Of course. Art and Design are brothers and sisters, distinct individuals but from the same pen. Don’t get me wrong — design is artistic, and design can share and illicit many of the same values and emotions as art can, but I still hold on to the principle that design — good design- should be answering a question that has been asked of its creator. Art can do that too, but for me it is not required of it to validate its quality or effectiveness. Just to clarify, I am speaking from the perspective of a professional designer (and do not consider myself to be an artist, as much as I would like to be!)
That question can sometimes be asked by the creator (designer) themselves. There is “graphic art” too of course which straddles the line, but still then there is an intention behind its existence which is being answered by the designer: e.g. “I am designing something that looks COOL on a wall”. Thats totally valid too, of course, and sometimes great, although ultimately I see it as design rather than art. Shepherd Fairey is a great example of a creative who has shimmied between being an artist and being a designer consistently throughout his career, because the intention and purpose of the things he makes constantly flip flops too. Andre the Giant with OBEY written underneath it was closer to art when it was anonymously and mysteriously plastered across billboards, but it was definitely design when it was printed onto a t-shirt.
The reason why designers should learn about art history is because design can learn many things from art, which help influence the answers that design should seek to provide. Composition, use of colour, use of negative space etc are all key parts of design as well as art. I absolutely agree that all designers, especially students, should learn about art history.
And then we come to the premodern artists and designers. Its tricky when we look back on art and design history because we start to apply what we know and understand now to a context which we are disconnected from. An artist commissioned to create propaganda is design before maybe we knew what this kind of design was. The name “graphic designer” for example has only existed for about 50 years, before that people we today recognize as graphic designers were called “commercial artists”. I also don’t think we should elevate design to the status of “art” because it has transcended the time in which it was created by virtue of being damn clever and revolutionarily beautiful.
Paul Rand and Milton Glaser made design. George Lois made design. Toulouse-Lautrec also made design. The Bauhaus produced both but never something that was both. This is because what was created was the visual result of an idea they had to ask a question, communicate a point, illicit a feeling, be controversial or be beautiful or be exciting (or maybe all of the above) with the predefined goal that they had to sell a magazine or promote a Bob Dylan show. Remove “Esquire” from above the image and maybe you could call it art, but thats a different conversation all together. An individual can be both an artist and a designer, but a piece of work is one or the other. Those lines are not always clear and there is a lot of overlap — something I love about design- but ultimately there will always be an intention either way behind the work, and for me that intention defines it. Design almost always (but not exclusively) has some kind of commercial intention behind it. Art shouldn't and does not need to. When it does, well, usually that artwork really sucks. Of course, like all creative work there is no black and white answer and there are many examples of something that makes the differentiation between art and design very hard to define.
