The Difference Between Art and Design
I read the other day a comparison of art and design. There are definitive shared characteristics, from their creative nature to relying upon the visual senses for interpretation. Both entertain. Both connect with their audience. But the author, John O’Nolan, worked very hard to point out their differences. Art inspires and is interpreted, while good design motivates and needs to be understood in a universal way. Makes sense.
Still, I wonder a bit about his contention that art is the result of talent, i.e. “natural ability,” while design is a skill that is simply taught and learned. I think each is a combination of both. Da Vinci didn’t paint the Mona Lisa the first time he picked up a brush. He perfected his skills according to his natural abilities. And the great designers of today’s visual communications certainly have perfected their skills – but they couldn’t succeed without talent.
Artist or designer, blank canvas or paper, talent or skill – it all must be drawn from within.
Good design stands alone in all respects, IMHO. And, the best art around is that which was created by a designer married with other natural artistic abilities. I personally tire of so called art without fundamental design qualities. They tend to be either empty, haphazard, uninteresting, and/or uninspiring. Even if the whole point is to be intentionally disturbing, it's almost as though it's done in a way that bores me, and I imagine eventually all viewers. We only give something so much consideration until we move on. Good design captivates it's viewers. If I can recall correctly, I think it was said that art is considered by some to be a natural talent, whereas design can be learned. I believe that point is mute, and good design is as much a natural skill as good art is considered to be and more so. You can find children, though few, who without guidance utilize the golden mean or ratio in their work....who understand how to depict depth and dimension and use it to create unique forms. There are many "artists" who have no understanding of such things. And it's a loose arena in which one can call themselves an "artist". When anyone expresses an idea or emotion, who can really assume their intentions and determine whether it was creatively done? Designers aren't cut that kind of slack. Nor do they desire it. I consider that a testiment to the quality of thier work alone.
I need to think more on this but my gut tells me that perhaps the core difference is the inspiration. With design, your inspiration is your client's brand, with art it's your psyche. Beyond that, it is the same IMO.