dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Artist vs. Designer

  1. #21
    Occasionally Awake
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    42
    Originally posted by tonic
    This is semantics.
    art = artis (latin?)= to know
    Well, ok, my school Latin:
    "ars" Latin, means
    1. work of art
    2. art
    3. ruse, trick
    4. tactic, tactics
    5. theory

    I like the third meaning - ruse or trick!

    And "design" I'll have to look up later! But I know the Italian "disgenare" is to draw or design, and the drawing bit of it was always one of the essential skills of an artist. Loads of old arguments between critics in centuries past about artists who were good at "designo (or whatever)" or "colore" - line drawing or colour and tone. So there's another inextricable link between designer / artist.

    don't you just love semantics!

    PS When do I stop being a New Member!

  2. #22
    finky fonk
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    south of the river
    Posts
    106
    hello people
    sory for repeating myself ( I made this same point in another thread) but there is loads of modern art which does not even attempt to 'look nice' but instead promts thought on the nature of life, the human condition or of modern living. Most of the art mentioned in this discussion seems to be of the asthetic nature, but many artists working today have sidelined the aesthetic to make room for the 'concept'. This idea has been used in design - anyone remember the benetton ads with the new born baby or the man photographed the moment he died of AIDS. these were on billboards and brought the concept of commenting on the human condition into design.

    maybe it is up to designers to make the world look better and artists to make us think about it a bit more......

    fink

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    14
    art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis

    there are many meanings, i was trying to get to the etymological meaning of the words...to find out what people were thinking and meaning when they started calling one thing this and another thing that

    btw that was designere (latin not italian) and "to designate" is a spin on "to design".

    my point is that words are important and they should be used appropriately. the dictionary is there for a reason. we all agree to play by those rules.

    anyway just to be happy and create something

    art opens your soul design pleases your mind.

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    8

    intermedia

    art and design always becomes intergrated, any way you look at it.

    I studied fine art for three years and now I'm designing web sites. I feel like the fine art experience has provided me with lateral thinking which I may not have had if I had without fine art.

    It's like fine art gives you so much more insight into the world, and context for design as well. this is a really important aspect of my design.

    sure sometimes you want to make things look pretty, but they can be charged with your own engery as well.

  5. #25
    Occasionally Awake
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    42
    Originally posted by tonic
    there are many meanings, i was trying to get to the etymological meaning of the words...to find out what people were thinking and meaning when they started calling one thing this and another thing that

    btw that was designere (latin not italian) and "to designate" is a spin on "to design".
    [/B]
    Sigh - my school Latin and my holiday Italian do not a linguist make ! (I'll have a good shot at English though)
    But I did look it up yesterday in a bookshop - Latin "designo" = to describe, mark out, trace, designate (as you say).

    But anyways, we agree - it's well worth looking at what the terms in an argument meant when they were first written down and described.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    148
    here's my 2cents.

    a designer breathes life into another persons creative vision.

    an art breathes life into his own vision.

    most 'web designers' or 'graphic designer' do both. i would say the former is the more difficult.

  7. #27
    Originally posted by toastee
    That said, more viewpoints to ponder. Artists: when an artist works, their creation is deeply personal. Though the opinion of others might be sought or welcomed in the end, these opinions rarely infulence the work under consrtuction. Designers: Create to please the popular majority. The opinions of others often influnce their work, so that the design will be pleasing to most when finished. Disagree/Agree? Any thoughts.
    After reading through all of the post/replys this one quote stuck to me. I am in no way a "artist" by definition. Although I try to use only work I created. I have always designed websites to please others. Not to say the websites aren't pleasing to me - I won't design it if it isn't pleasing to me. I just think that art is more of creating something you want to share but not intended to please everyone or try to at least. Design is just like what toastee said "Please the popular majority" - My sites don't please everyone but they please the targeted addience.

    That is just my 2 cents. I am a soon to be Graphic Design student that has been doing static webdesign and graphic design for about 5 years. I am just getting into the real field of webdesign and all it has to offer.

  8. #28
    They way I see it everybody is an artist because what is art one person is crap to another. Heck just the other day I laid a turd that looked just like Wynona Ryder and Jhon Travolta doing the lambada.

    The only line of division are those who make money with ther art or someone elses art such as commercial artist and those who do it "for themselves" the starving artists. For somereason art is no longer valued by it's aesthetic appeal but by it's entertainment value.

    Long live the Velvet Elvis Presley!

    [Edited by Ibis Fernandez on 09-21-2000 at 09:21 AM]

  9. #29
    Flashing Goddess
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    48
    Designer: Designs for a specified audience to communicate a message. Success of a piece can be measurable: like selling more products from an advertisement. Less creative freedom when working with clients because you produce design with THEIR objectives in mind, not your own.

    Artist: Communicates a message (sometimes) for an unspecified audience. Success of a piece is more subjective. Some art can be simply decorative, with no message (like cheesy hotel art). Unless commissioned, complete creative freedom. Knock yourself out.

    Designer as Artist: Oh yeah baby! This is where the fun starts -- to design what you want and go completely experimental. There's a reason for the Design section at the Museum of Modern Art in NY.

    Artist as Designer: Mixed results; usually they don't understand design principles if they haven't had formal training. Their focus is on the ART element in design, and the other elements don't get as much attention. Maybe just call these Illustrators... a bunch I went to school with graduated with BOTH graphic design and illustration degrees, so they can do it all. (Usually one better than the other.)

    Does this help? My brain hurts. I've never seen such long postings!

  10. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    2

    Talking

    I'd love to "play" at being an artist (I'm an architect).

    It's an honest aspiration.

    Artists talk about "art with purpose".

    "Art with purpose" is design.

    Keep art free from the realm of purposes/objectives.

    There is NO such thing as 'successful' art.

    There ARE however 'successful' designs.

    The issue may be something as simple as basic as being responsible.

    An artist has no other degree of responsibility other than pleasing himself.

    A designer has no such luxuries.

    I'd love to 'play' at being an artist.

    It's an honest aspiration.

  11. #31
    Occasionally Awake
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    42

    Post

    yeah, i believe it too - art without purpose, even life without purpose is the goal (imagine nice Japanese music going on in the background here).

    But it's damn hard to do isn't it? In the process of "making" something, anything at all, you can successfully lose your sense of purpose, and that's a fine feeling that I always want to recapture. You could be making the tea, a turd, thanks for that Ibis :-) , or an amazing new painting, and get that feeling.

    But then you've got to go and exhibit the thing, or show it to someone, and you start to think, what's if for, what's it all about (alfie). Maybe you just want to provoke, to amuse, to bore, to shock but that's a purpose. Aaaaargh. This is a totally purposeless posting, sorry about that.

    I'd gone away and forgotten about this thread, but glad to see it's thriving!

  12. #32
    Flashing Goddess
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    48
    Beautiful poem, boid!

  13. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    8
    wow
    I didnt expect this kind of thread on a place falled flashkit!
    so thrilled to find that fellow flashers are not merely concerned with things like action scripting and rollover states, but with the real core of it all: here is another medium in which we can experiment, create and play. and yes, there are far more restrictions in the world of design, where one may have specific & highly limited parameters in which to squeeze your brilliance(take the footer banners for instance!) but it all boils down to the same exact thing: take existing materials (paint, charcoal, pixels, text, steel, marble, whatever) and recombine it into
    an original and never-before-seen combination. agreed that the work one creates out of an inner need to create CAN be far more emotionally powerful than something created for a functional purpose, but it aint neccessarily so! great art and great design all share a common understanding of form & structure & balance & contrast & color & value & (all that other art school stuff). the difference for me, is that when I am in my studio working on my "art", I create without worrying a damn whether it will ever exhibited/bought/or even seen! and when I am in "design" mode, the end user is always there with me.those of us born with an artist's soul must constantly struggle with creative demons( a blessing or or a curse? depends on the day!) Design (and teaching too) offers the chance to actually put those demons to work without going completely crazy . maybe its not as "significant" to arrange text fields and frames and etc, but who knows what will survive as our finest expression? as an art geek who looks at everything, I certainly have seen a lot of terrible, amateur/immature paintings that are far less creative and original that many of the websites flash is now making possible!
    I couldnt resist throwing some of my "serious" art work on my hire-me-I'm-a-flash-designer site. it doesnt look like it, but it all comes from the exact same source. take a look
    http://suzyflash.webjump.com

  14. #34
    Occasionally Awake
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    42
    Originally posted by scully

    http://suzyflash.webjump.com
    Hey scully, couldn't reach your site - claims Site not found, and couldn't trace url in view source very easily.
    where' s it at again?

  15. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    2
    hmm.. quite an interesting topic here.
    what i personally think about the difference between the two lies in their own respective products and to how other people regard them like:
    a designer's work is meant to be utilized, be criticized, deliver information and so on (mostly regulations governed by physical and popular laws) while
    an artist's work is meant to be felt and interpreted but neither criticized nor restrained.
    both could produce identical products but i guess poetic license separates the two.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    66
    Your right i'm trying to do both - art and design and it just doesn't work you have to be one or the other - and i believe that flashers both - and thats why its so hard..
    Just to add that little more of a problem we have to animate it too!!

    Edd.

  17. #37
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    2

    Talking


    Maybe...

    We are asking the wrong questions. (I'm not too sure of what I'm talking about here so please bear with me). I have two stories to share with you... two principal concerns..

    STORY #1 : : The Identity Box (deals with analysis) : :


    An example used often by professors of Physics to help explain the basics of Quantum Mechanics to students goes somewhat like this:

    Imagine a closed black box.

    A box from whithin which there is no possible exchange of information with the outside world.

    Not even light escapes this box.

    The box is a closed system.

    Imagine now that you put a cat in this box.

    A cat, alive and kicking.

    With the cat you put in a bomb that sets off a poison gas that will eventually kill the cat.

    The detonator for the bomb is a randomly decaying radioactive atom.

    So you have no idea when the damn bomb goes off and kills the cat.

    Now after you have put the cat, the bomb and it's detonator in the box, you close the lid and leave.

    You come back after a week.

    How do you know whether the cat in the box is dead or alive?

    Classical Physics says... "Just open the box and look! Simple!"
    [i.e perform your experiment (look at the cat), and arrive at a result (hey, the cat's alive OR hey, the cat died)]

    Quantum Mechanists look at the whole episode rather differently. Before you open the box imagine two wave functions. One wave function represents the cat as being alive.. the other wave function represents the cat as being dead. As soon as you open the box, one wave function collapses. The cat is EITHER dead OR alive. So with the act of YOU looking into the box, you have decided the fate of our poor cat. If, for example, you hadn't looked into the box, the cat would have been BOTH dead and alive at the same time. YOU have affected your experiment by the simple act of looking into the box.

    The above mentioned example is not an excercise in metaphysics. It is a problem faced by physists in the real world, especially while dealing at sub-atomic levels. It is not possible to "open the box and look" while working with atoms or 'the universe'. By simply studying the nature of small particles, one effects it's behaviour.

    Ok.

    This is as far as physics goes.


    STORY #2 : : The Mockingbird : : (about art)


    Tom Robbins writes about a mockingbird (a ground dwelling bird) in Arizona (I think), which had a marvellous repetoir of different sounds it had picked up from it's surroundings.
    These included a train whistle, car horns, chirping of blue jays, a rattlesnakes rattle, etc.

    None of the sounds it duplicated were it's own.

    But the mockingbird built the sounds it had picked up to form it's own opera. A long chain of train whistels and car horns and rattles stringed out to form a song.

    The mockingbird, Tom says, is a true artist. It took the material it was provided with and made it his OWN.


    *stretch* I'm a bit tired from typing out all this.. yes there is a conclusion to this (or then again maybe there isn't, I don't really know).. and it's 3:30 in the morning right now.. I'll finish this later... thank you for reading..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center