At the Intersection of Art and Design (1957)

Design (dezain) and so-called art (bijutsu 美術) are most often thought of as clearly distinct areas of specialization, and exist and are treated in this way. Certainly, even looking at the poster as one example of graphic design, the work is a completely different thing from that of the painter's tableau and uses new materials and technology for new purposes, and it is therein that design draws a distinction. What is more, in some sectors, industrial designers (kōgyō dezainā) may appear to be doing work along the same lines as conventional craftsmen (kōgeika), but if one considers the design of automobiles and the like, it should be clear to anyone that it connects with a technological domain of an entirely different nature. Further, it can be said that the standing of design and the designers of our nation has finally reached an established level in the last ten years. It has been argued how design is to be differentiated from arts and crafts (bijutsu kōgei) and how important the inevitable development from the hand to mechanical technology is, along with the pioneering of new aesthetic sensibilities that accompany it. Whether design will continue to go through various complications and revisions, the larger direction it will take in form and function is not likely to be mistaken.

However, because reality functions by presenting various complex conditions, it is doubtful whether the term "design" has in fact been generally accepted. For instance, the relationship between conventional craft (kōgei) and industrial design (kōgyō dezain) is practically one of indifference. Craft (shukōgei) itself must still play an important role in our society, but how do we orient it in the right direction? It is also necessary to relocate that which is true within tradition from a new angle. The majority of the foolishness of the field of arts and crafts is the foolishness of the mechanism from which it was created. To forget this and leave a new design to stand on its own would simply turn it into a product of industrialism, which could eventually be manipulated by machines.

The development of graphic design certainly has something revolutionary in it. Yet too exists the vast world of paintings, prints, and such. In this world, individual expression is the standard, a great number of experiments are taking place. Also in painting are movements aiming for sociality or collectivity. The reality of today's world, however, is that what occurs in painting does not necessarily completely match the sociality or collectivity of design. It is true that in the world of painting there also exist mechanisms that are no less foolish than those in the world of arts and crafts. However, these artists are constantly engaging in experiments and taking risks. What is the relation between their world and graphic design? While the categories of the two worlds differ, this does not mean they are different "worlds." In particular, because the word "design" is a foreign loanword, is not design in Japan generally thought of as a separate, distant world? Is the danger not at all seen that it may just run off in whatever direction it starts off in?

The year before last, the exhibition 50 ans d'art aux Etats-Unis: Collections du Museum of Modern Art New York was held in Paris at the Musée d'Art moderne, and in its catalogue is a section called "Les arts appliqués" with "industrial design" in parentheses, which made me think "Oh!" It appears this sort of old-fashioned term is no longer used in England or America in the design world. This catalogue translates "designer" for Charles and Ray Eames and Eero Saarinen and others as dessinateur. This linguistic sensibility suggests we would be called "patternmakers" if not "draftsmen of pictures." Apparently the term Arts et Metiers, which corresponds to "arts and crafts" that the English design movement has decried, is still in use.¹ While the conservative side of France can certainly be seen in this, it does not necessarily mean that this inhibits good French designers...