Terminological Interaction of Design and Art

The purpose of this article is to examine theories that reveal the relationship between design and art in terms of terminology, to identify a generalizing formulation on a given issue. The results can be used to clarify the theoretical basis of art studies in the professional training of the designers in the higher education system. Research Methodology. In the course of the research, a complex of general scientific methods (historical and comparative, chronological, method of terminological analysis) was applied, which contributed to the identification of terminological interpretations in the disclosure of relations between design and art. The scientific novelty of the work consists in a comprehensive study of theories that reveal the terminological interaction of design and art from the middle of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries, the presentation of a generalizing formulation on a given issue at the present stage. Conclusions. By the end of the 20th century, the opinions of theorists on the issue of art and design interaction were divided into two mutually exclusive positions, namely “design is not art” (D. Judd, N. Potter) and “design equals art” (S. Barton, D. Nelson, B. Munari). At the beginning of the 21st century, these opinions were united by supporters of the third position, according to which art can go beyond its borders, combining with adjacent design (R. Tuttle). Another modern position is formed as follows: “Design is not equal to traditional art, but it is neither more nor less” (B. Bloemink). Summarizing the results, it should be noted that the boundary that separates design from art has always been conditional and more permeable than it might seem to those who positively separate benefits and beauty, functionality and aesthetics. Design objects are directly, physically, and materially included in the life of each individual. They have an aesthetic origin, freely crossing the border of art, but at the same time necessarily retain the utility inherent in them: functionality, ergonomics, and economic feasibility.