What is the difference between art and design? I find it quite strange that so many people have such a clear idea of what is art and what is design in their every day life but when you ask them closely they respond that you can’t really define the difference?
Can you really define the difference between art, design and maybe architecture? The Eiffel tower, for example, is it art? Or is it design? Can you design art?
And what about mass production. When you make one vase, it is art, but when you make ten of them, it is design? And what does that say about artists like Roy Lichenstein and Andy Warhol?
The opera house in Sydney is almost a sculpture by itself, so can you call it art? Or is it design? Or is it architecture? What would people commonly respond to this and why?
For starters, everything is an art (in a manner of perspective).
The word “design”, when applied to art, concerns the manner of how art is achieved (how things are placed and what-not). Architecture is an art form that uses the techniques of design to achieve its final product.
[i]To be frank, the word “design” can mean various things. Only when it is applied to a particular form (specifically an art form) does it have a specific meaning in context to its application. If I say “graphic design”, which is what the ILP Visual Arts forum is mainly for (other than pandering Photoshop inventions or posting good photography; and there is mind you), “design” becomes merely a method of “laying out” art to communicate visually. “Graphic Design” and “Architectural Design” are not the same thing, but they both share similar methods of achieving their end product.
If I use the word “design” in the context of regular dialogue, such as Emperor Palpatine saying “Everything is going according to my design” (which he did say in Return of the Jedi), “design” becomes a short-term for a carefully laid out plan (in the case of Palpatine, the plan is to destroy the Rebel Alliance… but I’m sure you already knew that!).[/i]
For me, art is pure expression (emotional or intellectual) while design is utilitarian.
Design must be useful…practical. Art, on the other hand, is totally impractical. Art’s only use is to offer emotional or intellectual stimulation – pleasure for pleasures sake – pure gratuitous indulgence.
You can, of course, have a combination of both. For instance you can design something very practical and add art to its surface or within the form but I still see this as design – artistic design, perhaps – but still design. It’s primary purpose is to fulfil a utilitarian purpose.
If a design’s purpose is to create space(s), then this particular type of design is called architecture. Again it can be combined with art to create an artistic design/architecture or left plain and utilitarian. For me, it’s still design.
I see the historic development like this: The first civilizations designed objects to use for practical purpose only (i.e.design) Later, they embellished these practical objects to make them more pleasing or meaningful (valuable). Crafts developed here. Eventually, as a civilization became rich enough to enable some people to create things of desire – without having any practical application – art arose.