top of page

Art versus Design. What is the difference between?

Bridging Creativity and Purpose: The Intersection of Art and Design.

The Subtle Influence of Scent: How Cleaning Aromas Make Us Tidier The environments we inhabit influence us in surprising and often subconscious ways, shaping how we think, feel, and act. One particularly intriguing example is the impact of scent on behaviour. Research reveals that a subtle aroma of cleaning liquid in the air can inspire tidier and more conscientious actions, even when people are unaware of the scent’s influence. This phenomenon highlights the nonconscious power of olfactory cues to affect our cognition and habits, offering fascinating insights into how sensory elements in our surroundings can encourage positive behaviours and enhance the spaces we share.  The Aroma of Cleaning Liquid Makes People Behave Tidier A subtle yet powerful effect occurs when the aroma of cleaning liquid lingers in the air: people unconsciously behave in a cleaner and tidier manner. This fascinating behavioural shift is supported by research from Rob W. Holland, Merel Hendriks, and Henk Aarts, who explored the unconscious influence of scent on human cognition and behaviour.  In their groundbreaking studies, the researchers examined how exposure to citrus-scented cleaning products affected participants' thoughts and actions without their conscious awareness. The first two studies revealed that participants who were unobtrusively exposed to the scent of all-purpose cleaner demonstrated heightened mental accessibility to the concept of cleaning. This was evidenced by their quicker recognition of cleaning-related words and a higher likelihood of listing cleaning-related activities when asked to describe their expected behaviours for the day.  The third study took the research a step further, showing that exposure to the scent caused participants to physically act in a tidier manner. During an eating task, those in a room with the faint aroma of cleaning liquid kept their immediate environment significantly cleaner than those in a neutral-scented room. Awareness checks confirmed that participants were unaware of the scent's influence on their behaviour, highlighting the powerful and nonconscious impact of olfactory cues.  As Dr. Rob W. Holland, a lead researcher on the subject, explains, "Our studies show that subtle olfactory cues, like the scent of a cleaning product, can nonconsciously influence behaviours and thought processes, encouraging actions aligned with the aroma’s associations, such as cleanliness and order." This finding underscores the remarkable ability of scent to shape our thoughts and actions in subtle, unconscious ways.  Implications for Space Design These studies highlight the potential for integrating olfactory cues into space design to promote desired behaviours. Whether in homes, workplaces, or public environments, the strategic use of scent could subtly encourage cleaner and more organised actions. By using pleasant, subtle aromas like citrus-based cleaning products, spaces can be designed not only to appear clean but also to inspire occupants to maintain that cleanliness unconsciously.  As the researchers concluded, "The present studies reveal the nonconscious influence that olfactory cues can have on thinking and doing." This insight opens up exciting possibilities for enhancing environments through thoughtful sensory design. By leveraging the subtle power of scent, we can create spaces that not only function well but also encourage positive behavioural patterns in those who inhabit them.
 

Art and design, though often interwoven in our daily lives, serve distinct purposes and evoke different responses. Both rely on creativity and imagination, sharing fundamental principles like colour, balance, and rhythm. However, their divergence lies in intent and execution. While art asks questions and invites emotional or social reflection, design focuses on solving problems with clarity and purpose.


In this Article we delve into the nuanced contrasts between art and design, exploring how their intentions and impacts shape our understanding and experience of these creative expressions.


A Negroni-fuelled and lively post-dinner party debate over the weekend was cantered on the arts and their core differences in terms of value, contribution, and outcome. As the arena for this discussion was our lounge, filled with paintings, etchings, drawings, and sculptures, the debate soon became focused on the differences between creative visual arts and design.


While agreeing that both essentially involve applying imagination and creativity to a process, while sharing the same fundamental principles of colour, shape, line, balance, contrast, and rhythm, they are clearly different. The question for this brief missive is how? As I sit here nursing a coffee to try and sharpen the haze induced by one too many Negronis, I don’t recall the entire conversation precisely. But I do remember we agreed that art, within its creation, usually has the aim of asking social or political questions, with a more inward focus of contemplation and emotion. And while art doesn’t necessarily exist to solve a specific problem, it does highlight its existence. So, with this rather profound thought in mind, and with a black coffee in hand, I am going to endeavour to retrace the steps of our conversation, backed up with a bit of apposite research, to cogitate on this question a little more deeply.


This quote by John Maeda seems to be a good launch point:

“Design is a solution to a problem. Art is a question to a problem.”

This might initially seem to be one part sweeping statement and one part over simplification, but a brief Google search produced this quote from an article by Suhad M., entitled The Difference Between Design and Art, published in UX Planet in April 2020:

“Art is created to provoke thought and emotions in the consumer, to be appreciated. Art does not exist to fulfill any specific goal. Art leaves the consumer pondering, in awe, contemplating over its meaning and the way they wish to perceive it. In other words, art usually asks questions. Design, on the other hand, has no room for awe or contemplation. Design has a set goal. A problem that it aims to solve. Design exists to fill a purpose. Design finds solutions.”

So, if we begin with the assumption that the difference between art and design lies in the intention, then we can say that art, in its purest form, has no boundaries on intent. Art expresses the viewpoint of the artist: it either asks social or political questions or exists purely for the purpose of adding beauty to its environment. By contrast, design doesn’t have this luxury. Design always has a purpose. It must achieve a defined goal, and if it doesn’t, it’s judged to be bad. Moreover, if we posit that art is driven by internal constraints, self-imposed by the artist, then we can argue that design is driven by the external constraints of problem-solving.


Art can be vague about what it conveys. It can provoke intense thought and emotion, which, as our discussion last night illustrated, is acutely subjective in interpretation and impact.  Callie van der Merwe mentions,

“Design cannot afford to be vague. Vague design is bad design. Design can leave no room for interpretation, and so must provoke the same understanding in many people.”

In this sense, art is more about self-expression: more concerned with inner approval than external acceptance, whereas designers must be more outward-looking and need to be completely selfless, putting their egos aside and placing themselves in the shoes of the user to evoke empathy for their problem. The design needs to appease the user, leaving no room for self-expression. Therefore, where great art can afford to generate polarised opinions, triggering essential debate, it does not have to appeal to everyone. The corollary here is that great design cannot afford to polarise opinions. It needs to be user-friendly: it must have broad and clear function, and unilateral aesthetic appeal.


“Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”

Clearly, this question merits a lot more sober thought and debate. That said, I am reminded of the Ballmer Peak, named after Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, which asserts that imbibing alcohol can improve cognitive ability and creativity up to a specific consumption point, 0.075 to be exact. Sadly, it’s all downhill after that, as evidenced by this morning’s haze. And while studies show that the Ballmer effect is incredibly advantageous for creativity, it is not so great for working memory. And so I fear that our nuanced and Negroni-infused philosophical musings last night may be lost forever…


In conclusion, the distinction between art and design lies in their purpose and intent. While art provokes thought, stirs emotion, and invites subjective interpretation, design seeks to solve problems with clarity, functionality, and empathy. Both are invaluable forms of creativity, each enriching human experience in its own way. Understanding these differences allows us to appreciate the unique value they bring to our lives, whether through the contemplation of art or the seamless utility of great design.


 

Edited & Co-Author

Brian Steel | Steel Edge Consulting 


Information Reference Index:

The Difference Between Art and Design.

Art vs. Design – A Timeless Debate.

The Truth About Art vs. Design.

The Art of the Question.

Behind the Design: 5 Stories of Great Inspiration.

Art or Design: What’s the Difference?

Design Thinking vs Artistic Expression.

The Purpose of Design and Art



Recent Posts

See All

Kommentare


bottom of page