Star-crossed Lovers: Design and Art - Research Paper Example

Star-crossed Lovers: Design and Art Although whether design is a form of art has been debated since the mid-19th century, the borders between art anddesign have been increasingly blurred with the advent of avant-garde and especially pop-art in the 20th century. As Barbara Bloemink noted “distinctions between art and design likely to become increasingly difficult to define”1. Nevertheless, as Rick Poynor points out design is still treated inferior to art, as its little brother, since even Bloemink reinforced the old imbalance with her exhibition2. The aim of this paper is to discuss whether design is art in reference to three approaches. Firstly, the question will be considered with respect to the institutional theory of art and the cultural niche theory. Secondly, it will be evaluated from the perspective of users and the death of the designer. Thirdly, a more conventional approach to art will be employed in order to answer the question. Vilem Plusser points out the interrelationships between art and design by digging out the roots of the word-design. Plusser states that “the words design, machine, technology, ars and art are closely related to one another”3. Rick Poynor stresses the continuity between design and art by pointing out the term “Design art”4. He notes that designers like Ron Arad, Hella Jongerius blurred the distinction between art and design. Poynor makes a plea for a wider understanding, more flexible and less dichotomous approach in regard to art/design separation while he complained that the institutions of art treated design works inferior to art, to the point of exclusion. He highlights the fact that even the design museum Cooper-Hewitt exhibits only the works of artists acting as designers5. Only the designs created by artists are treated as works of art by the community of art. Indeed, according to institutional theory of art, an object is regarded as art only if it is viewed as art by the art world. From that perspective anything can be art, since it does not deal with the essences. As Josephson noted: “Being an art object describes how one is to use the object, not what it is.[…] To be considered "art" something need only be picked out by the art world as art to be viewed or experienced under whatever theory then dominates the art world. We are not dealing with essences here, anymore than we are dealing with essences when we, say, designate an overturned box to be a chair. Being a chair does not designate an essence; it involves what we choose to do with the thing”6. Marcel Duchamp’s famous “Fountain”, the image is presented in Exhibit A, illustrates the institutional theory of art very clearly. Duchamp did not even design or produce the urinal, he just signed it R. Mutt and presented it as an artwork. However, although initially rejected, it is viewed and experienced as art by the art world, not as a urinal. Thus, Duchamp showed that picking anything as an artwork can be sufficient to be considered as such. If we accept the non-essentialism of the instutional theory of art, anything, including design, can be a work of art, if it is viewed as art. Nevertheless, the institutions of art usually exclude designs of designers as artworks. Hence, although design may theoretically be regarded as art, as well as among many other things, according to institutional theory of art, the works of designers are not viewed as artworks by the art world. The cultural niche theory of art is very similar to the institutional theory of art in a sense that it is also non-essentialist; however, it rejects the tautological understanding of institutional theory i.e. something is art if it is viewed as art. Instead, the cultural niche theory stresses the importance of cultural setting, and argues that context determines if an object is art and its type. Josephson illustrates this point as follows: “If the image of the Mona Lisa is hung in a museum, it is surely Fine Art. If it is sold on a T-shirt in a clothing store it loses its high aesthetic value and gains a decorative joke value, thus counting as Design Art since it is a decoration on a T-shirt. It could be used as an advertising image or as a mass-media Popular Art image as well. The same image of Mona Lisa could be classed as Popular Art, Fine Art, advertising art, or Design Art, depending upon how it is displayed and marketed”7. Thus from the perspective of the cultural niche theory, a design can be regarded as a work of Fine Art only if it is exhibited in a museum, and if the designer has good marketing connections with art dealers. The death of the designer approach enunciated by Adam Richardson, shares the non-essentialist view of the instutional theory of art and the cultural niche theory. However, according to Richardson, instead of an art world or setting, users define if something is art or not. Inspired by Roland Barthes’ famous essay “Death of the Author”, Richardson argues that “‘birth’ of the user must result in the ‘death’ of the designer”8. He criticizes the myth of heroic creator and asserts that the designer’s impact is very limited. According to him, users create the meaning of a design and attribute symbolisms to it. He also compares design with art. However, he does not claim that design is art, although they share similarities: “A s with art the emotional excitement comes not from the dull predictability of each viewer seeing exactly what the artist intended, but from finding themselves and their own readings within the work. This is not to say necessarily that design is art, since the issues and working processes of each discipline are usually quite different, but design would do well to place greater emphasis on the emotive even poetic roles that products can have in expressing the meanings that mass-manufactured objects have in technocratic cultures”9. Thus, from user perspective, a design can evoke emotive and poetic responses in users, just like art. Users may add symbolical layers to the designed object and experience it as an artwork. This could be especially true for designers not just for users; indeed, designers could truly appreciate and admire the intricate simplicity as well as the elegant complexity of a beautiful design. Nonetheless, since above-mentioned approaches do not elucidate essential qualities for an artwork or a design, they also do not provide clear-cut similarities or distinctions between art and design. One needs to resort more conventional approaches in order to get a clearer picture. Norman Potter, in his essay “Is a designer an Artist?” compares the designer with the artist. According to him, the artist is more independent than the designer. An artist must be first responsible to his own vision of truth, while designer’s first responsibility is towards other people10. Designer, besides being a detached problem solver, must have people skills. Although the artist has to work for other people too, his work has a more inward character (19). Nevertheless, Potter, although he states that fine and design are interrelated, he refrains from a further discussion since it is outside of his scope, thus he does not provide set of definitions for art and design. However, Stuart Walker (2000) resorts to Kant and uses his definition of art in order to compare design and art. According to Kant, art is “purposiveness without purpose”, and it has no utilitarian or empirical intent (cited by Walker 2000, 54). Contrary to art, design does have a purpose and functionality, and its utility is what distinguishes it from art (54). However, somehow, paradoxically, he argues that “good design” combines both art and design. Walker (2000, 54) asserts that “is neither art nor barren instrumental device, neither wholly artistic nor wholly utilitarian, but an inseparable union of the two”. It is not clear that how good design can be neither of them and both of them at the same time. Meanwhile, Kant’s definition provide a definite answer to the question of whether design is art, and his answer is no. The basic and simple definition of art could be helpful when we compare design and art. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2005) defines art as follows: “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. In a sense, both art and design require creativity, imagination and skills. However, it is open to debate whether design works are appreciated “primarily” for their emotive power, although its users or designers may appreciate its beauty, its delicate craft, creativity, originality. However, the works of art aim to evoke sheer emotional response, disinterested and pure pleasure of viewing/reading. Even Duchamp’s “Fountain” creates a very strong emotional effect: shock. Art is always and primarily in the service of aesthetics since it aims to invoke emotions. The etymology of the word aesthetics illuminates the art’s relation senses. The term “was derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning "esthetic, sensitive, sentient"), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning "I perceive, feel, sense")” (Wikipedia). Thus, art aims to arouse & heighten emotions and senses (while anasthesia means total numbness of senses). It is not true that art is not functional; it has a specific function, which is to evoke emotions. However, design has an opposite direction: functionality. As Paul Jacques Grillo points out “we may safely say that function is the main criterium of any design”11. He also argues that simplicity is one of the most important qualities of a good design. Grillo notes that aiming the quality of being interesting to create effect often results in inconsistent designs, while the good design requires the virtue of simplicity12. Indeed, a design is not designed to create an emotional effect, but its opposite: comfort. Comfort requires soothed senses, if not numbness. When a design perfectly fits like a glove, its effect is not supposed to be heightened senses but a comfortable numbness. The success of a design lies in its pliant silence and invisibility. Your comfortable and pliant chair does not require your attention unless it is broken. A tripod chair could be more interesting, but it will not be functional. While designs are the silent partners of the daily life and usually do not draw attention to themselves, and if they are successful we feel them almost as natural as extension of our body parts, artworks demand our immediate and constant attention, luring us to the world of interpretations. It does not mean that a user cannot experience a designed object as an artwork; however, its aim is not create heightened emotional effects since its function comes before its form, whereas for an artwork form comes before its function. Thus, their purposes are diametrically opposed. Art aims to attract attention and provide mental/emotional stimulation, design aims to provide easiness and comfort. Nevertheless, they share the same craft: creativity and imagination, but for the service of opposite directions. Meanwhile, although art and design can be seen as star-crossed lovers, they sometimes cross the borders and embrace each other, but at a certain cost. While the design sacrifices some of its functionality to become an artwork, an artwork loses its fugitive and alluring ambiguity to be a design-like; in short, both surrender their original and unique characters to become another. The works of Ron Arad and Donald Judd blur the line between art and design and also illustrate the costs of transgressing borders. Whereas Ron Arad’s designs are more like artworks, Donald Judd’s artworks resemble designs. The image of Ron Arad’s bookworm-bookcase can be found in the Exhibit B and Donald Judd’s artwork is enclosed in the Exhibit C. As it can be seen from the images Ron Arad’s bookcase does not even look like one, while Donald Judd’s work resembles a book case. Nevertheless, critics are right about Donald Judd’s works. His artworks are more like flawed designs. Although he insisted on separation between art and design, his new minimalist art is “closer to furniture than art”13. Indeed, looking at the image presented in exhibit C, one could not help to think that it could have been a lovely bookcase only if its shelves are higher. As critics also noted, unfortunately his artworks are not truly functional in a sense that they are not user-friendly. Still, I personally felt a desire to buy it, and use it as bookcase or a showcase even if its shelves are quite narrow, it could have been fantastic and truly original design. Unfortunately, as it can be seen from Judd’s work, an artwork may lose its artistic appeal as a work only to be enjoyed for its sheer form rather than functionality, when it resembles a design. As soon as it becomes an image of an object to be used, it ceases to exist as an artwork which interplays with several meanings. When the artwork looks like an object to use, it sacrifices its authentic ambiguity which invites us to add our interpretation and attribute several readings to it. His art indeed crosses the border and comes close to be a design, but it is stuck between, while it cannot be utilized as a design object, it also does not fulfill the function of an artwork. On the other hand, Ron Arad’s bookcase design can be viewed and experienced as a truly artwork; however, it also comes with a price tag, now the very functionality of the design suffers. Its bookworm bookcase automatically invites us to engage in interpretation. Even the name of the design, bookworm- bookcase evokes a mental stimulation with its double use of the word-book. The highly curved form of his bookcase actually resembles a worm or the mobius band. The very form of the design draws the attention to itself by establishing a metaphorical relationship between bookcase and bookworm. As critics have already pointed out Ron Arad’s works create a sense of mystery14. His bookworm-bookcase replicates the ambiguity and poly-valence of the artworks. Nevertheless, one would not consider it as a bookcase if its name had not indicated it as such. Even after learning that it is an actual bookcase, it is still difficult to contemplate it as such due to its impracticality. His bookcase is to be exhibited and collected like an artwork, not to be used at home unless you would like to “display” a highly original work of a famous designer. While it succeeds at fulfilling art’s function, it unfortunately fails as a design. His bookcase is far from being user-friendly and functional. As it can be seen from these two images, art can be embodied as a design and a design can become truly inspirational artwork, but they eventually lose their essential qualities. To sum up, a design may or may not be regarded as an artwork from the perspectives of the institutional theory of art, cultural niche theory and users approach depending upon the context and response it elicits. However, these theories do not attribute essential qualities neither to an artwork nor to a design, and “anything goes” with them. If we resort to more conventional approaches, we see that design can be regarded as art, but it risks the very functionality which makes it a design. Annotated Bibliography: Flusser, Vilem. “About the Word Design” from The Shape of Things: A Philosophy of Design. 1999, Reaktion Books. 17-21. Vilem Flusser is a professor, philosopher and writer. His essay explores the etymology of the word design while discussing it within a cultural context in respect to technology and design. The source is useful for this paper since it showed etymological connections between the words design and art. Grillo, Paul Jacques. Form, function, and design. New York: Dover Publications, 1975. Paul Jacques Grillo is an architect famous with his design quotes. His book is a basic to intermediate level textbook exploring the essential qualities of design. It is helpful for this paper since it helped to delineate the basic qualities of design and functionality. Josephson, Susan G. From Idolatry to Advertising: Visual Art and Contemporary Culture. NY: Armonk, 1996. Susan G. Josepson teaches philosophy in Columbus College of Art and Design. She is a professor with a PhD degree from the Ohio State University. Her book describes the evolution of visual arts. She also scrutinized the art’s role in contemporary society. Her account of the institutional theory of art and cultural niche theory is relevant to the debate about whether design is art. Potter, Norman. “Is Designer an Artist?” from What is a Designer: Things, Places, Messages, 4th edition. Hypen Press, 2002. 15-20. Norman Potter is a famous designer and political activist. He compares the designer with an artist and outlines their differences. By delineating their differences, he also contributes to the discussion of whether design is art indirectly. Poynor, Rick. “Art’s Little Brother” from Design and Art. Alex Coles ed(s).The MIT Press, 2007. 94-99. Rick Poynor is an eminent writer and journalist who regularly writes on design, culture and visual arts. His essay is directly related to the discussion of whether design is art. He argues that although the distinctions between art and design blurred, design is still treated secondary to art. Richardson, Adam. “The Death of the Designer”. Design Issues, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1993), 34-43. Adam Richardson defines himself as a “product strategist”. He regularly writes on design and culture, he holds a MA degree in Humanities and he is a guest lecturer at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Création Industrielle in Paris, and at the IESE University of Navarra in Barcelona. His article, inspired by Roland Barthes, espouses a user-oriented approach to design. He also mentions the relationship between art and design. His user-oriented approach is used in this paper as one of the definitions of a design. Walker, Stuart. “How the Other Half Lives: Product Design, Sustainability, and the Human Spirit” Design Issues, Vol. 16, No. 1 (2000), 52-58. Dr. Stuart Walker teaches at Lancester Institute for the Contemporary arts. He also published numerous articles on design. His article treats design and art as two halves. Although he resorts to conventional definition of art, he brings a new approach to the debate on art/design. Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C : Read More