Art From Data. Or Is It Design?
2008 April 21
Frame That Spam! Data-Crunching Artists Transform the World of Information, an interactive piece on wired.com, showcases several beautiful examples of art generated from data. The usual crew are well-represented — Aaron Koblin, Casey Reas — plus some names that were new to me.
Many of the pieces are more artsy and less “design-y” than the work we do at DMI, simply because the visualizations are intended to be more emotional than practical. I define practical as interpretable, meaning the data values could be extracted from the visual elements. A bar chart is easily interpretable: the height of each bar (y) represents a number, and its horizontal position (x) reflects another value (time or some other grouping). Waves and waves of technicolor text, in contrast, may be beautiful and evoke a general sense of the data involved, but is probably not easily interpreted, except by the algorithm that drew it.
I keep struggling with this artificial distinction between art and design, wondering why emotional pieces are labeled art, while more ostensibly functional pieces are considered design. Doesn’t good design evoke an emotional response? And can’t artwork be functional, too? I usually identify more as a designer than an artist, but I am beginning to question the usefulness of both of those terms. Traditionally, art was more purely expressive, and design more data-driven, but now that we have “fine artists” doing intensively data-driven work, the distinction is starting to feel outdated.
Image credit: Detail from Textour by Tim Walter.
I too have been thinking about the distinction between art and design. I have come to the conclusion that while there is a meaningful distinction in my own practice, it is difficult to make any kind of universal distinction.
Art is always self expression first. If I create an art work and it speaks to someone else that’s great, but if it fails to speak to someone else that’s fine too. Often the result of the art making process is a new language forged from personal reflection.
In Design, I always put the needs of my user first. I generally try to use widely accepted rules and standards (not invent new ones)to assure clarity in communicating to my audience. If I design something that fails to speak to my user, that is a failure of design.
These are two very separate modes of creation for me. I am consciously working towards breaking down the walls although there will always be elements that a classify as belonging to one or the other. Curious how others feel about this in their own practice versus trying to define it in universal terms.
Comment by Jason — 2008 April 22 @ 10:10 am
Thanks, Jason. I wanted to share this new definition of art, from Peter Schjeldahl in the latest New Yorker:
So maybe design is design because it meets a “practical need,” whereas art is impractical? That doesn’t really help, but it is interesting, at least.
Comment by Scott — 2008 April 28 @ 12:49 pm