Your examples are well taken. Hendrix and Howlin’ Wolf are great examples of artists who succeed in evoking strong emotional responses from their work for many people (myself included), as most music aspires to do.

An entire industry that aspires to touch the soul is the marketing and advertising industry, which I think we can agree falls within the realm of design. We are constantly bombarded with messages that, for example, tell us to “protect your loved ones” — a typical ploy used by insurance agencies. These are messages specifically *designed* to evoke emotional responses. They aspire, successfully or not, to touch us where we are most fragile in order to sell us something.

Here is an example of a very good design firm based in Austria whose mission statement is:
“To us, design means the articulation of people’s desires and fears, drawing its strength from the collective subconscious of mankind. In this sense, design is a cultural service to society. Design is a poetic discipline that is indispensable for the definition of man in the Universe. Concepts such as ritual, culture and poetry are at the centre of our work.”

You can visit their website here: EOOS

And I think that the line between art and design should be blurred. My personal definition of art versus design is that genuinely honest art is created without the market in mind– you are simply creating. Design is created with the market in mind– and the medium does not matter. If you’re a musician or painter, and purposefully crafting your work in order to sell, you’ve become a designer.

“Form follows emotion.”
-Helmut Esslinger, founder of product design firm frog design

Can you give me examples of design that does aspire to touch the soul?

I personally can’t think of any piece of design that would equal the soulful, human and emotional response of say, Hendrix’s “Manic Depression” or Howlin’ Wolf’s “Smokestack Lightning”…

When, I say art aspires to “touch the soul” this is not only an emotive response. I say art’s purpose is to move and touch (etc…) the entire personhood (mind, spirit, body, etc…)…”the soul”…

So my point was…set a base-line for measuring art vs design then you might have a fair debate. But designers and artists by their craft generally need to see things different because their purposes are different.

For example, in my own work I’ve struggled because I’ve had problems “thinking design” when I usually “think art”. This is a problem because many of my design teachers have been graphic designers where the line between art and design in their own methodology is blurred.

Rodriguez’s quote shortsightedly overlooks all of the design work that does aspire to “touch one’s soul” and the artwork that has so many purposes other than emotive reasons.

capa– Does art not change the way we live in the world? If you see the world differently, you cannot escape living in the world differently. The same is true with design– The way you “live” in the world changes the way you see it.

Meiert– Art does not necessarily hide. Art can bring great clarity to the world by bringing the important (or non-important) issues/things/etc. to the forefront of our minds, especially when we are bombarded daily with so much information and objects created by designers. Also, for something to be useful does not necessarily mean that it must be physically applied. Art has an intellectual function, and that function has the power to move people.

Andy– I like how your quote is so succinct, but I cannot see how, for instance, a still-life of a fruit bowl creates so many problems. Or that the design of a manufactured object solves so many. Think of the environmental problems objects create, ie. energy expended in material extraction, manufacturing, shipping, storage, disposal, etc. Design can also create social problems, such as placing emphasis on owning a nice house with nice things and a nice car, rather than on a truly good life that is not so material. I challenge you to come up with a modern piece of design that has honestly and truly solved more problems than it has created.

Szeto’s statement is well-written, and I agree for the most part. But for the sake of argument, and for just plain being picky, many artists do often cross into the realm of design when creating in order to make a living, and many designers are motivated by their own personal set of problems.

Spiekermann also says some good things, but really does not address the question.