both art and design? Does “good” design need art to be good? Or is good design just so good, it becomes art?