Milton Glaser on art vs. design

[reuber1]

I'm not too concerned about the art vs. design argument itself, and I'm not posting this to start that blasted horse-beaten debate, but I found this link of Milton Glaser's take on the topic quite interesting. Take a read, it'll make you smarter:

http://analoguedesign.blogspot.com/2005/11/word-from-milton-glaser.html

A word from Milton Glaser
"If one of the definitions we have concerning art is that it serves its public by reflecting and explaining the world at a particular moment in history, it is hard to believe that design does not serve in a similar way. In any case, the issue has become blurred since art currently seems mostly about money, and designers seem to be increasingly concerned about ethics, the environment, and their effect on the world. There seems to be much confusion about what we mean when we use the word art. I have a recommendation. We eliminate the word art and replace it with work and develop the following descriptions:

1. Work that goes beyond its functional intention and moves us in deep and mysterious ways we call great work.
2. Work that is conceived and executed with elegance and rigor we call good work.
3. Work that meets its intended need honestly and without pretense we call simply work.
4. Everything else, the sad and shoddy stuff of daily life, can come under the heading of bad work.

This simple change will eliminate anxiety for thousands of people who worry about whether they are artists or not, but this is not its most significant consequence. More importantly, it can restore art to a central, useful activity in daily life—something for which we have been waiting for a very long while."

[EC]

I heart milton.

[SurfPark]

I took a whole class on art theory and one of the basic questions was "What is art?". There never seems to be a good definition since the scope changes with time and as new mediums develop. We've gone from objectification of art on gallery walls, to having enviromental art, to functional art, to having art that doesn't even exist in a physical presence. The idea gets so meshed with life, one could argue that everything we experience is art.

[reuber1]

I fart.

[skirklan]

A word from Milton Glaser
I have a recommendation. We eliminate the word art and replace it with work and develop the following descriptions:

This simple change will eliminate anxiety for thousands of people who worry about whether they are artists or not, but this is not its most significant consequence. More importantly, it can restore art to a central, useful activity in daily life—something for which we have been waiting for a very long while."

Hogwash. Anyone who is an artist knows they are an artist because they are driven to create as much as the average human is driven to breathe. Art's most central, useful activity is not to daily life, but making permanent and physical an individual's emotional expression of their personal experience accessible to others. The art is in the act of creating, not the finished product. Any artist can tell you this. The trouble is that not all designers are artists but that's okay with me.

So, are we to assume the work of a plumber is art? Which plumber is artistic? Can you tell the difference between the work of 5 different plumbers?
Hogwash.

[EC]

Blasphemy. ;)

With respect, I think you missed the point. In this instance, *art* is a noun, not a verb. While artists/creatives are drawn to the activity of creating art, if you're making a living as an artist, then the "finished product" is a valid concern (and a source of insecurity for many.)

This is how I interpreted what he's saying --

Artists/designers/creatives are insecure, they do care about how the finished product is defined by others (and themselves) ... "Is it art?"

He's simply saying that we should stop questioning this. Call it work instead of art, and by doing so, we eliminate those insecurities and keep on truckin'.

[tZ]

Like I said on how...

Gregg Berryman:

graphic design is not art. the fine artist has an audience of only one (herself or himself). The graphic design deals with a mass audience of sometimes millions.Intent is different. Often graphic design looks like art(and vic versa). Materials and techniques are simular.Both artist and designers solve visual promblems. The artist satisfies self while the designer must move groups of people to attend an event, follow a sign, reconize a product, etc.

Yes principles and elements can be applied to both, but are called the principles and elements of design... not art. When you use the principles and elements to create art you are more so creating design... then art per say... regardless of material.

My little brother can go take a piece of toilet paper and punch a hole in it then call it art

-if he likes it.

A 4 year old can draw a picture and call it art

-if they like it.

In all sense of the word they are both artist.

However, to design is to create a effective communication... not just to satisify self... but a group of many.

There is were the contrast between the two lie.

There for, I quess its safe to say:

A designer is an artist

However, an artist is not nesecarly a designer.

A accomplished "artist" is actually a designer if you think about it.

I would assume the accomplished " artist" has created a image/style which sells and satisfies people.

Therefor, I would think thier work(at that level) to be dictated by others needs rather then thier own... to sell it.

Also, you can not dictate art or even design by material.

I would say a plumber is more so a designer then a artist. They satisfy the needs of people... more so themselves.

However, what milton is saying is to call everything work and dictate its success.... thats it.

That ends that.

[EC]

A accomplished "artist" is actually a designer if you think about it.

I would assume the accomplished " artist" has created a image/style which sells and satisfies people.

Therefor, I would think thier work(at that level) to be dictated by others needs rather then thier own... to sell it.


I know a couple of accomplished artists (their primary source of income is selling their art.) They have a mentality that I find hard to understand. They find it insulting to think of a gallery as a "retail space" or to create more of the works that sell well and less of the work that they find personally rewarding. It's one reason, I suspect, that many of them struggle.

If they thought MORE like designers (and retailers) and less like artists, I'd bet they would make a lot more money.

But, I guess that's why I'm not an artist. ;)

[tZ]

yeah... I would say what I said applies more so to well reconized artist.

[skirklan]

Blasphemy. ;)
With respect, I think you missed the point. <snip> This is how I interpreted what he's saying --Artists/designers/creatives are insecure, they do care about how the finished product is defined by others (and themselves) ... "Is it art?"

No, I didn't shoot my eye out. :p

I don't agree with Uncle Milty. I'm saying real artists are so driven to produce, they don't suffer from insecurity. I don't even agree with his definition of art and design, but since we're not beating that dead horse here, I restrained myself. Personally, I have never stepped back, looked at something I created and said, "Hmmm, now, is this art?" :rolleyes:

Like I said, HOGWASH

Now I'm going to open presents.
Cheers.

[EC]

I suspect if we beat the horse long enough, we'd find we agree. So let's skip all that and let me just say you'd better be in Australia, or you're opening pressies too early!!

Merry Christmas. :)

[reuber1]

Hogwash only comes in one flavor; bold.

[cjoe]

I suspect if we beat the horse long enough, we'd find we agree. So let's skip all that and let me just say you'd better be in Australia, or you're opening pressies too early!!

Merry Christmas. :)

mwhahahaha! Theres no excuse on New Years Eve though. Its either 00:00 2006 or you're just stupid.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

Huge fan of Glaser's work, thoughts, etc. I've always been in agreement with him in his definitions of art/work. Not everything I create is art. At times it is nothing more than work to satisfy the needs/desires of a client - and I then step back and say "That certainly isn't art!" - and then I can move on to the creation of what I feel is art. The act of designing/creating certainly doesn't automatically result in art - but there are times, in the execution of a project for a client, when I do step back and say to myself "Wow, that's art!"

You might want to read Glaser's book Art is Work (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500510288/qid=1135613163/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1754194-8169552?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

- J.

[cause101]

“There is a Difference Between Knowing the Path and Being the Path”

~ Ronald D. Bissell (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=5820)



I think a designer knows the path while the artist is the path. Designers have a complex understanding specifically to creating mass reaction to maintain production and drive the demands of the marketplace. It is an intellectual exercise that gives a superficial utilization of design. Artists have a determination to follow their heart by exercising the right to express one self, allowing others to see the brilliance of one’s soul. It gives clarity to an unclear world.



Design is conceived or fashioned in the mind which suggests art. That is why I think art direction is important in graphic design. Visual artistic representation of graphic elements and text communicate an idea or concept through design. Mass media has increasingly give emphasis to design ethics over art. Commercial reproduction of designs accentuate on the strategies to adopt a specialized work function to maintain production. The product becomes the sum of all physical, psychological, symbolic, and service attributes that provides a false sense of security. In the end, the design no longer serves the product but the product serves the design.



I am a graphic artist. I create the path.

these are just my own opions.....

[skirklan]

Not all designers are artists, unfortunately. :eek:

That's one reason a great deal of design mimics style and substance instead of innovating something fresh and original. Design is art functioning beyond self-expression, but it's better when it includes artistic influence. In fact, great design incorporates the heart and soul of an artist to force the audience to expand their view of what is sometimes a rather mundane effort to see. Artless design is utilitarian and void of human expression.

At art school, Dean Canzani lectured us on our first day, "If you've come to this school to develop a style, don't waste your time." I was intimidated because I already had a style--everything I've drawn since the age of 10 is still easily recognizable as my work. But that's not what he meant--I know now he meant don't waste time mimicking others when you must work on your art, developing your skill to express your vision, not someone elses. That's what makes your work your own; whether in design or art.

Will you live through someone else's experience? Of course, this only applies to artists (and artists who are designers) because they live through their work. None of them ever ask themselves if their expression is valid or not.
Because it exists, it is valid and it is art.

[reuber1]

I'm not too concerned about the art vs. design argument itself, and I'm not posting this to start that blasted horse-beaten debateI tried. I failed.

[morea]

I like cheese. http://newton.sunderland.ac.uk/~specfreak/images/cheese.gif

[tZ]

great design incorporates the heart and soul of an artist to force the audience to expand their view of what is sometimes a rather mundane effort to see. Artless design is utilitarian and void of human expression.

That is a opinion

therefor, your saying the defination is based upon a highly sujective thought... rather then on a concrete, consistent and consise basis.

Like most definations are thought to be.

I mean style... has nothing to with this discussion... neither does incorperating ones soul and heart... cause what does that really mean?

What looks as if or is thought to be a creation of ones "heart" and "soul" could also just as likly merly be an arbituary attempt to create "art".

With no "heart" and "soul" origional planned.

Thus, making your defination invalid.... in a sense of being- highly subjective.

By saying anything anyone creates is art if they like it... we can better define art on much less subjective thought pattern... in wich you have described.

It may degrade the authenticity and origionality of the word (by saying anything can be art... as long as the creator likes what they have created).... but any other way "creates" a defination based on highly sujective thought- rather then concrete fact- which definitions are based on.

Which can be thought of as contridcting to what a definaition actually is/stands for- fact- so to speak.

What would communication be(in general) if all definitions were open to "interpertation"- or highly subjective- based on ones own beliefs of what the word actually "means"- to them.

Chaos... there would be no communication.

So even though it may depreciate the "origionality" of what the "word" stands for "historical" there is just cause to do so.

In creating a "diverse" and "consistnt" defination... rather then one which "can be" dictated by ones own interperation.

So I quess what I am getting at is saying only the "create" can truly say a piece of thiers is "art".

Our decision(as an audience) is not mutually exclusive with the fact of whether a piece is art or not

For the only the "create" can truly say its art- cause they are the only ones who know- if they truly like it or not- correct?

I mean... if I like it and I didn't create it the peice more so becomes design - rather then art.

Cause design is based on the audiences reaction to the work presented.... rather then being dependent on only what the " create" knows to be fact.

So i quess... all art isn't design and all design isn't art in a sense- you are correct thier.

However, not really for the reasons you suggest.

So... in a way all "art" books are misleading... in that the "origional" creator may have origionally looked at thier work and hated it.

So... its not really art per say... but more so design since- we as an audience like it.

For only the creat'e' can truly say thier work is art or not.

unless you can mindread.... that changes everything,lol.

I like cheese on pizza- ha!

[Neballer]

So, are we to assume the work of a plumber is art? Which plumber is artistic? Can you tell the difference between the work of 5 different plumbers?
Have you ever had a toliet blow up in your face, or a waded through a flooded basement looking for that box of pictures of your great-great grandma?

PIGSCRUB

[skirklan]

Have you ever had a toliet blow up in your face, or a waded through a flooded basement looking for that box of pictures of your great-great grandma?PIGSCRUB

No, but I have had a toilet flush into the bathtub due to a large tree blocking the line. Hey, plumbers are great; but they're not artists. It would be nice if more artists and designers charged the way plumbers do, cheeky baby.

That is a opinion therefore, you are saying the definition is based upon a highly subjective thought... rather then on a concrete, consistent and concise basis.

I hate fake cheese. It's like plastic. Identifying my points as subjective opinion don't automatically dismiss them since I am a trained, professional artist and have been for my entire life. In this case, my opinion counts. The fact that I am both an artist and a designer makes it even better.

I mean style has nothing to with this discussion; neither does incorporating ones' soul and heart--what does that really mean?

Style is a term used to describe how an artist imposes himself on his creative output. It's not like art deco style, grunge, gothic, et. al. You can tell the work of Andrew Wyeth or Hirschfeld (signed or not) because of individual artistic style. Incorporating heart and soul means you feel what you express in your art. Artists have no doubt what they create is art because they put their heart and soul into what they produce; style is evidence of this. It's the wannabees who aren't really sure of what they're doing that have doubts, as it should be.

By saying anything anyone creates is art if they like it... we can better define art on much less subjective thought pattern... in which you have described.

I'm not writing a book here to define art for you. And I didn't say if you like it, it's art. There are many specific things that are required by definition to make something a work of art. This isn't the place.

So I quess what I am getting at is saying only the "create" can truly say a piece of thiers is "art".Our decision(as an audience) is not mutually exclusive with the fact of whether a piece is art or not For the only the "create" can truly say its art- cause they are the only ones who know- if they truly like it or not- correct? I mean... if I like it and I didn't create it the peice more so becomes design - rather then art.

No. Artists don't create art strictly for an audience. Art, or as Uncle Milty would say, "the work" is purely for the experience of the artist who created it. That is the "art" part of the work. Y'all get the end product, but none of the creative experience that provided the lessons for the artist's continued growth. Usually, artists could care less what you, the audience, think.

Cause design is based on the audiences reaction to the work presented.... rather then being dependent on only what the " create" knows to be fact.

WHERE is design based on the audience's reaction? Design is based on function through manipulation of design elements to support a goal predetermined by the designer and his client. When this process is successful, the audience gets to see it; though most of them don't understand what they see.

However, not really for the reasons you suggest.
So... in a way all "art" books are misleading... in that the "origional" creator may have origionally looked at thier work and hated it.

Art books are one person's analysis of what they think the artist meant to show, which I always find hysterical. I especially enjoy reading something the original artist wrote about the piece and comparing it to what art books say.
Completely and utterly after the fact. You'll warp your mind if you haven't already shot your eye out.:p

Cheese is a good source of protein and builds muscles and strong teeth. I like double cheese on my pizza, Italian sausage and lots of green pepper.

[Neballer]

The Art of Plumbing (http://www.boats.com/boat-articles/Plumbing-139/The+Art+of+Plumbing/2892.html)

[MRCHRISTOPHER13]

Graphic Design is a visual communication of a specific message. Art, in the traditional sense, is a visual communicatin of a specific message, although the viewer doesn't always understand the full intent of said message. GD is just a more concise way of communicating with your audience.

GD is a form of fine art in a sense, i'm not saying it always is, but if used in a certain way, it certainly can be considered fine art. Its just another way, method or medium of communicating your message. Visual art in general is about saying something. The artist has something to say regardless of whether they want a person to see it or not. Why choose a visual medium otherwise? Why not just think your ideas in your head and leave it at that? Art is a visual thing. It must be viewed.

Design is to Graphic Designer as Oil is to Painter or Marble is to Sculpture. They all fall under the banner of "Artist". GD is art if used in that way.

[skirklan]

Graphic Design is a visual communication of a specific message.

Okay, I'll go along with that.

Art, in the traditional sense, is a visual communication of a specific message, although the viewer doesn't always understand the full intent of said message.

There's no message in fine art. Fine art is the personal expression of the internal artist--it's the only way a human being can truly communicate beyond words what they see and feel. Whether the viewer understands it or not is incidental.

GD is just a more concise way of communicating with your audience.

WHAT?How concise it is depends on how good the artist is; whether fine or commercial. In GD, it's a subliminal communication on behalf of a client that cuts through verbiage and goes right to the emotional center of the viewer if it's done properly. Otherwise, it's just pretty shapes and colors supporting product/cause/service sales.

GD is a form of fine art in a sense, i'm not saying it always is, but if used in a certain way, it certainly can be considered fine art. Its just another way, method or medium of communicating your message.


I have to disagree with you totally--I'm sorry. GD is commercial art and fine art is fine art--there's no blurry line here. We get our names on the check and they get their names on their work. GD is art created to serve a client and fine art serves only it's creator. Trust me, if the fine artists ever hear you say GD is a fine art, they will collectively have a cow. They call us HOES because we do it for money; so keep your voice down or all hell will break loose. :eek:

Design is to Graphic Designer as Oil is to Painter or Marble is to Sculpture. They all fall under the banner of "Artist". GD is art if used in that way.

Design is a system of checks and balances that organize functional elements into aesthetically pleasing, attention getting visuals. It is technical know-how. Oil paint to the painter is the medium he works in; not the technical knowledge of how to apply/mix/prep to execute his work. Not all GDs are artists, and there's no shame in that.

Good discussion.
SDK

[reuber1]

How long is this going to go on. BEATING A DEAD HORSE.

[EC]

Forever?

[reuber1]

Gotta say it like Squints in Sandlot. FOR-EV-UR. FOR-EV-UR.

[PersonasBinar]

Me thinks there are some rather strong opinions about this subject.

[EC]

Forevah-evah? For EVAH-EVAH?

[EC]

And we all know what opinions are like. I keeeeed. lol

[PersonasBinar]

Forevah NEVAH

[skirklan]

Forevah NEVAH
NEVAH say NEVAH when blah, blah, blahhhhing.

I know, opinions are like arses; everybody has one but only certain ones smell sweet.
:p

[EC]

mine smells like orchids.

[reuber1]

Mine smell like cinammon buns.

[EC]

Mmmmmmmmm. Now that IS sweet.

[morea]

I like cheese. I think I'm going to go home now.

[PersonasBinar]

45 min AND getting a haircut tonight

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/3060/calface9xo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Art...

[reuber1]

I like cheese. I think I'm going to go home now.
WHAT!?! I still have to be here for like another hour and a half. You're a slacker.

[MRCHRISTOPHER13]

Skirkland-

Thanks for your input. I guess I really opened up a can of worms here! :)

First off...not to offend anybody but...Eff fine artists and their elitists opinions! If they can accept the grow of design as a form of "creative expression" beyond the traditional means of design then screw the ones that can't.

Again, I'm not saying every print ad, business card, or logo is a work of Fine Art. that is not what I'm arguing. I'm just saying that graphic design, its methods, concepts, and aesthetic...if used properly...can be considered Fine Art.

I consider myself an artist as much as a designer and I think GD can be used as fine art. its a matter of how you use the work. i think GD has become more about the money since its very beginnings but lets take a look at artists who use "design" aesthetics. Would you say Keith Herring or Jean Michel Basquiat or Andy Warhol or even Matisse's cut paper collages have "graphic design" aesthetics? You know they do. Are they artists or designers? They are artists with a design feel and sensability to their work.

What about artists who have done straight up design work, i.e. Toulousse-Letrec (sp?), Egon Schiele, Klimt or Mucha? All their poster work is hanging up in museums as I write this!!!

Now take a look at the Italian Futurists! They were book-binders and typographers who used GD as a means to facilitate their Futurists Manifesto. It had nothing to do with money...only their creative expression that contained a message.

What about Barbara Kruger who uses GD aesthetics to convey her messages about feminism and identity? Is it art? Is it design? Is it art that uses design?

I think I refer to GD as a way to facilitate my art not to just make money although it does do that as well. In a way GD is the new medium that will push "Fine Art" in new ways just like other tech method's shaped art. Pre-mixed paint in a tube, lithography printing, the letterpress, etc. etc. etc. all changed the way art was made. GD, being mostly on the computer and with certain aesthetics, will do the same.

I think artists need to stop looking at the misnomers of "graphic design" and "fine art" and plainly look at the art itself regardless of intent, message, no message, etc. The whole black and white/no grey area is just BS. Cultures and society move forward...why can't the creative medium of art?

When we talk about fine art or graphic design its just a bunch of misnomers. Nothing in the name "graphic design" indicates payment or doing so for money. And anyways...the culture of "fine art" has become just as much about money as selling design work. Why do we have countless galleries in every major city then? Aren't those Fine Artists whores as well? they sell their work just the same don't they?

As far as Fine Art being "just" free creative expression is correct. I can agree with that to a degree. Segue here...can't an artist "design" work as just creative expression? Anyways...look at all Modern Art. if you can say that stuff is just "creative expression" then you're lying to yourself. Every important artist from 1900 and forward had some intention or message if you will, in creating their art. it wasn't just pretty pictures. they meant something, they were meant to be seen. In being seen they are visually communicating something right? isn't that what GD is...a visual communication of a specific message, whether it be commercial, which it is 99% of the time, or personal?

Can you see my connection their between GD and FA. if used properly are one and the same. they intertwine to create a "grea area". that's just progress in the field of art. In the beginning arts' main intention was to record life, society, culture, religion, i.e. cave paintings, The Sistine Chapel, etc. Don't you think GD does the same thing? Doesn't GD aesthetics define our current society and pop culture? 5 year olds know what Apple logo is. Wouldn't you say the resurgence of the Mac has really dominated our society in the last 5-7 years? Everybody around the world knows what the Nike Swoosh is. Don't you think that logo can define a culture that is consumed by Athletic domination?

I don't know. that's just my thoughts. I realize we can go on and on. To some degree it is fun but I have to go teach design now.

Its been fun! :)

[Zenobian Grey]

Whew! What a novel, less the idea.
I agree that there's a distinction between serving your own expression and serving the expression of others. Yet, I don't think there's a big distinction in the materials and medium one uses that would classify them to the left or right side of the visual arts.

Some highly commissioned 'artists' make abstract sculptures or paintings that get viewed by the Masses at major galleries, buildings or centers.

When I say the 'commissioned', I mean the artists aimed their creative sights at the commissioner's (see client) specific criteria. (see Davinci, Micheal Angelo) There happened to be room for creative freedom and self expression (also see stylization) on the artist's part, but there were certain guidelines. (see demographic)

I think the argument of fine artist/Graphic Designer in the end is void. I do not think whether you're expressing yourself or expressing the views of other people positions you to either the left or right. (see snobbery) Because I can find examples of both in both self inflicted labels.

Sure, it's a very romantic notion, an artist in the heat of passionate self expression, pours blood, emotion, sweat into a masterpiece that installs the essence of that person's spiritual energy, message and vitality. But there's art in a empty canvas if you're enlightened enough to see it, just as their is silence within the soul.

Thanks to the media, there's been a very stereo typical view of what an artist should be like. Even down to what an artist should look like. (see starbucks - beatnik - flaming San Fransisco gays interior designers )

I could piss in the snow writing my name and call it art if I wanted to. Just like I create my own visual reference (for whatever purpose/reason) I also create my own reality. We all create our own realities, so in reality we are all creative in one way or another, thus making us all artists in our own light.

You'll find loop holes in my argument just like you'll find loop holes in your own way of thinking. This is because we are not perfect.