CR01

                As an individual having no knowledge on the fundamentals of design, the past four lectures have been much appreciated because it has helped me grasp an idea about what design is all about. Even though there is no clear cut definition to the word “design”, I have certainly learned the different concepts and aspects that are associated with it.

                One point that I thought was really interesting came from one of the first few slides of the first lecture. It said,

“The primary motivation in:

- Art is usually oneself.

- Design is usually others.”

Me being the young grasshopper of design (and the arts in general), the only difference I could have picked out between the two would have been something like, “art is sort of like a hobby; you do it for fun and pleasure while design sounds much more professional; something you find in the work field.” How naïve of myself… After reading the above phrase, I had a tiny epiphany. The two definitions above struck me because I had never thought about the difference in design and art in that way and it made perfect sense to me. Art is something that “represents the soul.” As cheesy as that may sound, I believe it is something that lets people express whatever it is they are feeling in any form they want that is different than from just speaking out loud. And then design is something that provides functionality for others to benefit from.

                There is another thing that I had randomly thought about today while watching the Paul Rand video in lecture today. To be honest, I really had no idea who Paul Rand was before coming to this class. After finding out that he was responsible for many of the brands’ logos, I have gained so much respect for him in an instant because as a marketing major, that is one of the things I am interested in and it is also the reason why I am considering doing a design minor. The video introduced us to many of the familiar logos that most of us see on a daily basis. And I do admire him for his creative work that not only looks appealing visually but while having meaning to it. However, some of the designs are quite simple. Would I have been able to think up of it? Probably not, because that usually does not happen too often. However, could somebody else have thought of it? Maybe something even better? Quite possibly, yes. I was just wondering if whether companies chose him to design their logos because he is Paul Rand. All of his logos look very attractive and novel but could we be feeling this positive feeling towards him and his designs only because we are so used to seeing them all the time? I am not trying to deny his abilities in design but at the same time, I wonder what it is that made all those companies request him for their companies’ logos.