“The differences between art and design lie not so much in how they look as in what they do” Michael Brady How far do you agree with this statement?
NAME: KWOK MING TSUN (CYRUS)
STUDENT ID: KWO09280548
TUTOR: MARK UNWIN
SUBMIT DATE: 4/11/2009
Since people started to debate the differences between art and design, there have been two different conclusions. For example, if you have an armchair but is only for decoration, would you say it is a piece of furniture or a piece of art? Are they synonyms in their appearance or practical purpose? How would one separate these two closely related objects? Many of those who debate this topic argue that art and design differ in appearance; however, I feel art and design differ in purpose rather than appearance: although they may be similar in appearance, the difference in art and design lie in functionality and objectivity.
As Michael Brady points out, design is utilitarian while art is not: “graphic design and art are different from each other because graphic design can be characterized as ‘problem solving’, while art is ‘creative’” (Banard.M, 2005: pp.169). Banard’s quote is not limited to only graphic design; the same applies to other types of designs, e.g. computers have many different configurations, such as designs, various hardware for different people, from the mobile professional to the stay-at-home housewife.
This shows that designs are actual pragmatic and solution-oriented. Conversely, art is concerned primarily with expression rather than function: “it subordinates ordinary usefulness to its own purposes” (Brady.M, 1998). For example, paintings can be exhibited everywhere like museum and exhibition even street, which they can only be viewed and admired with nonfunctional and unreasonable. Although created without function, they still expressive, attractive and contentious. For instance, the painting ‘Campbell’s soup I (1968)’ produced by Andy Warhol, is useless and does not solve any...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document