I recently started thinking again about the difference between an artist and a designer. I came to the conclusion fairly far back that an artist created for themselves, a designer created for others.
But...
I just wonder.
If that's true.
Or why, if someone is an artist, they would create something, but then share it with the world?
You still make it for others.
But I suppose, it's not really about whether others like it or not.
I feel like designers need others acceptance to be satisfied.
(But what about artists who are hired by companies to create murals? Or ads? Did they make the switch to a designer in that project?)
And then I think about New vs. Old.
Design is like the new art?
Art to me is very raw, emotional, while design to me is very calculated and thought out.
It's like evolution.
But can designers be artists? And vice-versa?
Who's to say designers can't use their "new world" skills to create something artistic?
Old hand-carved, hand-set type is probably considered design, since it is meant to be used for others to see and understand, but with that much detail and care put into it how can it not be art?
I suppose it's just not that B&W.
Nothing is.
I always try to fit things into categories and blocks and stereotypes.
(It makes things easier for me to understand.)
I still think artists make for themselves and designers for others, but all good work is art.
If a design is something so rich and powerful it becomes art.
I would even venture to say if a piece of art is uninteresting, unprofound, and ugly, then it's not art.
But can art become design?
I suppose so.
When it becomes carefully planned out? Eh, maybe.
SO IS ART BETTER THAN DESIGN?!
Oh no, wrong life choice.