Comparison of Two Objects by Jay Han, 2017

Art Functionality vs. Design Functionality

Finding the function of an object by looking at its constraints and phases.

At Particles Design Lab, we are constantly having debates about what design is, and what its role is across various different fields. These are the musings of our Lab Coordinator Jay Han.

What’s the difference?

As a human product of the Concordia University design program, I’ve been influenced to believe that the main difference between art and design is that creators have very separate intentions for the function of a design compared to that of an artwork. The goal of a designer is to make their product as simply understood as possible for the handler(s): including all stages such as production, shipping, retail, consumption, usage and disposal. As Dieter Rams’ commandment goes: “Good Design is honest and includes as little design as possible.” Whereas for the artist, it really depends on how s/he intends for other viewers to interact with the artwork, if at all.

Generally in art: the artist mandates most of his or her own constraints. In design: the stakeholders do the talking.

Art is a form almost purely derived from the artist’s internal thought process. The function of art can be one or many of the following:

1. To convey a visual, tactile or other sensorial appeal through its materiality, form, colour and composition to the creator and/or its audience.
2. To shed light on the way someone sees a part of the world, and twist it, making the audience question themselves and their own way of thinking. Here, art has a political or social function.
3. For therapeutic gratification of the artist him/herself.

In Summers of Discontent, The Purpose of the Arts Today (2014), Raymond Tallis writes, “It falls to art to address the wound in the present tense, and to dress it and perhaps for a while to heal it. Art is about achieving arrival and arresting, however momentarily, becoming to being. A fundamental impulse of the artist (and the delight afforded by art) is rooted in the need to satisfy, if only intermittently, the hunger to be entirely where one is, so that subjective reality and objective situation coincide, and experiences are fully experienced.”

My interpretation of design on the other hand is that it appeases a problem that is much less rooted in aesthetics or emotions. Whereas art has an experimental quality, design takes form from a very specific duty that it must serve in order to solve a very particular problem. This means that there are some precise constraints coming from various external sources such as the user experiences of all the stakeholders of the design, the cost, and the impact on its surrounding environment. In Form, Function, and Design (1960), Paul Jacques Grillo writes, “We may safely say that function is the main criterium of any design…Whatever is not functional is a cancer that destroys the best parts of the work.”

Function is a keyword that I look into when defining something as an art or a design. Sometimes an object seems to fall right in between the two practices. A critical analysis of the object’s constraints and phases will help code out its function.

Let’s take a work that has a questionable set of values: Janet Echelman’s aerial sculpture at Quartier des Spectacles in Montréal. What is this thing?

1.26 Montreal by Janet Echelman 2015, 2016. http://www.echelman.com/project/1-26-montreal/

This aerial sculpture provides an ambient aesthetic to Quartier des Spectacles and completely transforms the experience of the space. The installation is highly technical, involving 3D modelling and innovative textiles. The pieces are built using ultra-high, molecular-weight polyethylene which Echelman says looks delicate but is immensely strong.

Let’s take a look at the external constraints of this public intervention:

1. The built environment of the Quartier des Spectacles.
2. The natural environment (weather, noise, animals, leaves, etc).
3. The cost of the city permit, materials, and hiring hands for the installation, maintenance & take down.
4. Its structural integrity for the safety of the users of the space and the installation team.
5. Montreal policies for public art.

What else? I swear there’s more that we, as spectators, never see.

Use your critical judgement. To you, the individual: would you argue that this is a design? If you are having a hard time, then welcome to my world.

Let’s break it down into phases.

Phase one: During Echelman’s initial research and experimentation, she was the mandator of what she wanted to make and how to make her potential audience feel a kind of way. Her constraints were internal. This was art-thinking.

Phase two: Echelman’s process had an immense amount of design involved (and even some engineering). Remember that list of constraints? This was heavy on the design side.

Phase three. THE FUNCTION PHASE: A microstorm of people came to Quartier des Spectacles and experienced the new space, especially at night. During the day, it was an almost invisible, giant soap bubble. During the night it was a bold & bioluminescent jellyfish. How was it utilized? Not to carry out a physical task, but to solely create emotion in the audience. To create a sense of space in the air above them through this levitating, ephemeral, underwater-like wonder. Much art. Many wow.

Sooo… was it art or design? I’d say art. But that’s just one design student’s opinion.

All art and design serves some purpose. Understanding its purpose can help the beholder classify it under one category more than the other.