I don’t think at all art and design are mutually exclusive. In fact, they really touch each other quite often, just as much as cooking may be regarded as art and Donald Knuth would even talk about The Art of Computer Programming.

Yet, I still stand on thinking that conceptually art and design are different things. Not meaning that an object can’t be art and design simultaneously.

Art and design. Two distinct exclusive roles? No… I can’t agree with that.

Somewhere in the middle, a design becomes so artistic where it captures attention and receives artistic appraisal. Additionally, some work of art is so beautiful that it is used as a design template.

A good design is usually aesthetically pleasing and reflects some form of reality, thus achieving invisibility because we’ve become accustomed to it. However, sun sets and sun rises exist everyday and sometimes we hardly notice their beauty and artistry. Thus, it is of aesthetic design but works of art. One can say this with many elements in nature.

Naturally, we can usually distinguish the two different types of work but we can’t make the assumption that they’re exclusive of each other.

-Illy

I always find it funny when people say things like “hollywood artists” for just about anyone that puts his/her face on the big screen.

I find that a good amount of them are is what is called “Movie Industry” so I guess, they should be called “hollywood workers”… lol

Anyway, I’m not sure I got your point about the “invisible art”.

I think you are right in what you say. But your answer made me think because it’s true that art is not always an expression of the self.

Before the invention of photography artist were hired to depict important families and personalities and that wasn’t really self-expression.

But still, you are right in the fact that art was not utilitarian in the sense that was not support for something, it has an end on itself (despite any social “use” they might have found for it).

Design, on the other side, has always been a support area. Even in the time where the painters, and not the photographers, depicted personalities.

So, maybe I should rephrase to say “Art might be a form of self expression and has an end on itself while the use of design is transitory and that’s why should be invisible”.

Am I right?

Some use the term “Art” to add more glamour to the design work.

You are very right about the main difference between Art and Design – it’s purposes. I would add another difference that is the Audience. Art and Design have different Audiences.

Like you said, Art is an expression of the self. Art is it’s own end and in that sense, not very utilitarian.

Art uses some elements from the concrete world but always to its own purposes.

Design, in the other hand, is very much utilitarian: it consider the society purposes first and then fits the work to that end. In that sense, it’s more “commercial”.

Fashion design, for instance is made based on the customer’s desire.

I’m refering to Art and Design in their most pure form. Of course there is not a rigid rule.

There is Design not very much utilitarian, like some Experimental Fashion Design. They are not made for wearing, but to express a Concept. It’s almost Art itself.

And of course there is ordinary Art, made just for selling, without any creative think or feeling. In this case, the Audience is the buyer and not the artist. Art is only based on the customer’s desire.

I agree great design is invisible and that’s something difficult to explain but you suceeded.