I was always told that the difference between art and design is that the artist creates the problem, and the designers solve them.

I thought it followed the Socrates tradition in that the true philosopher is the one asking the questions, and it is the role of the student to answer them.

I wish I remembered who I am quoting here

▲

colechristensen 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I wish ancient Greek techne τέχνη hadn't gone through the split that left "art" on one side and "technology" (or work?) on the other.

The split of art vs. design you're talking about or one of the many ways to divide the act of creation into a classical/romantic divide or one of the many other ways to describe it should be considered harmful.

And I'm not trying to split hairs here but wishing the dichotomy you're talking about didn't exist and encouraging folks not to frame the world that way.

▲

woolion 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To echo your point, there is no "art" at all without "technology"; from cave paintings, paint tubes, to digital tablets...

▲

uxhacker 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Where is the harm? You can be in both worlds at the same time.

If we think of Leonardo da Vinci he created both art that created problems, and inventions that solved problems. But these world where very separate.

▲

colechristensen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Your mental models of the world are reflected in how you interact with it.

If you have an idea that there's a split between "creating beautiful stuff" and "creating useful stuff" then your world turns into one where something is only one or the other where someone creating only does one or the other.

These days it's thought of unique or special if something is both and the fact this isn't standard is influenced by the mental model of them being separate.

	▲	throwway120385 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Moreover the people who create useful things don't often take the time to try to make them beautiful, with the result that everything is a utilitarian grey box with some buttons on it.