What constitutes art in relation to the contemporary concept of “design”? After all, all art is designed, isn’t it? Even when art is wholly random, the mind of the person triggering the random splash (or whatever technique) is a designing agent by proxy. However, all design – a contemporary general term for shape and form in everyday/decorative items and/or demagogic information – isn’t art. But if one is to make such bold assumptions as I just did, perhaps there needs to be some clarification?
As a result of urbanised and globalised monoculture, there has been a slight confusion during the most recent decades. The sphere of what I call “general creatives” has been more or less successfully integrated into what’s usually called the “art world”. Meaning: industrial designers, commercial graphic artists, fashion people, architects and conceptual strategists can nowadays have exhibitions at institutions and spaces that used to contain a more narrow form of art (the kind made by “artists”). This development is neither good nor bad – it’s just a sign of the postmodern, commercial times we live in.
The massive onslaught of technology has been a key player in this development. Remember the first mobile phones? Chunky, ugly beasts guaranteed to give you brain cancer. But it didn’t really take long until they were marketed as “lifestyle” accessories: looking good, being user-friendly, and also carrying more and more creative uses. A parallel can be seen in computers too, of course: from chunky and ugly to something that marks status at home or on the go, and packed with creative potential. And made extremely attractive by slick industrial design and huge advertising campaigns.
To make a telephone call, one needs a telephone. It doesn’t have to be an iPhone this or that. The preference in choosing one alluringly designed product instead of another is not guided by a critical analysis of the best telephone conversation device. The association of the “brand” is at least as important, and the different brands compete, as we know, by offering more and more easy-to-use creative tools.
The democratisation of technology-based artistic tools means that anyone can potentially make great-looking films, photos, web sites, podcasts etc. Same thing here: this is neither good nor bad. However, the potential emergence of unexpected technology-driven signals of gold is to a great degree blacked/blocked out by the noise of lead from the filter-template-prefab-prone multitude. Quantity is the new quality, and this constitutes a general signifier of our times. If everyone can be a designer of creative output via technology, and the main attraction in this process is a perfectly designed “interface” (of both hard and soft “wares”), then it seems that “design” as such is the prerequisite for both optimistic (as in democratisation) and dystopian (as in morass-mongering) Zeitgeist traits.
What’s the difference then? If two people use the same technology for creative purposes, what makes one an artist and one “just” a creative? It lies of course in the sphere of personal expression. What is being expressed? Industrial design and commercial advertising serve a distinct purpose: they exist to sell something. Art, by my perhaps outdated definition, expresses something from a “self” (this could also be called “soul”, “mind” or “emotional cluster”). Hence content should always be more important than form in art. Yet art is also very much the sphere of form. So perhaps it’s safe to say that art is then a successful and unique expression of a combination of the two? Whereas design is merely a formal expression of a guided message (non-personal, non-unique)?
Some artists manage to see beyond their own existing method/comfort zone and are eager to try out anything that’s new. Andy Warhol was a prime example of this, devouring new technology and media to keep his art and process dynamic. More recently, David Hockney’s iPad paintings have received a lot of attention; perhaps specifically because he was old at the time? But these examples show an artistic curiosity rather than a need to align oneself with a specific lifestyle accessory with seductive logotypes.
I find it interesting how language helps us understand things if we but linger a bit on the key word in question. The prefix “de” generally means a negation of the main word: de-flate, de-stabilise, de-mote, de-crease, de-struction, etc. In our case, we see a negation of the word “sign”: de-sign. This would indeed amplify my fairly critical approach in looking at art vs design. Art should carry signs, signals, significance. These absolutely don’t need to be clear, rational, intellectual or conscious (in fact, it’s often better that they aren’t), but should contain an urgency in the communication that becomes un/subconsciously attractive. Any creative manifestation that doesn’t cut the mustard in this regard is then by definition “design” and not “art”.
One can also evaluate this by watching how irritated the design-fashion-architecture-as-art-spokespeople become when this is explained. It’s almost as if there’s an equation at work: the more they react to a statement like “No, design is not art”, the more you know you’re on the right track. However, my point of view is anachronistically old school, and I’m well aware of it. The tide has turned and is flooding our culture with technology for all, containing creative tools for all. Anything that looks good (ie. modern) within some kind of context (an ad, a piece of clothing, a house) is lauded as art. Again, I’m not saying this is all negative. But it certainly doesn’t make more signal-prone artists emerge. They can only bloom at their own pace in an inner sphere, and the tools they need to create art will become evident only after they have “awoken” to the call. Technology and alluring design don’t dictate here; the neurosis and vision of the artist do.
(This text was originally published in the Norwegian magazine Kunstforum, 2017)
