Readings 10/27

But, is it Art? by Kees Dorst

• Artists determine their own goals, have no particular audience and no limitations.
• Artists become designers when they give themselves limitations.
• Designers have goals set by someone else essentially i.e employers, a job's purpose, specific criteria. 
• Designer's work, "must fulfill some practical purpose."
• Limitations can contribute to personal development for the designer.
• When a designer develops their own goals they become an artist.

 I never really thought that there was such a divide between artists and designers.  I thought it was interesting that Dorst says, "..good designers also cross over into art, although they tend to ignore that fact themselves." Why? Why can't a designer think like an artist and an artist think like a designer? I think having all the  knowledge possible and experimenting with  the ideas of different professions gives greater results. It is important to be able to develop your own ideas, goals, and concepts, and having to work within specific guidelines   is tougher, but to be able to do it successfully is admirable and  an art in itself.


--------------------


Art's Little Brother by Rick Poyner

• Designers have an, "inferiority complex when it comes to their relationship with artists and art."
• Design is currently playing a bigger role in our culture than art.
• Design is not looked at for serious discussion-books and exhibits are ignored.
• Artists are using design in their work because of their, "fascination by design's role in contemporary society and commerce."
• A designer works for other people- they work for practicality, function and purpose.
• Artists work for themselves- they work towards, "truth of his own vision."
• Art does not have a function, it is mysterious, says art critic Matthew Collins.
• Designart: the way artists deal with patterns and design elements incorporated into their painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. 
• Designer is a planner, problem solver, supervisor, provides instruction and  can be detached from their work. 
• Designers are superficial and about aesthetics.
• Artists use deeper meanings in their work, aesthetics are not as important.
• There is a split between function and vision.
• Many artists are using design and art together in their work recently. 
• To allow design and art to embrace each other's practices can  result in new ways of thinking and research.
• Design is everywhere whereas art is not.
• Everyone is affected by design, not everyone is affected by art.

     Poyner's argument,  "we need  a wider public understanding that design is a means of personal and cultural expression with the potential  to equal and even exceed art's reach," is a statement I agree with. I think  this article brings up several valid points that despite the differences that have historically separated design and art, design should be  given more credit, and there should be no shame in incorporating both mediums. The several references to artists and designers and  their comments on working with one way over the other really solidified the seriousness of the divide between art and design.  Such as Donald Judd's design work that he kept a secret so that his art wouldn't be, "demoted to the same level" as design.  I understand the purpose for doing so, through his explanation of furniture function vs. furniture as art, but this whole concept seems so bizarre to me. While there are obvious differences, I always assumed the two go hand in hand. 


--------
M/M Conversation

• Dialogue between artist and designer specialists is something they are interested in.;
• 'Relational- aesthetics'- art production should be a collaboration of specialists and the audience and the process and information exchanged, not just about the final product.
• Historically designers have not been given space to have exhibits and show their work on on the same scale that artists have.
• Concludes with: some  art is as bas as design and some design is as bad as art.

 I think the dialogue they is entertaining as well as informative to how the two connect design and art. Mathias Augustyniak's statement, "an ongoing problem for artists today is the question of how their work can be effective beyond the art world".  In the other articles the issue is how can design smoothly become part of the art world, but here he  claims that artists want to affect people the way designers do. I also thought it was interesting that he says artists have detached themselves from the economy and everyday life and that they have  stepped outside of the real world and into an, "exclusive space called art." That is relatively true, because since both have different goals for their work they have different considerations and visions. Blamey counters that which saying artists are actually detached from society in general.  Blamey also states that designers are very active in society and their work is, "omnipresent and fundamental in a way that art just is not," but still, art is in a higher realm than design because of their independent nature. 
    When Amzalag questions Blamey on if today Michaelangelo's work at Saint Peter's Cathedral would be considered design or art. Blamey says that in the fourteenth cent. artists were expected to do commercial work and would mix aspects of science,  art and design together. Today he says the qualities that separate artists and designer are blurring. Since artists and designers are trying to get more recognition I think it only makes sense to combine their work.