I have (again) come across a post on LinkedIn announcing that design is not art. I read the linked article, and I read the comments, and for the 100th time I was awed by how people feel they need to draw lines and put things in opposition to one another, without even making any effort to understand the true and complex nature of those things.
Because things are hardly ever black and white.
I guess ranting and raving is often easier than productive dialogue, where people not only talk, but also listen and genuinely try to understand different mindsets, different points of view, and different ideologies. But since it’s only true dialogue that can help everyone involved to come to conclusions that – just because of being stuck within their own mindsets – they have never thought about before, it should be worth it to give dialogue a try.
But rather than debating over whether design is art or whether it is not, I would like to focus on how it can be beneficial to everyone if we stop engaging in a never-ending (and totally pointless) battle and start looking at a bigger picture instead.
There are many reasons why that design vs. art discussion cannot lead to plausible conclusions. Think of confirmation bias that makes people follow and favor information that confirms their prior beliefs. Or of an often-overlooked reality (accurately described by John Stuart Mill) where people base their opinions on feelings rather than on facts and where contradictory points of information don’t shift emotionally rooted arguments, they only cause people to dig deeper into their emotions in order to hold onto their views. Then there is the relativity of things to look at, that claims that whether an argument is logically valid is relative to a choice of logical constants (in other words, to a frame of reference) – and that makes the same statement true and not true at the same time, depending on perspectives and contexts of each discussion participant.
And the list of reasons goes on…
Now you might say that the above philosophy could be brought up in any dispute in order to prove it’s pointless -and that it would be an easy way out for people who don’t have enough arguments to support and validate their thesis. And you know what? You might be right, but you might also be wrong – and it all depends on whether one’s goal in a discussion is to confirm (or defend) their beliefs and feelings, or to learn more about facts in order to form or validate their opinions.
The ongoing discussion about differences between design and art has little to do with objective interpretation of facts, but it has a whole lot to do with emotions of those designers who don’t want to be placed on one shelf with artists.
The main reason it is so important to designers to be distinguished from artists is strongly based on feelings and emotions: we want to be taken seriously and we yearn to be respected for our minds (and who could be serious about artists?).
We want to be seen as more than mere stylists, we want to set the agenda, to be involved earlier in the process, to be granted a place at a table
There.
But apparently many designers don’t want to be more than stylists, they just don’t want to be artists.
The problem is that by focusing on what things are not, we diminish their value instead of increasing it. And in the case of our debate, by repeating over and over again that design is not art, we also reduce the meaning of what design is. Reading some of the myriad texts, one might get the impression that sometimes it is less about being a designer, and more about not being an artist – but that is not a good way of thinking at all. Because once we decide what we are not, we put a label on ourselves – one that is restrictive and may be very difficult to navigate away from. We start controlling ourselves and we hit the brakes the moment we think we might be getting too artsy in our work. Because hey, we are the smart ones, our heads sit firmly on our shoulders, they don’t float up in the clouds. We have the gestalt principles, the rules of composition, the color theory, the white spaces, and that is all that we need, we don’t want to deal with art. (Except, all those rules and theories were created by artists. Just saying.)
And certainly few things are as irritating to today’s informed and well-intentioned designer as being dismissed as a mere stylist. (…) So what’s so bad about styling, anyway? If styling, mere styling, is so dismissively easy, why does everything look so horrible?
See, there has been so much talk about how UX designers are different from artists, about how they use different skills and tools in their work, and about how irrelevant talent becomes once you know some principles and color theory, that it often encourages people with no feel for visual stuff to not only go into design, but to actually design the visual parts. Then their results are… well, let’s just say that they are not very great.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that one needs a hell of a painting talent in order to be a good designer – but I’m saying that just as it is impossible to create great designs without analytical mindset and problem-solving abilities accompanied by curiosity, creativity and patience, it is also impossible to create them without some intuition, imagination, sensitivity, and without a good sense of aesthetic. Because design is as much about form, as it is about functionality. These two need to go hand in hand for a design to be whole. There is no other way. Point.
Ideally, beauty and utility are mutually generative. In the past, rarely was beauty an end in itself. The magnificent stained-glass windows of Chartres were no less utilitarian than was the Parthenon or the Pyramid of Cheops. The function of the exterior decoration of the Gothic cathedrals was to invite entry; the rose windows inside provided the spiritual mood. Interpreted in the light of our own experiences, this philosophy still prevails.
This is a good quote to read if you still are strongly convinced that design is all about problem solving, and art is totally not. Unfortunately, this is the perspective of someone who only knows the world with designers in it – and such world only started in the beginning of XXth century. Before that it was artists who used creative problem-solving solutions – Leonardo da Vinci being a great example here. And there is nothing strange about it when you think of what it takes to solve problems (like, knowledge, skills, experience and understanding of human behavior) – because great artists happened to have all of that.
So, instead of having the same discussion over and over again, and instead on focusing on what design is not, maybe it is better to focus on what design actually is – and start appreciating each and every aspect of it? Wouldn’t that result in better designs and, therefore, in better products?
The design process is a complex thing. We use techniques and processes that help us keep our focus on users, and our ultimate goal is to create something that is usable and functional. But being occupied with usability and functionality, we should not underestimate the third sister: desirability. Because not taking a proper care of usability and functionality is an excellent recipe for a disaster, but limiting the visual aspect to picking colors and implementing some generic rules and patterns results in designs that, while not bad, are usually simply monotonous and uninspired. And here one thing needs to be said: a monotonous and uninspired design is not what makes a product stand out, and certainly not what makes it desirable.
I think it's ultimately inhuman to only see things for their functionality. We want things to be more than that. The desire for beauty is something that's in us, and it's not trivial.
To tempt people to engage with your product and to make them want to come back for more, you need to generate positive emotions in your audience, help them create emotional connections with your product and make their experience memorable.
And when it comes to working on emotional levels, nothing is better than art.
Now, to make things clear: of course, I don’t mean we should try to make our designs fine art. But in order to make our designs aesthetically pleasing and appealing to people also on emotional levels we need to look past the rules and patterns, we need to consciously employ our skills and creative imagination. We need to give the design a little bit of personality and soul, only then people will get emotional about your product and perceive it as more than just a tool that can be easily replaced with something elseSee, you need some finesse and some freedom in order to be able to make a good design great. You need some art. Acknowledging that design is not only science and technical skills, but also art, you give yourself permission to be an artist in those moments when being an artist is exactly what you need to be. It won’t make you any less of a scientist, an analyst, a planner, an engineer, a manager or whatever else you might need to be while working on a design – it will only make you more complete as a designer. Because neither science nor art in themselves constitute design of great value – superior design happens when the brilliant mind of a designer combines these two aspects.
But here’s my advice; designers, you don’t have to be dumb. Just don’t be so afraid of being beautiful.