Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I often quote Tarkovsky, who said that the goal of art is to loosen the human soul, to prepare it for death. Another wonderful director, Bergman, has similar thoughts. There is another idea that I see again and again from different authors. Last year I saw her at Mamardashvili's, Kant's, and Shklovsky's. The idea is that with the help of art, we remain human. The symbols that it uses help us not to forget about kindness, morality, humanity, and harmony. The language of these symbols is different. From the terrifying, shocking, or downright social to the gentle, descriptive.
In fact, these different thoughts are one thought.
Design and art are intertwined in that what is often made to order becomes art. A designer and an artist (or an illustrator and an artist) are often one person.
The design or illustration is made to order, but these are hardly restrictions. The best illustrators and designers are able to make the most talented works (“see the sky in a flower cup”) that we study in libraries within the given strict limits. There were many such examples in my work. They often talk about design and functionality. design without design, because the main thing is the person. To help or not to prevent a human being from seeing the best person in himself — this is what talented designers and artists are doing.
And the concept is a speculative system. And it can also be a work of art in the above coordinate system)
This is my question, which I asked myself periodically in museums of modern art or looking at books about design. How the hell is one beautiful thing different from another beautiful thing? Here I look at an object in a museum and it's beautiful – and that's art; here I look at an object in a store and it's beautiful – and that's design. The film “Aesthetics” or “100 years of design” or “33 words about design”. Design by design, and a movie about design is really an art form?
I asked this question here. While there were no answers, I saw that the lecture hall “Direct Speech” was hosting a lecture by Ivan Vyrypaev, a brilliant director and screenwriter, with the title “What is art and why we are afraid of it”. Oh, I thought, so I bought two tickets and went. It's probably not very ethical to retell someone else's lecture in your text – but I'm not hiding it, am I? You can't call it a direct quote either, because of course I don't remember exactly what Ivan said. If you are too lazy to read what I write – you can watch the broadcast recording (it seems that it is paid).
Art is a framework. (You can finish here). Art is defined by its limits; there can be no censorship in art precisely because the limits are the boundaries between” real ” insult, impact, aggression – and real life. A framed message leaves the viewer with absolute freedom to make contact or not. Art is the viewer's freedom and decision to interact with an art object within its limits and boundaries – or to pass it by.
Design is real life, improved and in a beautiful wrapper (or not beautiful, if you were less lucky). Wherever there are no borders or borders that separate the object from the viewer – we are in the design zone. At the same time, you can also interact with art objects (such as climbing the Rotunda in Nikola Lenivets). But the message and meaning of the object remain within the framework – and with the design, this framework is not present. What's interesting: the more complex the concept, the more beautiful and simpler the art object. The simpler the concept, the more complex the object can be.
Art is the framework and boundaries around art. Design doesn't involve frames; design is like an atmosphere. Art as aesthetics. Design is like beauty. Beauty has no limits, but aesthetics does. I'm sorry, I left Vyrypaev's lecture a long time ago, but I'm sorry for some reason.
Let's get back to art. Cognition of art, awareness, awareness of art is possible only if there is a distance (aka border) between the one who is looking and what he / she is looking at. What's important. There is one taboo in art, even in the very framework and boundaries. Violence. Any violence is the destruction of boundaries and boundaries, and the distance between those who look at art and the art itself is broken. This art ceases to be such, because the frame that defines it disappears. Any violence destroys art.
Let's start with the well-known statement of A. S. Pushkin “The purpose of poetry is poetry”. It means that poetry is not created for any other reason than because of the natural and irresistible need of the poet to write. There is no pragmatic purpose behind this, no one has ordered a specific poem and is not waiting for it, but still it is born into the world. Of course, poetry can be read as one of the variants of the embodiment of art. So, any work of art is created simply because it can't help but be created.
Design, however, despite the fact that like painting or drawing requires creative forces and skills, is created with a very specific pragmatic goal. The design is usually developed to order and then used. For example, if it is a room design, then its successful execution will attract more customers and the creative project will act as an agent of the capitalist system (and there is nothing wrong with this, just a part of modern life). On average, the designer is not expected to use a “new word”; his task is to simply reproduce and successfully combine the formulas and templates he has seen before.
However, there is no clear line that separates design from art forever. There are many examples that illustrate how a custom-made design project turned into a work of art with inspiration (For example: social posters of avant-gardists of the early XX century: A. M. Rodchenko, V. V. Mayakovsky, E. Lisitsky; Collaboration of the Louis Vuitton house with Jeff Koons, 2017), and the free creative activity of a not too talented art school student did not automatically turn into a masterpiece of national painting).
But what unites design and art is the presence of a common concept or idea. The concept is the heart of any project, its essence. It is something that will be expressed in the language of colors, plastic forms or words, it does not matter. In modern art, there is a reduction to a pure concept (conceptualism) and it turns out that one concept can really express everything that the author wants, without unnecessary details and object forms. So, without a concept, both design and art will be just a collection of fragmented elements.
Design, unlike art, is functional. No function — this is not a design (it can go into the category of art or turn out to be nonsense). It is incorrect to put the concept on a par with them: art has a concept, but design works on the concept of the object to which it is applied. That is, the concept of a concept is “warm”, while design and art are “soft”.
Design is an aesthetic construction. The concept is an expression of the principles of attitude to the world. A work of art is a masterpiece created by a person-a painting, a poem, a musical piece or its performance, or something else (for example, a piece of jewelry, or a man-made landscape garden, or even a smartphone, etc.) that is beautiful, that has a great emotional impact, and makes us better. This is creativity and insight. At the same time, a work of art can be based on the concepts developed by the author and his environment, and use design techniques.
Art is not limited by anything, and initially does not carry any purpose-it is absolute freedom of expression. The design primarily has a utilitarian purpose and is limited by the product format.