In almost all the cases, design processes turn out to be elaboration exercises. Structured elaboration forms the key to any iterative endeavor, may it be design, building a clay sculpture or cooking dinner. If we introspect on the elaboration techniques, we will quickly realize that everything rolls up under ‘heuristics’. “A commonsense rule (or set of rules) harvested from prior experiences which are intended to increase the probability of solving some problem”, is how heuristics is defined :). Experience or heuristics is of two types, collective experience and individual experience. For example, design patterns is a collective knowledge base while hands on development experience is individualistic. You can assimilate design patterns, but you have to strive to aggregate prior design experience.

Having made all the above profound statements, let me try to supplement philosophy with tangible data points. Let me give you an example. Once upon a time, I was faced with a unique problem. I had to design an offline batch system with high throughput requirements. It was a porting project with emphasis on staged migration of functionality, design catering to functional scalability (resilient to business logic changes), high reliability etc.

After a few days of brooding and listening to Nirvana, I came across the following diagram (to the left top). Looking back, this was possibly the most demanding effort in terms of creativity in designing the solution. The conceptual solution formed the nucleus of the design, which was iteratively elaborated to form the final design (shown below).

Each of the iterative elaboration phases were quite easy in themselves, essentially turning out to be optimization problems. For example, in one of the iterations we dealt with the problem of sweeping the processors before reaching the terminator to ensure that no workers were left operative before the terminator was invoked. The solution (second from top) flowed quite logically in terms of the need to wait on each processor for it’s workers to finish. The waiting in turn was controlled by a count-up-count-down latch which was incremented/decremented during the pre-processing and post-processing stages of the workers. So on and so forth.

For many weeks, I thought that the initial pen sketch design was the bolt of lightning, the art, which could not be arrived at by deductive analysis of the problem. But then, I realized that even the pen sketch was heavily influenced by the constraints I was dealing with and my previous experiences. For example, you can clearly see influences of ’service bus’ (mediator), ‘chain of responsibility’, ‘activator’ and ‘executor’ patterns. I had worked with each of them individually in the past but possibly never in this permutation.

It was quite disheartening to see my feeling of ingenuity dissolve away. I have observed that in most of the cases, ingenuity is expressed in assembling prior knowledge in a suitable permutation to solve the problem at hand. It is the art of assembly and the swiftness with which one is able to evaluate multiple alternatives against the constraints and choose the optimal one, that makes the difference between a good design and a not so good design.

The success of a design, I have realized, lies on three pillars.

a) It is very important to realize all the constraints that the design needs to satisfy. Constraints include documented requirements (functional and non functional), implementation platform limitations, team strengths etc. The cost of missing out on constraints goes progressively high as you elaborate through the design.

b) Knowledge of patterns, tools, techniques and reusable components. It is said that design should be tools/technology agnostic. I find this statement to be grossly misinterpreted. It’s only the conceptual design that has minimal influence from the platform of implementation, rest all start getting progressively influenced by implementation tools and techniques. For example, the knowledge of the Executor pattern was quite fundamental is coming up with the specification level design. If I have had no clue of the executor pattern, the design most probably would have been radically different.

c) Solutioning and their evaluation. Each of the design constraints can be solved in a multitude of ways. However only fixed combinations of solutions cater to all the constraints put together. It is important to understand that a design is never right, wrong, good or bad on an absolute scale. A design is good or bad in reference to the constraints it tries to solve.

Well, so what’s new? These three points form the basis of any solution irrespective of domain or kind of work. Understanding constraints, having the required knowledge to solve the constraints and evaluating possible solutions are things we do even when shopping for vegetables or shoes. What’s so special about designing a software solution? Is it just that the tools, knowledge and evaluation criteria are different than that for vegetable shopping? And what about the philosophy of ‘art’ being a part of design ?

I had started off this blog trying to project designing as a by product of a superior thought process, but then it is not true. Software design is just like solving anything else, it’s just the knowledge of technology, understanding of constraints and ability to evaluate solutions that makes the difference. And none of them is rocket science. All it requires is knowledge, practice and logical thinking.

Oh btw, forgot to mention, to acquire these three qualities it takes time, devotion and practice, lots and lots of it.

Regards,
Sandeep.

Art asks questions.

Design gives answers.

I think that most of the need to insist that design is not art stems from the related need to make non-visual people understand that design is not 100% subjective, which many, many business people still believe - even today.

I have a short presentation that I’ve given with a number of simple everyone-can-get-it facets that clearly demonstrate the difference. Here’s one of the slides:

In art, red is never ‘wrong’.

In design, red can be wrong, and the wrongness can be described in both technical and conceptual terms, and sometimes even measured.

We have two criteria for design here:

1) Does it serve to solve a problem?

2) Does it succeed in solving it?

The criteria for Art, as you mention, is harder. It would have something to do with how well it satisfies the purpose of the Artist as well as if it is appreciated or not.

Do you have an alternative?

In this sort of discussion, it’s necessary to stick to basic ideas and leave our preconceived notions of those words out of the picture. Where certain (stickier) words are necessary, we should narrowly define them. In that spirit, here are my starting points:

Art has, as we know, many definitions. The Oxford American Dictionaries define it as “the expression or application of human creative skill or imagination.” Another definition is “a skill at doing a specified thing, typically through practice.” For my purposes I’m going to use the more specific term fine art, meaning products which “are to be “appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.”

Fine doesn’t refer to beauty or quality, but is more directly related to the word “finished” or “completed,” derived from the Latin finis meaning end. The idea comes from Aristotelian philosophy, and is succinctly defined in Wikipedia’s article on fine art: “The final cause of fine art is the art object itself; it is not a means to another end except perhaps to please those who behold it.”

With that out of the way, let us find a narrow definition for design. One definition is “a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of [an object].” Another is the “purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.” I’ll stick with the second definition.

Design is from the Latin designare, related to the word designate. The root signum means “a mark [or] sign” (source). The idea is that “something” is designed, or designated as a symbol for particular function or purpose.

Note: When I talk about art and design, I am referring to both the product of art and design, and the processes.

So let’s recap: Fine art is something whose purpose is itself. Design is something is whose purpose is some outside function.

With that basic axiom (something that is accepted to be true) we can answer a few questions.

First: “Fine art, design, science, engineering. How do these relate?” Briefly, and in less detail, here are two definitions of science and engineering:

Science: Studied alone, for itself.
Engineering: Done for pragmatic purposes other than itself.

Following from these definitions, design and engineering are equivalent. Give 20 engineers or designers a problem, you’ll get 20 different solutions (not one as was suggested here). That problem can be how to design a web-based navigational system. Or it could be, to use a prior example, to design a car door handle. The solutions will vary in their benefits and their drawbacks. One type of car handle might be appropriate for smaller doors, but may not posess enough mechanical advantage to open larger doors. A tabbed-based navigation scheme may work for a site with 8 or less links, but it breaks down as a site expands.

Similarly, art and science are equivalent. Scientists study the phenomena of the physical world. They chart the effects of gravity, or record the motion of the stars. They test theoretical boundaries. They engage in tests. They do things we might consider useless. Artists study the representation of either of the physical world or the imagination. They sketch, they paint. They do things we might consider useless. The driving theme is that they are done for themselves.

(Sidetrack: The word useless is an interesting one, especially as it is applied to abstract art. It fits with my definitions perfectly, in that art and science can be considered useless, or without use, in that they don’t have any immediate purpose. That is the job of design and engineering.)

“OK, but still, how do art and design relate, and science and engineering?” It’s easy enough to make these distinctions between fine purpose and pragmatic purpose. The confusion, or blurriness comes from the general pattern of pragmatic concerns driving fine pursuits. The quest for wealth and riches led to the study of alchemy, a “science.” The quest towards usable, effective interfaces led to specialized studies in psychology. But even with this connection, art is not design, and science is not engineering.

“Not so fast! These aren’t my definitions. In fact you’re cherry-picking certain aspects of the terms art and design, and science and engineering for that matter.” Yes, I am. It’s also irrelevant. As I first stated, the purpose of communication and discussion is the transmission of ideas. I could have just as easily said that “Logdag is something whose purpose is itself. Trunkling is something is whose purpose is some outside function” and my argument would have stood. The terms themselves are irrelevant. I stated basic ideas and then followed those through to their natural conclusions.

“OK then, so what’s the bloody point of all this discussion if terms are pointless?!” That’s the problem isn’t it? Let’s look at one definition for art, from Dictionary.com: “the craft or trade using these principles or methods.” Well that sounds awfully like my definition for design. The point here is that basic terms and definitions serve to simplify and facilitate conversation. In general this works. When I used the word “general,” there was no confusion as to whether I meant “roughly” or was referring to an army commander. In other situations, like this very topic, the identifiers are loosely bound to the identified. Could it be concluded, contrary to my arguments, that “design” is nothing like “engineering,” as was stated earlier? Sure, but not using my definitions. You can apply any number of ideas to one word.

That’s the problem, I think, with this discussion in general and any discussion dealing with semantic meaning. If you don’t make it clear what your preconceived definitions are, the argument is, in more senses than one (see side track above), useless. In this case, I have chosen definitions that I think are the most relevant and useful. I think that when most of us are talking about art in this context, we are referring to fine art, and when most of us are talking about design in this context, we are talking about pragmatic design. Is this the correct decision? Correctness has nothing to do with it. Like an axiom, it is plucked out of thin air, something that is at best self-evident, and otherwise the result of pure whim. With my two axioms (art is self-fulfilling, design is “outside-fulfilling”), the answer is no. Design is not art.

Conclusion: Deal with ideas not definitions. Only then will you have anything useful to guide you or can meaningful conversation flourish.

– Vernon

I think the main problem is the misunderstanding of what design means. Popular culture pretty much defines it merely by the aesthetic, hence leading people to equate it with art and hence this debate.

I’m definitely with those who say design is not art, but rather the two can intersect. And as some people have alluded to, perhaps the best way to make the distinction is to say that art follows the objectives of the artist, whereas design should follow the objectives of the user.

Art is selfish, despite any altruistic motivations the artist might have. They do what they want, and it involves personal expression.

True design serves the needs of the user. But realistically the designer may introduce art into the process of design for whatever reason, and that’s not necessarily to the detriment of the design.

What does make things worse, and what annoys me no end, is when ‘designers’ use the title illegitimately because all they aim to do is satisfy their own desires, ignoring their responsibility as a designer to solve a problem and meet user needs. In this case they are practicing art.

So art and design can - and dare I say typically do - live in harmony, but that’s not always the case. The exceptions are what cause debates such as this.

Lastly, I am a trained engineer and I work as a designer of sorts. They’re both about problem solving, and I would say they are the same thing (engineering may involve more technical aspects but conceptually they are the same).

I am stunned. Not once did anyone mention Frank Lloyd Wright. This man is arguably one of the best examples of someone who is a designer and an artist. What he has designed in his illustrious career was and is the epitome of art meeting function.

From a more current aspect I’d also point at Vern Yip (of Trading Spaces Fame) who is very much a interior designer, and architect and a designer.

Now of course we’re talking about the Web in most of the discussion above but I think architectural procedures and design brought to the Web have been responded to very, very well. It seems to me it does a disservice to our craft to say what we do as designers has no relation to art. That art by itself has no function. I guess I just can’t accept that.

You say:
“That’s a big difference between design and art. We can measure the results of design because it’s meant to solve a problem. We can see if the problem has been resolved or lessened in some way. With Art we can’t do that…other than some subjective “Do you like it?”.”

Joshua,
If you really feel you must quantify art, to measure it — other than an outright beauty that is appreciated by others — I would argue that it is not necessary that art has a use. I would argue that useful things can be art. I would argue that something can be designed without art in mind and still become a surprising expression of art. “One person’s junk is another man’s art.”

I would also argue that is possible to be artistic, not have a function in mind, but yet that art is functional. In that at least I do see a possible point in your favor there: If you begin to “design” art at all, you find yourself fulfilling a function and designing for that function. Regardless of the medium. These are my off-the-cuff thoughts on the subject and I believe this is worth additional contemplation.

Pretty good article there Joshua, you’ve gotten us all talking

It also shows there’s some kind of a discussion to be set worldwide about what design or a designer eventually is or happens to be.

Anyway, may it be stated very simply:
DESIGN’S NOT ART, IS NOT ART, IS NOT ART.

So, I want to thank you all, first for this very exciting follow up of post and replies.

Then I felt like posting you Erik Spiekermann’s text to let you feel how practitioners mostly think it out:

Design’s not art

Design is first and foremost an intellectual process. Contrary to popular belief, designers are not artists. They employ artistic methods to visualize thinking and process, but, unlike artists, they work to solve a client’s problem, not present their own view of the world. If a design project, however, is to be considered successful – and that would be the true measure of quality – it will not only solve the problem at hand, but also add an aesthetic dimension beyond the pragmatic issues. I consider design not to be a series of “creative” one-offs, but an integrated process, from planning the appropriate communications strategy to designing functional and beautiful objects as well as – for example – implementing electronic stationery on clients’ systems. What clients say and what designers hear are too often very different things. Design is a powerful tool to help clarify the problem. It is only when a common understanding has been established between client and designer that effective results can be achieved. Design quality needs an integrated approach: look more closely than expected, ask many questions, think laterally, get involved in things you shouldn’t, do more than you are supposed to and have fun doing it. Problem solving is one thing, aesthetic pleasure another. Combine the two, make the engineer sketch like an artist and make the artist analyze like an engineer, and you are half-way there.

Erik Spiekermann Berlin, March 2005