Before moving a step forward, I would like to go over a question that seems to fuel an unwarranted debate around the web and elsewhere: the difference between art and design.
What they say:
- Art is about talent, design is about skills.
- Art is subjective, design is objective.
- Art is interpreted, design is understood.
- Art is about taste, design is about objectives.
- Art inspires, design motivates.
What I say:
- Art is art, design is design.
The comparison between design and art is irrelevant, to say the least. Design is a rational process with clearly defined objectives and constraints, whereas art is a free form of expression. Design is utilitarian: it is first and foremost about solving problems, beauty comes second.
The top logo in the example below is more prone to fulfill its design objectives than the one below: a logo’s main mission is to help identify a business or an entity, thus it should be memorable, original and scalable. The left logo contains too much colors and tiny details that would make it look unpleasantly jaggy on a business card: the scalability and memorability has been sacrificed for aesthetics.
Regardless of its artsiness, the quality of design is intrinsic to its ability to achieve initially assigned objectives, in a given time-space frame.
PS: The logos above are for illustration purposes only. They are far from being the perfect examples.