Which was followed by a video that proposed it knew the origin, as if it were a succinct, concise point in time. I'm not going to post the video, but I find these types of broad and over generalized answers really confuse people. And in some cases, they convolute the means to understanding what design is.
Design is a function, not a specific form.
This is a very broad question. The video referenced juxtaposes Design with Art, as a lot of the speaker's references are not examples of Design. They're overly-generalized examples of art, architecture, and later, design.
These types of videos confuse the terms for people.
Everything is considered an art-form, but under no circumstances is one form definitively art. If we replace the word art with design, the previous statement is still true.
Design, as defined through it's etymology originates from to word designate.
This is why we preface design functions with more discriminate titles: Fashion Designer; Graphic Designer; Industrial Designer; Interior Design; User Interface Designer. The prefix denotes context for a type of design.
Function has now been given a form.
The function of design is to solve problems.
Art does not require function.
If you're one of those people who are interested in learning the/a history:
Start with history—itself, and then art-history. I would suggest starting with what's considered contemporary design thinking, and work your way back.
Art with an objective subsequently becomes design.
Add a comment