Hi list,
I'm following this discussion with a huuuuuuge interest. But theres
something that contradicts my personal experience as a graphic designer.
Terence expressed that art appears to him like a problem in some design
processes. Maybe it's more an "aesthetics as guiding force in design are
the problem" then arts. Because after all the thoughts about concepts
and conditions, aims and strategys I'm doing when I'm doing a job comes
the actual work. Someone sits down and makes an artifact (and in most
cases it still starts with pen and paper). I can just talk about
graphics, but to be honest: I can't see a clear difference to art here.
Quite the contrary: Art helps me to stay creative and not to produce a
visual expression of a very coneptional process. I'm not talking about
the regular production (flyers, brochures, letters etc. everything that
has to be done quick and dirty) but rather about the creation of
something new (logos, icons, illustrations, fotography to some extend
too). The creation of a graphic design artifact and a piece of art gives
me excactly the same feeling. So is it really Art thats the problem or
is it the aesthetic purpose in the design process? I've seen it often
enough that some designers made decissions based on the aesthetic
impression of an artifact rather than following the aim of the task.
Btw. Which kind of art are we talking about? Art in common or just
paintings? Contemporary or "classical" art? I'm asking this because art
is such a broad field and it's obvious that everybody has his own
concept of art and his own prefences. Or are we talking about the system
of art education and the abstract system of art that's established in
the culture? (don't want to ask "what is art". that question lost it's
tension to me)
So. I'm going to celebrate the 4:0 now. :) I'm feeling really sorry for
Australia.
Kind regards,
Kai
|