Reading Response

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

“Art appears when what is made feels as if there is a profound misunderstanding at the heart of what it is, as if it were made with the wrong use in mind, or the wrong idea about what it is capable of, or simply the wrong set of assumptions about what it means to fully function in the world. A work works by not working at all. By not obeying the law of any system or authority external to the process of its own making, a work emphatically expresses its own right to exist for itself and in itself, and questions — by merely existing — the rule of law that works to bind all to semblance of the common good. Art is a lawless proposition.” Do you agree with Chan’s definition of art? Do you think this can be extended to design as well?

     Chan believes that art must be outside of the cultural norm and innately different, thus provoking a reaction that the piece is “wrong”. Art, then, cannot obey any system of governance or it would fail to incite this feeling. It is a “struggle between what the artist wants and what the material is willing to be” which creates something “neither fully intentional nor completely accidental” (Chan 2). This animation of art helps free the artist from regulation. While Chan’s description can be applied to free form design, its applications are limited in commercial work and community-based interfaces.

    Commercial design must often obey rules in order to be successful. Artistic success is an objective measure. An artist makes art to express emotions or demonstrate an idea and “there are as many ways of making art as there are artists” (Chan 1). As a result, any work of art can have success if it incites thoughts or feelings. On the other hand, success in the market is quantifiable; there is a clear return on investment. For example, an A/B test might show that one advertisement gets more clicks and conversions than another. This success is governed by convention. A level of creativity beyond the bounds of normality might win this competition, as Chan states, but marketing books and blogs have tried and tested design rules. This indicates that following rules can result in commercial success. Jan Tsichold’s work and publications, particularly his redesign of Penguin Books which included a standardization of size, fonts and typographic layout, present another argument supporting conventionality in commercial work.

    In addition, Dan Michaelson, in the 2012 interview “Sometimes it looks like a duck, sometimes it looks like a rabbit: Governance structures in graphic design, decorative form in law, and schools in the public sphere” notes that design is moving towards platforms. He adds that “there’s a fuzzy spectrum between graphic design…and software design,” whose success is reliant on users (Michaelson). Empowerment, he claims, involves making up a set of rules for users that enforce a consistent aesthetic. This means that design requires rules. A website that one can navigate easily can still be art. Still, Chan’s lawlessness of art is obeyed in some cases; for example, the Yale School of Art website, a wiki, occasionally contains copywritten images or controversial designs. However, a community based forum like this one is subject to democratic opinion, often creating a pressure towards conformity. While this need not be obeyed, this pressure can change the nature of art.

    I agree that some art is lawless, and the surprising nature of lawlessness creates intrigue, yet one cannot disregard art that follows convention. As exciting as a controversial work can be, an artist following the strict traditions of Dutch still life paintings deserves to be recognized for his or her work.