Lately there has been a consolidation of ideas, first of all my internal conflict between what it means to be either an artist or designer and secondly reaching an intersection in my research. For this reason I felt compelled to label this post ‘amalgam’ in reference to the uniting of multiple entities into one form. At this moment in time I still remain torn between disciplines; looking for a resolution a self-reflexive debate arose, the paragone between art and graphic design. A paragone (Italian term meaning ‘comparison’) is a debate that surfaced during the Renaissance in which practitioners sought to champion an art form over another. In former analyses I had originally found consolation by determining that graphic design remained entwined in the creative act (a poiesis, a term derivative from the Greek meaning ‘to make’), in principle this remains to be an accurate estimation yet I still feel restless with this resolve. Searching for answers I discovered that my quandary was reciprocated and despite the fact that delineations were found (art makes questions and design makes solutions as discussed in a preceding post), quite often people agreed that graphic design constituted as art and vice versa.
Artist and Architect Giorgio Vasari said that design is the fundamental, the basis for all art, painting, dance, sculpture, writing – it is the fundamental of all the arts. It is the manipulation of form and content in all the arts. So design, and graphic design, is no different from design in painting. If you carry this idea to its natural conclusion, you will decide that here is no difference between design and painting, or design and sculpture, it is all the same.
Paul Rand | Conversations with Students
In conjunction with my introspective search for lucidity concerning the aforementioned internal paragone between artist and designer, was the amalgamation of research in furtherance of my interim viva. Devising a concise narrative posed extremely difficult as I had obtained an extensive influx of information that required refining. This process of reduction proved indispensable and the presentation has surfaced ideas that had previously remained unclear. However, I had intended to demystify my project through the delivery of my presentation having taken on board a number of research seminars and their abridged approach, regrettably I do not feel that I achieved this objective with regard to the spectators of my presentation. Nevertheless the extent of content that I collated in my presentation did feel necessary in order to formulate the complete hypothesis. Over the coming weeks I aim to re-evaluate my convoluted presentation and deduct elements that I deem superfluous in favour of creating a straightforward clarification of my project.
Published by: onorcott in Seminar Discussion