- What is the purpose of a designer, do they always work for a stakeholder?
Designers serve to solve problems and answer questions that are posed by an outside source (stakeholder). Designers work within the constraints of their contractors and are much more bound than fine-artists.
- Is the artist always a self-expressive narcissist?
No, because artists can create functional art, allowing it to not only be self-expression, but also useful. Artists may also use design as art which allows the art not to be pure narcissism because of functionality.
- Can the designer/artist exist?
Yes, because art can be functional, and design is functional art. Artists can make furniture that is aesthetically pleasing, intriguing, and functional, and designers can create pieces that are functional, asking questions, but also showing personal expression.
Personal Reflection
- What is your personal view of the difference between the designer and the artist? I feel that the line is very thin and that it overlaps. I view it as a spectrum. You may have a very design heavy designer, and a very art heavy artist on the far ends of the spectrum. However, there may also be very art heavy designers and vice versa. I believe it depends on the individual. Many people believe design answers questions, and art asks questions; but I believe many pieces of work can do both. Pieces can answer some questions only to pose another, or merely answer or ask. Overall, there are very obvious designer and obvious artists, but there are also a variety of in betweens.
- Which are you, why? I believe I am somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, unsure of where I lean. I love functionality; however, I am willing to sacrifice that for aesthetics at times. I also like to create things sometimes without meaning, as in “I like it because it’s pretty,” rather than a piece having a deep meaning, not that I don’t love finding deep meaning in my work. I suppose that would leave me slightly on the artistic side, but I am reluctant to decide because of my love for functionality. I believe I am very much in the middle.
Reading this thoughtful reflection on the roles of designers and artists reminded me of a talk I attended recently by design expert William McDonough at a design conference. McDonough, known for his pioneering work in sustainable design, offered a perspective on this very topic that resonated deeply with me. He emphasized that design and art don’t exist in isolation—they’re part of a continuum where functionality and beauty can coexist. His approach to design as “functional art” aligns beautifully with the idea that designers and artists can overlap and share spaces on a creative spectrum.
One of McDonough’s key points was that the purpose of design often extends beyond serving a stakeholder. While designers solve problems within given constraints, McDonough suggested that the best designers also embed their values—whether environmental, social, or aesthetic—into their work. This perspective reminded me that while designers often answer questions, their solutions can also provoke new ones, challenging users to think differently about the objects and systems they interact with. It echoed the idea in your reflection: that art and design can both ask and answer questions, sometimes in the same piece.
What I appreciated most was McDonough’s insistence that designers have a responsibility not only to their clients but to the world at large. He described his designs as having to “serve life”—a principle that elevates design from simply solving problems to contributing to a greater good. It made me reflect on my own creative work and how I navigate the tension between functionality and aesthetics. Like you, I see myself somewhere in the middle, drawn to the beauty of art but also inspired by the purposeful nature of design. Hearing McDonough’s perspective reaffirmed that this middle ground is not only valid but essential for meaningful creativity.