This article is an attempt to show the practical differences between Art and Design, and make clearer some of the distinguishing factors between the two, by comparing both practices and the choices which are made in order to reach a conclusive outcome. In my opinion the writer makes some valid points; 'design in the commercial sense is a very calculated and defined process' this is an accurate statement within the right context, he then goes on to compare design to engineering and many other masculinised processes, leaving you with the impression that he is rather talking about his own practice as compared to that of an artist.
After which he starts to explain his own understanding of Art, and the language he uses changes to become almost feminine; 'Art is something that can elicit a single thought or feeling such as simplicity or strength, love or pain and the composition simply flows from the hand of the artist.' There is some truth in what he says, but it is quite limited and to suggest that an artist can only think of one thing at a time is quite annoying, supposedly this woolly definition he gives is reflected in his own knowledge of art.
What I found more interesting was the debate that this article inspired. Maybe he was intending to cause offense, with his frames of reference to both artists and designers, by doing this he could spark a debate - if this is the case then he was very successful.
'What I was trying to point out was that an artist has no predestined ideas, no specs, they simply feel and they express through the art.'...
He rephrases and corrects himself on several occasions impressively arguing his (somewhat lost) point. Only to be corrected and challenged further by eager participants.
'The only difference between art and design is CONTEXT. That's it. period.'
