In a word, “no”—designers are NOT artists, and way too many of them think they are.

comment by Jeff Croft 1 hour later

I’ll start answering that question with another question: “Do we create design or art?”

Art is subjective and self expressive. If we’re making a site for ourselves, then anything goes. You can forget about usability and the normal conventions.

When creating sites for clients, or a web app for usage by others we do need to think about others.

It’s about a fine balance.

comment by Jin 1 hour later

I always considered a designer someone who visually communicates information… and an artist someone who makes pretty things.

I’m a designer, but I’m also an artist. Some people are only or the other.

Personally, I hold the two very separate in my life. It allows me to do my work for clients without taking any offense when a gazillion changes are required or someone flat out hates something I’ve created.

comment by liz 2 hours later

Some designers are designers and some designers are artists. Art can use any medium, any tools, any ideas. Graphic design can be part of an artists tool kit.

Jeff Croft is a designer. Someone like Scott Hansen (ISO50), I think is primarily an artist. His approach to art is design. This is a distinction that is rarely needed though. It may confuse designers into thinking they are artists. As Jeff pointed out there are already way too many that do.

comment by Karl Peterson 2 hours later

It’s amazing how many designers think that art is an opposite of design; that artists create by ‘feeling’ or ‘self-expression’. There are certainly those who represent those ideas, but I beg to differ. Artists who matter (in history and in the books) are those who are communicating ideas and presenting questions — sometimes the same ideas and questions that have been around forever, but in different form. And in so doing, they are thus designing their art to communicate, not so differently than we do as ‘designers’. What makes us different is our medium, our intent. We’re communicating (in client-work) other people’s ideas and wares. Artists communicating their own ideas and questions.

I don’t want to seem like I have the definitive answer. This is a question that will be around forever, I imagine. And there is definitely a difference between an artist’s work and designer’s work, but there are a lot of similarities. Mostly, I just want to dissuade the inadequate understanding that art is ‘self-expression’. Such art is often the least interesting or valuable.

comment by Ricky Irvine 2 hours later

I thought Jeff covered this at last years SXSW, “designers are assholes.” The good ones are also artists—but not the crafty, “Look, I painted a watercolor of a lighthouse” variety.

Design is communication. A competent designer gives the consumer of their design what they need. Data is distilled into useful information. The designer that is also an artist goes beyond that, communicating that distilled information in a way that is not only effective but also unexpected in some way, aesthetic or otherwise. They shed new light on familiar territory.

You could have asked “are musicians artists?” and I’d give you the same response: the good ones are.

comment by Shaun Inman 2 hours later

Designers compromise, and subsequently have a greater chance at being paid for their work.

comment by Marc 2 hours later

Design is communication.

Art is communication.

comment by Ricky Irvine 2 hours later

In a word, yes. Great designers are artists.

I think the real answer is a little more complex though. To say that someone is just a designer implies something mechanical in nature. To me, it says that I learned X, Y & Z about design and apply those elements in a consistent and mechanical manner.

I would argue that the best designers are artists. They have a way of looking at the world and solving design problems in an extraordinary way that someone more “mechanical” may not discover.

A designer that is an artist will not necessarily create something because it feels good as implied. But, they would be capable of looking at the problem that the client presents in a different light. Their work will be able to accomplish the goals of the client, but will also be creative (dare I say “artistic”). A few examples would be Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Michael Bierut, Paula Scher and, Ray & Charles Eames.

comment by patrick 3 hours later

First, let me clarify. Being a designer or an artist aren’t mutually exclusive.

Secondly, my answer above was targetted towards the core of the question of this post:

“I guess my question is do we constrain ourselves or are held in constraint by the public?”

I assume the OP was asking the type of work we produce. Art is subjective. I stand by that statement.

When it comes to design, wether it’s web or industrial, we’re making a product for other people to use. Therefore we have to consider others being and be objective.

comment by Jin 3 hours later

I’ll offer a little more detail on my view:

Fine art is 100% about aesthetics. Design is about utility, and usually the purpose is to push product. I’m not sure I believe anything that is all about making money can be truly considered art.

Clearly, design work is artistic in nature, but that doesn’t make it art. This is all a very fine line and the question is extremely vague—so it makes sense everyone will have different answers.

If your primary goal is marketing, I don’t think you’re making art. You may be a very artistic person, and you may be capable of producing great art, too—but when you’re trying to sell yourself, you’re not making art.

That’s my opinion. :)

comment by Jeff Croft 7 hours later

I feel that there is a spectrum and at the polar ends are each category, the artist, the designer. I think designers wear many hats one of them is that of an artist. We somewhat had this discussion in our last off-site where we reviewed “How Designers Think”. My point with the art example is that artists make work for themselves. They study those who went on before them and even their peers. Then in most cases they implement and show a representation of their thought process, and expression of how they feel. Now there have been artist that have mocked this process and made a poignant statement about “what is art” which is fine, and that is a topic for another time; Many of you have expressed what art is and isn’t. Sorry I’m off track, anyway my point is that at it’s core a designer is not an artist solely, they are problem solvers that can achieve many different goals by understanding some or most of the tools a pure artist has in their repertoire. A designer also understands engineering and science. They care what happens at the end result because its serves a purpose. Now that purpose can be for feeling and I think thats where some of you are off. You mean to tell me you have never been with a client that says they don’t like the color you have chosen or they don’t agree with a typeface and after you have explained your thought processes they still don’t budge? Why don’t you tell them you won’t do it, and it’s against your principals as an artist? Because our work gets compromised by a pay check. Just like the artist who do work on commission and for the public when they realize they can make money at it. There are many exceptions, there will always be exceptions. Daniel Johnston writes music because he loves it. I love design because of the challenge it poses and the fact that I can make an impact and at times I put on my artist hat and do something I love just for me.

comment by Frank Dankwa 13 hours later

what are you folks blabbering on about?! it doesn’t matter! cause it all depends on who’s looking…

comment by budji 14 hours later

This is like asking, do we choose to be humble or do we expect the lord to humble us?

An artist doesn’t have to be constrained by the public, but he/she must constrain himself. Otherwise his work would have no form and lack value.

I think this applies even to divine creation, but thats getting too deep…

comment by Dalin about a day later

@jeff I 100% disagree that “Fine art is 100% about aesthetics.” Art is (or can be, or should be) so much more than aesthetics. Otherwise, what is the point? To make us feel good inside, or satisfy our desire to see pretty things? Nonsense! That kind of art is huge waste of the viewer’s time.

“Fine art” (as opposed to “applied art”) uses aesthetics to convey ideas, questions, to start conversations, to change our worldview. Art without a meaning or purpose beyond mere aesthetics would be something like the AIGA website without any text whatsoever. That is why any good art exhibit will have an accompanying artist’s statement to explain what is going on in the work.

comment by Ricky Irvine about a day later

I have another thought to add. What would you consider the works of Leonardo, Michelangelo, and other famouse artist from back in the day. Their works done in churches and cathedrals was commissioned, and was also specific to what the church wanted. It was not the artist expressing himself but rather giving his client what they wanted. Not only that but alot of the art in churches was used as teaching devices. Especially given the fact that no one had any of the writing of the bible, the statues, paintings, and other works of art helped to illustrate the teachings and beliefs of the the religion.

What is the difference between that & what a communication designer is doing?

I always HATE when this discussion comes up and people start to also try to say that illustrators and comic and graphic novel artist aren’t creating art.

I feel art is a much broader term than most I suppose, I believe music, film, photography, writing, and architecture are ALL also forms of art. I don’t believe that art is solely based on weather or not you are “Expressing” yourself. I feel that you can express yourself by still having the end user or viewer in mind. You can even express yourself by also adhering to the clients actual goals and ideas.

There is my food for thought…

comment by Shane about a day later

I also hate this discussion. It seems rather useless. Much like a conversation about whether or not knowing how to use Photoshop makes you a graphic designer. Argh!

I do realize, however, that some people have some pretty wonky ideas about what constitutes ‘art’ and ‘artists’ that definitely need to be reshaped a bit. We could all stand to study a bit more of art history; how art has been used and understood to influence/teach different cultures and traditions throughout history.

That’s all, thanks.

comment by Ricky Irvine about a day later

Another GREAT example in Art History, is the cave drawings, and Egyptian drawings. Are those not telling a story and helping communicate, and does not ALL good art communicate something?

comment by Shane about a day later

In a word: Bauhaus (While we’re on the topic of art history) Great question Frank. Admittedly, I approach this topic from an architectural more than a fine arts perspective. And I believe the influence of the Staatliches Bauhaus from 20th Century Germany offers some powerful insights and guides my personal thoughts in this discussion. This school existed for less than two decades, almost a century ago (shut-down by the Nazis), but it’s influence is still seen today in everything from office furniture to typography, from pottery to architecture. So the question is: What does it teach me about the relationship of design and art? Whether you like the art from this school or not, the bottom line for me is that they showed us in practical, tangible ways that art and design are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist harmoniously. Their work shows us that just because something is functional does not exclude it from being artistic. And just because something is aesthetic doesn’t mean it has to be useless. Design does not equal art, but when the two are successfully combined… we enjoy life a little more, even if we don’t know why.

comment by James Hooper 6 days later