Boundary between art and design

[>HyperlogiK<]

Where do you think art ends and pretty/pleasing design begins? There are plenty of cases where it is pretty clear cut: Bach's Cello Concerto is art whereas the Windows 7 sound scheme is pleasing design, The London underground map is hailed as a great piece of design but few would argue that it is art. But where is the boundary?

Musique Concrete is more likely to be labelled as art than Ambient Techno, but they may sound very similar, does the fact that Musique Concrete was created by a bunch of 'arty' looking French anarchists give it any more entitlement to be called art than anything else?

A lot of Baroque paintings such as The Night Watch were more like a cross between a trophy and a marketing photograph. They focused on realistic depiction of subjects that were either lucrative to paint e.g. a wealthy militia, rather than being an representation of some aspect of 'human' experience.

[curtis1552]

I would go with the idea that pleasing desgin serves a distinct purpose, the underground, the M$ sound scheme, and that art serves no purpose but it's own, it is designed to bring about an emotion or feeling, nothing very tangible.

I would say that in art the purpose is more subtle, and less defined, it may not elict the same response from everyone.

[Mother Goose]

Where do you think art ends and pretty/pleasing design begins? There are plenty of cases where it is pretty clear cut: Bach's Cello Concerto is art whereas the Windows 7 sound scheme is pleasing design, The London underground map is hailed as a great piece of design but few would argue that it is art. But where is the boundary?

Musique Concrete is more likely to be labelled as art than Ambient Techno, but they may sound very similar, does the fact that Musique Concrete was created by a bunch of 'arty' looking French anarchists give it any more entitlement to be called art than anything else?

A lot of Baroque paintings such as The Night Watch were more like a cross between a trophy and a marketing photograph. They focused on realistic depiction of subjects that were either lucrative to paint e.g. a wealthy militia, rather than being an representation of some aspect of 'human' experience.

Well, if you want to start discussing sharp boundaries in inherently fuzzy areas, you need to define your terms. It's a problem of semantics and meaning.

I've discussed these things ad nauseum. Personally, I don't see any escape from the post-modernist viewpoint. That is, there is no point in discussing if the terms cannot be defined. They cannot (the postmodernist view), and so there is no point in discussing.

Actually, there is one escape. And that is to impose a strict definition of what constitutes art and what constitutes design. Such a definition would naturally be imposed by so-called experts in the field. Of course, there will always be fuzzy areas. That's when you bring in more experts and produce an even sharper definition. These definitions are ultimately unsatisfying. Their use is important for certain aspects (take for example, the definition of a male/female in the context of the recent South African athletics debacle).

Anyways, I hate these sorts of discussions. It's akin to discussing what is the strict boundary between baldness and not-baldness. Nothing is stopping you from using the term 'bald' in a common situation. But to split hairs (pun intended) on the definition is a bit silly. What's the point?

To me, there are two areas of art: The personal and the professional. In regards to the former, there is no need to split hairs. You enjoy what you enjoy. In regards to the latter---well, thank God I'm not an art critic.

[>HyperlogiK<]

There can be value in discussing general characteristics of a thing without forming some kind of rigid definition. My intention in trying to start a discussion on this subject was not to develop some final definition of art, but simply to start a discussion for it's own sake. These kind of arguments may not come to any set conclusion, but being exposed to the arguments and opinions of other on a subject like this is often of value. Besides, if there was no value in discussing a thing 'if the terms cannot be defined' then there isn't any value in any kind of discussion outside of maths and science.

One radical [and possibly quite silly] suggestion that just came to mind would be an answer rooted in statistics and psychology. Suppose we had a complete understanding of human psychology, and so we could perhaps for any given human being, identify whatever mental processes are involved in identifying something as art. Then we could gather a large test sample, perform whatever analyses were required and discarding any information that was statistically insignificant, create almost a law for what constitutes art.

I realise that this is an unfeasible and slightly absurd sci-fi example, but I think the underlying idea might just be sound.

[Mother Goose]

There can be value in discussing general characteristics of a thing without forming some kind of rigid definition.

Absolutely! But you didn't ask for general characteristics!


Besides, if there was no value in discussing a thing 'if the terms cannot be defined' then there isn't any value in any kind of discussion outside of maths and science.

No. That's not the issue.

I've already given the example in terms of baldness. The issue isn't that we can't discuss baldness as a general topic, just like we can't discuss art. But the issue is that we can't really talk about the boundary between baldness and non-baldness.

If you want to talk about art, go ahead. If you want to talk about design, go ahead. If you want to talk about the boundary between art and design, that's where you're going to run into trouble.


One radical [and possibly quite silly] suggestion that just came to mind would be an answer rooted in statistics and psychology. Suppose we had a complete understanding of human psychology, and so we could perhaps for any given human being, identify whatever mental processes are involved in identifying something as art. Then we could gather a large test sample, perform whatever analyses were required and discarding any information that was statistically insignificant, create almost a law for what constitutes art.

That's not a bad idea and not terribly unfeasible. Stick people into an MRI and show them pieces of art. In fact, I'm sure it's been done before.

However, the problem that I see it is that you'll still run into the postmodernist problem of defining what constitutes a reaction to 'art' and what constitutes a reaction to 'design'.

Again, the problem is not that we can't differentiate the two. Show someone a picture of the Mona Lisa and show someone a picture of a technical diagram, and you're sure to illicit a different cognitive response (just like you're sure to differentiate someone with a full head of hair form someone who is completely bald). Suppose in the case of the Mona Lisa, region X lights up in the brain. Thus we define anything that lights up region X as 'art'.

Now make the test harder. Show the subject pieces that are closer to the boundary between art and design. I don't see the process as continuous. Meaning you will not arrive at a boundary in which, to the left, the brain does not light up, while to the right it does.

In the end, what have you done? You've managed to classify a broad group of objects into art and another into design. But the question of the boundary between the two remains unsolved. Like I said, if you want to discuss the inherit fuzziness of distinctions in art, that's of course up for grabs (hell, I suppose that's what art critics do all the time). But in your original post, you asked,


But where is the boundary?


To which my answer is: Nobody knows. Nobody can know. End of story. End of discussion. Finito. QED. :)