Layers of Meaning

Art versus Design

The New York Times reviews the show Design Is Not Art: Functional Objects From Donald Judd to Rachel Whiteread, at the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum. There are some new and interesting quotes in the first half of the article on the "what is art / what is design?" question: "Donald Judd intones that art and design fulfill two entirely different purposes. Scott Burton seems to argue against the distinction, stating that contemporary art is taking an increasingly 'relative,' or physical, relationship to the viewer: 'It will place itself not in front of but around, behind, underneath (literally) the audience in an operational capacity.' Richard Tuttle states sagely that 'a great designer has to know everything while an artist doesn't have to know anything.'"

Finally a conclusion is reached: "Artists can do whatever they want in their art; such liberty is the point of the activity. Design involves a kind of selflessness and a complex awareness of the givens: the human body and its needs, social space, the laws of gravity, the means of production and the demands of the marketplace."

Sadly, from the web view, the review is more interesting and thought provoking than the actual exhibition. The artists invited to submit an object are all "well-known Minimalists, Post-Minimalists and post-Post-Minimalists". The work appears like a reunion of international style groupies who are trying to keep up impressions for in their declining twilight. The chair pictured (right) is supposed to express 'sculpture in love with furniture'. Maybe. But I wouldn't want to sit on it on an icy January night.

I think I'll skip the art and stick with the quotes: "As a designer, however... he can be authoritarian and even sadistic."