Why Artists are not Designers and why Designers are not Artists
When I meet with art students and I ask them what they plan to do with their art, they’ll say… “I want to be a graphic designer”, like somehow being able to draw really good means that they’ll be a good designer. I think the graphic artist of the past were true artist – craftsman. The ability to hand-set type and “create” their piece of collateral is truly an art form. Graphic designers, I feel, are information architects, crafting the message with image and type –well, takes more than just being able to draw a pretty picture. When I explain the research, mock-ups, revisions, decisions that all go into making a piece of communication. The young artist, takes a step back and says, “What, you do all that!” I always caution students that want become a designer, you have to be an excellent listener, an astute observer, a passionate researcher, an English word smith, at times a mathematician, and that is all before you ever put your pencil to the page – mouse to the computer. I’m not saying that artists should never become designers? I’m simply stating that the transition should not be taken lightly.
Designers are not artists? Graphic designers: design information that conveys a message. The main purpose of a designer is to make the message paramount. Although it can be done in an “artsy” way, the main function is the message. Over the past couple years many designers, or I would categorize them as digital artist, has embraced this trend of embellishing a product or brand. Some to the point where the brand itself is lost, kind of like “that little ol’ product is somewhere in that ad, I know it is” syndrome. Wanting to convey the essence of something is one thing, but then it becomes the only thing and when everyone else is doing the same thing, what does that say about the brand? I think our job as designers is to speak up and say, “what does this have to do with the brand”? “How is surrounding our product by a bunch of out-dated flourishes and crazy colors have to do with that we are selling?”
What is trendy is a trend and nothing more. The trend of an artist thinking they can jump into design without the proper education is old and the designer who wants every product in the world to be a piece of art is also old.
Let’s think of something new for 2010, maybe the trend could be stop using old trends? Education and a constant awareness need to be at the fore front of this change.
What are your thoughts?
Author Info: Joseph Gonzalez
I am passionate about our craft, industry and community. I enjoy the challenges of life and the process of design.
I agree completely. They’re both creative, but go about it in completely different ways.
Thinking that one translates to another easily is like saying plumbers and electricians are the same.
As for the flourishes, maybe they think that if they fill the ad with so much god-awful noise, the product will be the only thing people can see. Eh eh, anybody? (Yes, this is sarcasm. Hard to do in text)
I will say for the flourishes, it it really depends on the execution on it. It is all a matter of style. Some people enjoy a complex site and others don’t. It is subjective at most times. A well thought out site can be anything and I don’t feel that it is good to try to define what should be done visually. While there are things that don’t work usually, a thoughtful application can go a long way. And that is what a talented designer can do, balance out the site with different elements while keeping the user engaged.
I know that, but the examples he linked scream noise to me. Especially that Mazda ad.
Oh, I get your point. I’ve seen sites that looks like they used every single cool photoshop effect in the book but you leave not knowing what you were looking at.
Exactly, and I’ve seen flourishes being used very well to get the right point across. The last I believe was for an Absolut Vodka ad.
Glad you guys got that worked out. haha.
I also agree and this article also makes me think about how it extends further in our industry as well.
I’ll use graphic designers as an example. There are many many graphic designers out there that freely post they are a “web designer”. I believe this to be an up and coming topic world wide in our industry, but just because you can design “print” does not mean you also understand and practice the true principles that are “web design” and “user interface” and “usability”, etc. Which is also an art in itself.
More:
If you dabble in HTML / CSS it does not make you a front end developer
If you dabble in PHP/ASP/CFM/ it does not make you a web developer
If you have photoshop it does not make you a designer
You can see, this list goes on and on…
These are practices that I studied in college and practice everyday in my career. It’s not something I take lightly, but we all see it and have to deal with it.
The point I am making is that “titles” are used waaaaaay to lightly in our industry.
I truly believe that you should ONLY claim to be what you are a PROFESSIONAL in or are EDUCATED in. I think it’s a big insult to yourself and potential clients to lie and or sell something that you’re just not educated in and it needs to stop. It’s everywhere in our industry.
Thoughts?
AG
I think that Atom and I have taken very similar career paths. I started as a graphic designer, and slowly I have transitioned into web. Mainly because I felt more of a challenge in web than print.
But I agree with Atom. There is a huge difference for a web designer and a graphic designer. They are completely different mindsets. I am always looking for inspiration on the web for user experience, standards, etc. Those are all things that weren’t a consideration in print.
I think you can really see a difference in the product that a true web designer will produce vs someone who ‘dabbles’ in html/css. Both visually and semantically.
To what Joe is saying with this article, he is 100% correct. Just because you can draw, does not mean you can design. And to anyone who has not seen some of Joe’s work, take the time to do so, it is really awesome/inspiring work.
Great post Joe!
I agree with what you are saying about people throwing around titles as if they’re nothing. Owning Photoshop and working on a website for your Aunt Carol with FrontPage (do they even make that program anymore?) does not make you a web designer.
In regards to education… I still feel awkward calling myself a web designer and/or a front-end developer sometimes, which I guess is silly. I do web design professionally, albeit not in an awe-inspiring field (ie: direct response), but I have no formal education in design or development like a lot of you have. I have a BA in English for Pete’s sake!
Sometimes I wonder if I missed out on not pursuing an education in my field. Would it even help me now to go back to school? Is it worth my time and money?
It all just leads into the formal education verses self teaching debate.
But moving back to your comment, yes. Title are used way too lightly in this industry. However, I do have to chuckle when people agree to take on a client project they cannot handle, then end up falling flat on their faces because they can’t deliver.
Good point, maybe we need to hold back until we develop a skill or an entire different job trade before we offer it as a service to our customers. I think people are so quick to say “I can do that” without really being able to do it.
Well I consider myself to be a designer and an artist. There are varying degrees on the skill sets of many people, formally educated or not, but there is one thing that makes the difference and that is the mindset. While I consider myself an artist, I don’t believe that my design work is art. I believe that there is a difference in between the categories. Art is usually created to be art, for whatever definition that you want to come up with that is the primary goal. For design, there are many other functional aspects of it, conveying information and attracting attention for example. One of the issues that exists is that it is easy to elevate anything visual into the realm of art.
Technical abilities aside, what makes good art and what makes good design are two different things. When I am designing or creating art, I have a different mindset. While there my be some similarities in the process, the overall process is totally different and satisfying in its own way.
I would agree that successful design conveys a message and does so effectively, but I believe that most successful fine art ALSO communicates a message, albeit one more personal and more open to interpretation. I think artists and designers are quite similar in job description unless perhaps the artist has no desire to sell their art. They are most similar when an artist undertakes a commissioned piece. In my opinion, if you don’t have a clue as an artist why you are creating art or what you are trying to say with it, that’s just artistic masturbation. Art is meant to be seen and interpreted just like design. Most times you act as your own client though.
There is, however, a vast difference in the intent of people calling themselves graphic designers. I would love to see the industry create a new title for those practicing the craft (or art) without the knowledge necessary. Kind of like the field of interiors has “interior designers” and “interior decorators”. The designer has a license or is accredited. The designer deals with form + function, how to problem-solve, considers how people will use the space, makes it an effective space. The decorator is only focused on making it visually interesting or pleasing. So I would love to see us create the label GRAPHIC DECORATOR for those who feel it is enough to sprinkle the page or screen with ornamental doodads (aka design elements) focused purely on making the surface pretty. Then maybe those of us who are form+function, hierarchy of information, typography geeks can get some respect again. Just like it was before everyone and their brother was building a website or making their own brochures at home, in an hour, from a template and calling it design.
Woah, well that was a breath of fresh air!
These are some really good points Judith brings up and something that we should all consider. I also agree with some of your artists vs. designer comments.
I think there’s a lot that in our industry. I myself entered the field as a graphic designer and now work quite a bit in the web and front end development fields, so there’s definitely some cross-over.
To your point about titles, I think that the new title or at least the phrase I use is “digital artist”. Someone who is not necessarily a graphic designer, but still creates art with the same tools.
The industry has a lot of these types popping up all over the place. Unfortunately, much of the work they do all looks the same – almost outright copies, but it is what it is.
Thanks for the feedback Judith.
AG
I second Atom and Judith’s points. I went to Ball State, I have a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) with a specialization in Graphic Design. I see designers as artists, even though their medium is different. A good designer/artist use all the same principals (form+function) no matter the medium. It’s always about communication.
You hit it. Both design and fine art’s purpose is to convey a message. I personally find design has a specific response it wants to elicit where as fine art is, as you said, more personal and open to interpretation.
I miss the days where website templates were virtually non-existent.
So whats the deal,
Not to come off somewhat offended or even opposing, but I however am confused.
Seems to me like some of these “Design Enthusiasts” might just need a little guidance. (INSight)
Personally the reason that I got into the business is because it was appealing, starting out slow looking at FILTERS* like they were the coolest thing on the planet. However the more I learned, and guess grew into the field; I quickly started to see some work like Atom has stated were generic copies of the same thing.
As for the Artist or Designer statement, I think its just an identity crisis that the schools have formulated to grab more jobs for these Art Students paying out $50,000 a year for schooling.
A friend of mine just graduated in such a situation. He took all the required art classes over the course of three years and double timed all the graphic stuff in his last one. I was amazed at how much he didn’t know, compared to “Graphic Designers”. Sure he knew Color Theory and History. Yet so many other things were just overlooked, and not well explained to him. He learned the basics of all the graphic software, just so that he could list them on his resume.
Finally:
Confusion – It would be stupid of me to say I’m self taught, however I learned everything I know so far from my own research and development strategies. When it comes to learning new things and researching I dive in and like Joe said, putting in hours of work before my hands even hit the mouse/sketch pad. I’m confused cause when professionals talk about all the things that are “degrading” graphic design, I’m wondering if I’m one of them. Sure I don’t know nearly as much as I want to, however is this goal I’m pursuing even worth it without acquiring all this knowledge that everyone is speaking about. Everyday I’m learning something new, seems to me everyone is. When do I get to say I’m a graphic designer and not have another professional say I’m not because it isn’t marketed in a way they would like?
Strictly questioning, please don’t take it personally.
I don’t take what you say personally, I think you make a valid point. Not to speak for anyone else, but when I refer to people that are “degrading the industry”, I am purely speaking of someone who buys/steals a copy of Photoshop and all of a sudden, they are a designer. We all know that is not the case. Just because I can drive a car does not make me a professional racecar driver. There are years of training and experience that go into becoming a great driver. Just like there are years of training and experience that go into becoming a truly great designer. There are those out there that are just very talented and end up on the fast track, but no matter the case, they all have passion.
It sounds like you personally take what you do very seriously and have a passion for it. That is one of the biggest things, learn the theory, learn the basics etc. That way, when you do use one of those ‘cool’ filters, it’s to enhance the message you are trying to portray, not hide the fact that you have no idea what you are doing.
As for your friend, there is no way that someone should be able to cram all their design coarse work into one year. If they can, the school is doing them a disservice and just taking their money without really teaching them anything.
To my last point about the school, I went to Ball State, and I have often spoken with classmates of mine who all said that we were completely unprepared for the industry. Luckily, I landed in a design studio that was very patient and taught me the right way to do things.
I hear now that the Graphic Design program is vastly different and much better than it once was. They are preparing your mind and your skills now, vs before it was more about the theory not the execution.
Well it’s good to hear, and passion is one of the main things that drives my work. Cause well if there was no passion then their wouldn’t be a point to doing any of it.
On the outside I can see a lot of pros and cons to what I do, and how I’d improve if I would attend some classes. In the end I think I want to push myself as far as I can go, talking to people and being taught through my research. Then when I decide to I’ll take on someone else methodology, and adjust my ideas accordingly.
But that’s why I’m hear, soaking my creative sponge…
Great communication here guys, Alan – Soak that sponge!
Alan, don’t take anything the wrong way, we all have to start in this industry somewhere.
It’s all about being honest, if you’re just starting out, have little experience – whatever the case, just say it.
I speak of those who sell themselves or a service that they obviously don’t have the background to do so, that’s all.
As long as you’re always looking back at your work and going “whoa, my work sucks from last year” – you’re probably on the right path and a person that will stay in this industry because you love it.
Thanks!
Looking back is what, makes the desire to look forward so much better. Seeing what I’ve done and where I’ve taken it is probably the best thing I’ve done.
You never really know how far you have come, unless you look back at where you have been.
You close with a great point. When can you call yourself a designer and aren’t we always learning?
It made me take a step back and think back to the point in my career when I felt comfortable calling myself a graphic designer. I knew for a long time that I didn’t have the necessary skills, knowledge, and know how to say I was a designer. It wasn’t until I had about 2 years of solid experience that I felt comfortable calling myself a graphic designer, now I hate the title. Its watered down and has no meaning. Garrett made a good point in his post. Who cares about the title and lets look beyond at what the possibilities are.
I consider myself an idealist. I do not view art and design as absolutes and I question designers’ motives when distinguishing the titles of “artist” and “designer”. In an effort to clarify our profession and define it’s unique value by drawing strict lines of distinction and devaluing “artsy” impulses (the word itself an implication that formal invention is frivolous and inconsequential), I worry that we squelch possibilities and stifle new and meaningful thinking. I fear that we limit design’s place in the broader cultural landscape and ultimately undermine our own attempts to bolster design’s worth.
I have my own questions for 2010: Can we think beyond our titles? Can we look beyond design as more than just the clear communication of information, the appropriate expression of a brand, the effective coding of a website, the appropriate marriage of form and function… or any other rote bullet point one might use to define the practice? Might we refer to these things as tools only… means to an end just like pencil and paper, paint and canvas, mouse and computer? If we can – even briefly – consider these things to merely be the means, what then are the ends? Strip away the tools and the methods, bring everything back to a primal level, and what are we left with? What does a designer really do? What does a designer create? What is a designer’s role? Perhaps in considering those questions, we find what makes design, and its practitioners, truly valuable.
Though maybe I should take it all back… people may think I’m not really a designer. Or worse yet, people may think I’m an artist.
———-
As for flourishes and formal trends, Denise Gonzalez Crisp, professor and former chair of Graphic Design at North Carolina State University, has done some interesting thinking and writing on the subject of the “deco-rational”.
http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature.php?id=126&fid=561
http://superstove.blogs.com/decorational/
Wow. Thanks Garrett, this is exactly why I built this website. Very good thoughts and opinions. Another breath of fresh air…
Great comments, I love the different point of views from all of you.
To my mind the people often overplay their hand when they get into this, when its
quite simple – the difference between a piece of art and a design project is their
focus. The formers value lies mostly in its authors vision, passion and devotion to
it, while the latter is a product. Its purpose is to be ‘used’.
I haven’t got a problem with artists so long as they accept that design is a different discipline and stay in their studio and galleries.
I’m an architectural designer, forced to work with several fine artists and sculptors over the past ten years. In my experience artists and sculptors who have muscled their way into the design sector are in general arrogant, pretentious and consider themselves not only an authority on art but also all forms of design and architecture. They consider designers and architects as merely technicians who owe it to humanity to work with “real artists”. Artist also seem to think that digital technology is evil and true creativity can only stem from scribbling with charcoal.
In my experience, the differences between artists and designers:
Designers did a vocational degree and can pay their way in society without becoming a teacher.
Architects know how to make something stand up and build in a robust way. Sculptors don’t. Sculptors get very angry when their creations have to be altered to make them safe or to stop them blowing away in the wind.
When artists have to work to a practical brief and present a design they act like dinosaurs clinging to a world where everything is drawn with oil pastels. Designers can usually draw better anyway, but can also use a computer. An artist presenting a design concept is usually a surefire way to lose a client.
Artists buy a Mac and then suddenly announce that they’re now a “Graphic designer”. They then blame a “technician” (a graphic designer) when every print job they do is a disaster.
Sculptors, if their design is criticised by the client will immediately blame the architect/3d modeller/structural team that has prepared their presentation for them. I have known a sculptor ask for more money off a client to make amendments (that corrected serious defects), but all the ammendments was done in CAD by a 3d modeller that did not receive a penny more.
Designers know how to talk to the public and clients. Artists will invariable annoy and patronise the public and clients.
Designers can work to a brief, stick to a budget and understand the properties of the materials available. Artists will tell you that they can build a 9 metre high piece of permanent public art with just $100 and some wire.
At the end of the project a designer makes it clear that it was a team effort, thanks the team and starts the next job. However, on completing a project, an artist hides all evidence that after the submission of their abstract, concept, mostly useless sketches, the project was designed, presented and realised by “technicians”. The artist will never acknowledge these people but will spend the next 6 months courting the media and elaborating on their single handed success.
Designers will work from dawn until midnight. Artist turn up late and go home early.
Steve,
Wow. My only reaction is “you don’t know me.” I’m sorry you’ve met some people about which you can generalize in that way, but I find it rude and offensive for you to make blanket statements like that. All of the successful artists I know are extremely hard working, know how to work with others, and continue to have a positive attitude towards continuing to learn and adapt. I have heard so many people complain about how arrogant and difficult to work with designers are, and my reaction is much the same. There are people like that in every discipline, unfortunately, but I think when we start to generalize and start off with that sort of assumption we really miss out on some fantastic relationships.
Even though Steve’s views are a bit strong I have to say I have come across some of the traits he mentions.
I agree with Melissa that partnerships between artists and other design disciplines can lead to unique opportunities, but only if the artist can respect that designers have creative skills too and their views are equally important.
(I’m a graphic designer by the way)
What do you think about “Art in temporary spaces” as a catalyst for regeneration? The scenario is: empty street, no money to regenerate it, give some artists cheap rent and they will trigger a cultural shift that will inspire investors. Personally, I like the idea but can find no evidence that it has ever worked. In fact, I think it may have the opposite effect and actually discourage investment.