at the creative coast ‘reeling them in’ event last month the q&a after shirlie’s talk led us into some interesting discussion, not least that old chestnut of the nature of art. shirlie actually laid down a very good definition of the difference between fine art and ‘the commercial arts’ (which for some reason conjures up images of harry potter to me). i’m paraphrasing here and surely not doing justice to shirlie’s well though out definition, but it went something like this:
artists attempt to communicate their ideas, thoughts and feelings to the world.
commercial artists attempt to communicate the ideas, thoughts and feelings of their clients.
it seemed that the artists present felt there was more at stake when defining who does what and why than the designers, who didn’t seem to really care what they get called as long as someone pays them for it (link: is design art? on the creative match website). there was clearly a bit of a dilemma for some artists as to when it was acceptable to be commissioned to express someone else’s ideas and the worry as to whether this dilutes your artistic worth.
perhaps part of the problem is that if you’re not making a whole load of money as an artist, how do you (or how does society) put a value what you do? for that reason alone artists have to have a cultural cachet afforded to only a select part of society (also eligible for this are composers, musicians, poets… but not designers, and rightly so). otherwise we risk rating the visionaries and prophets of our culture purely on their financial success. and despite the megabucks that some artists are making and the millions that are paid for works by iconic artists, the value of art in our lives really has nothing to do with money.
more thoughts arising from this discussion later in the week…
rachel and i covered most of it in our online discussion - see the comments.
Liked the link and the article about Flowlab. Maybe the Flowlab people are artists. If they had the idea for those ‘empty’ objects, got them produced and sold them, I would say that’s art, but then again, maybe not if they’re a manufactured product of unlimited quantity. Artists making multiples is an established practice, but are they usually a limited edition? Maybe the way art is presented and sold affects whether people call it art (shop vs gallery)? But thats just expectations and tradition.
Oh I don’t know, it gets more unclear the more I think about it.
Anyway, I think an important factor in the debate is who originates the idea, which is what you said in your blog in the first place - I’ll shut up!
Comment by Rachel Welford — June 18, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
i think how something is presented and sold has been the big challenge of the 20th century for art.
firstly with such as jeff koons. lots of people struggled (and still do) with the idea of artists who don’t make their own work.
then the break out of the gallery - think goldsworthy and gormley, and now banksy (who interestingly is moving into galleries, perhaps he wants the kudos that comes with that?)
i’m trying to think of an example of an artist who produces multiples with no limit on the number - perhaps multimedia or web-based art which can be freely copied would be a good example.
so some artists do challenge the perception of what is art (break the rules if you like) and not lose their status as an artist. perhaps it only travels in one direction? an artist can move into mass production, but a designer couldn’t suddenly claim to be producing art without starting with hand-drawn one-offs. tradition and expectation again.
is there a journey that has to be traveled to qualify as an artist?
Comment by adrian — June 19, 2007 @ 11:06 am
I do wonder with Banksy whether the mainsteam art world courted him, rather than the other way round. In his book Wall and Piece there was a bit which said - words to the effect of - graffiti being the most honest artform available, untainted by money and giving maximum accessibilty. Made me feel quite immoral for trying to sell mine!
I agree there is a journey involved in being an artist - involving experience (of something, not the sort that goes on a cv), thinking, developing, and doing (although the doing can be subcontracted so long as the artist is still in full control). But this is also a journey travelled by designers (going back to the original point) so I suppose the crunch comes back to the reason for the doing and who started it, client or creator.
But… commissioned art is still art, even when its something quite specific like a portrait, so its all in the content I reckon. Ideas and personal artistic expression are still part of commissioned artwork.
Also… Art (such as original prints or photography) can be reproduced to order - another for the ‘multiples’ train of thought.
Comment by Rachel Welford — June 19, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
but there are also ideas and artistic expression in the work of a designer - that’s what we get paid for. i started this on the side of the artist (i make no claim to be anything other than a designer) but i’m now starting to lose sight of what separates one from the other.
i would have said that it’s that in the absence of a commission an artist will continue to create and explore through their work. but then there are designers who do that too. altho if there’s too large an absence of work designers go bust. whereas artists are often willing to make compromises elsewhere in their lives in order to still be able to create art.
maybe that’s it. a good designer is usually commercially successful - one could say that part of being a designer is to understand and be in control of the commercial restraints and demands of your work. an artist does not have to recognise these if they so choose.
Comment by adrian — June 19, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
yes, the line is getting increasingly blurry for me also.
I agree there are ideas and artistic expression in the work of a designer too.
How much do designers have a distinctive personal style? Usually artists commssions are along the lines of what they would do for themselves. And artists commissions usually arise from the client liking the artists personal work.
I think that ALL artists will have a personal line of enquiry, exploration and development of ideas in addition to whatever commissions they have on the go. Whereas only some designers do. Is that it?
What about the audience as a factor. Quality aside - most art (commissioned or not) is relevant to be shown to the general public and has an enduring shelf life. Whereas design (maybe I mean graphic design here) is mainly relevant only to the client, and serves a short-term ish purpose, i.e. a poster or piece of print.
Mind you, there are exhibitions of grahic design work too, although this is usually coming from an art history angle. It would be a bit odd to see the Creative Coast flyer in the East Coast Open art exhibition!
Comment by Rachel Welford — June 20, 2007 @ 11:37 am
personal style is an interesting one. often designers make a name for themselves by having a distinctive visual style that they apply to every job. personally i would get bored with that and always approach each job afresh unless it’s part of a continual branding project where we are consciously building a visual style for someone. but i can see the attraction of reworking and reworking until you feel you have achieved some kind of perfection.
interestingly a client recently said that electric angel does have a house style so maybe we do, but it isn’t a deliberate attempt to have a ‘look’ to our work.
personal lines of enquiry - you’re probably right. perhaps that means that the designers who do have that impulse could just as easily be artists but made a decision to go one way rather than the other.
audience is surely the other defining factor. which perhaps brings us back to shirlie’s definition.
Comment by adrian — June 20, 2007 @ 12:12 pm