i do agree that art direction and design is kind of lost at the moment, especially in the digital world. that is something that is bothering me and hopefully i'll get some concrete ideas about that in a future post.]]>
and then the results were broken up into categories.
personally, i think jackson pollock is an artist and paul rand is a graphic designer. one creates for himself, and other for his client.]]>
A designer should have the best interests of the project at hand, not the client personally. You need to bring all of your conceptual thought, emotional impulses and educated mind to bear – if you don't, then you are of little service to the client and just a person who knows how to use Adobe suite. They WILL LOOK AT YOU as just a person who knows how to use Adobe suite.
Art Direction and Design has indeed lost it's mystique, and now days clients stand over your shoulder telling you where to push things around, and when to bump up the font size. As a result, design education is definitely losing it's focus on a fully rounded arts education and focusing more on using computer applications.]]>
Aesthetics is not the opposite of “meaning,” Style is not the opposite of substance. If you think of these as opposites, then your design definitely isn't art – and more importantly, it isn't EVEN functional.]]>
Design can be art; art cannot be design.]]>
It doesn't answer the question above, but Steven Heller's article Curse of the “D” Word seems slightly relevant to this debate.]]>