Art vs Design

I was recently told that what I do is not considered art in the "art world". It would be considered design. At first, I was shocked. Then I felt betrayed by the world that I felt would accept me and what I do... understand me. Next, it turned to anger. Since then, I have discussed this with several people. The responses, disturbingly, were about equally divided. Here are some of the ones that disturbed me the most.

Sequential Art (comics) have no expressive or cultural value.
They lack qualities that are relivent or identifiable to observers.
They are not created with interprtive, intellectually stimulating, content.
They are created for commercial purpose rather than emotional relevance and link to the creator. 
They do not contain subversive subject matter.

It was even suggested that if I wanted my work to be considered "art" I should incorporate profanity, sex, drug use, violence, etc.

Still reeling from this, I did a bit of research. The information I discovered all said basically the same thing. The following are quotes from three of many sources I found via a Google search "Art vs Design" that all seem to mirror each other.


"Now, it is my understanding that design in the commercial sense is a very calculated and defined process; it is discussed amongst a group and implemented taking careful steps to make sure the objectives of the project are met. A designer is similar to an engineer in that respect and must not only have an eye for color and style but must adhere to very intricate functional details that will meet the objectives of the project. The word “design” lends itself to a hint that someone or something has carefully created this “thing” and much planning and thought has been executed to produce the imagery or materials used for the project.
On the other hand, art is something completely separate—any good artist should convey a message or inspire an emotion it doesn't have to adhere to any specific rules, the artist is creating his own rules. Art is something that can elicit a single thought or feeling such as simplicity or strength, love or pain and the composition simply flows from the hand of the artist. The artist is free to express themselves in any medium and color scheme, using any number of methods to convey their message. No artist ever has to explain why they did something a certain way other than that this is what they felt would best portray the feeling or emotion or message."
Craig A Elimeliah
Art vs Design
http://www.aiga.org/art-vs-design/

"Art is a problematically inclusive term; anything in the world can be called "art." The main difference between art and design, then, is that design is simply more restrained.
Any artist can look at their work and see it as an extension of themselves, but designers don’t have that liberty.
As designers, our work has to be interactive, accessible and consistent. In this way, art goes beyond design because no one would expect someone to say that all art has to be consistent and follow a pattern. That would be absurd! What if cubists set the rules? Our art museums would be terribly dull and without variation."
The Difference Between Art and Design
Aug 30 2011 by Delwin Campbell
http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/difference-between-design-art/

"Art differs from design in the sense that it seeks interpretation from the audience rather than understanding."

"Design is the opposite side of the coin. It is not meant to be interpreted but understood."

"Summary:
1.The experts of art are called artists whereas designers are those who happen to be experts of design.
2.Art is geared towards establishing a connection between the artist and the audience, as well as, invoking a new emotion from the observer. It is not something that already exists. Conversely, designs are meant for the audience to realize a concept that already exists at present time.
3.Art is to be interpreted while design is to be understood."

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-art-and-design/

  

Now, back to the debate. I have included two images that follow for your personal interpretation.

Since this debated started in reference to my web comic Sweet Dreams are Made of Worms, I decided to give a bit of insight into that comic.

SDMW deals with the subject of psychology and sociology. Specifically mental illness. When the original idea of SWDM was created, I was experiencing some bad times. I swore I would never talk about the events that took place during those days, so I will not go into specifics. I eventually received treatment. With medication and the support of family and professions (well... 2 specifically) I now live a relatively normal life. However, I still remember the insanity and struggle for help. The denial, the rage, the depression, the loss of identity, the inability to tell what was real, the nightmares, and most of all the struggle with treatment and the way people looked at me. 

The character of Ego was born in this madness. Was he delusion? Was he a piece of unconsciousness that helped get me through? I can't answer that. All I know is that those days are behind me. I use Ego and SDMW to tell some of this story. I opted to use the cartoon style and unrealistic elements as an expression of a delusional reality. The sterotype of superheros and villians to represent the internal stuggle. Ego is a anthropomorphic rabbit not because of some rip on cliche or pop culture, but as an allegory for being different and the loss of connection with the world and people around me. 

I know all too well the sound and feel of broken glass, what it's like to not be able to sleep because of terrifying nightmares. I also know the rage, depression and guilt associated with not being in control. I've experienced the hours of sitting in waiting rooms of mental health clinics. I also know the adverse effects of a health system that sleeps with the pharmaceutical industry. 

Thankfully, I also had the experience of having a support network. A wife that wouldn't give up on me, family, and medical insurance. I am one of the lucky few to make it through the system and come out able to return to a relatively normal life. I say lucky few because I saw first hand the overwhelming number of people that did not experience my luck. The ones that never made it through the system. The ones that were driven to suicide, or burnt out by medication that was supposed to help them. I also saw the people that lost hope and turned to drugs and alcohol to cope.

Sweet Dreams are Made of Worms is just as much a narrative for them as it is for me. So... I ask this. Does my creation have cultural relevance? Does it have emotion? Is it presented in a way that it can be open to interpatation relative to the observer? Is it an expression that attempts to create a personal connection between me and the reader? Is it art or design? I'll leave you with two versions of the same image. Does one make the other any less valid?