Musings on the differences between art and design, the impact of AI in creative fields and a new look at data perception

Austrian born graphic and industrial designer and Grammy winner Stefan Sagmeister rejects the current cadence of news, instead focusing on what he calls “long-term thinking.” This topic is the focus of his recent work, Beautiful Numbers, which debuted at the Thomas Erben gallery in New York in 2021 with plans to internationally tour this fall. It was also the subject of his presentation aboard last month’s Summit At Sea, a three-day immersive cruise in international waters off the coast of Miami that included live music performances, wellness activities, art installations and conversations.

We caught up with Sagmeister after his seminar to discuss the difference between designer and artist, the impact of AI in creative fields, and how “ripping up” 200 year old works of art lead to a major change in how he perceives and displays data.

COOL HUNTING:
In the age of everyone talking about AI, it seems like titles are more elastic than ever. Everyone is a creator. Everyone is a creative director. Everyone is a designer.

Sagmeister:
Everybody’s a storyteller, that’s for sure.

Art doesn’t really have to work. It can just be.

Stefan Sagmeister

CH:
Exactly. You’ve said throughout your career that there is a difference between artists and designers. How do you differentiate, especially when AI and its evolution is at the forefront of so many conversations?

SS:
I would say the most common differentiation would be one of functionality. Art doesn’t really have to work. It can just be. It doesn’t really need to do anything. There is no expectations from us as an audience. While design, when we get into the very, very detail, it becomes a little bit wobbly, but by-and-large, design needs to have a function.

The chair that I’m sitting on, I can push it so far formally that I can’t really sit on it anymore. At which point it’s sort of ceases to be a chair and it becomes a sculpture. But I think that’s sort of the easiest way to make the differentiation.

CH:
What’s the not easy way?

SS:
Within those fields within design, or within art, they are various behaviors. Ultimately, if you really look tight, there is no such thing as 100% nonfunctional, or 100% functional. Even the extreme nonfunctional, even the artist who says, “I don’t want this to do anything,” ultimately, it will have a function, even if it’s just a monetary function. Or somebody may take might take a selfie in front of it giving it some sort of promotional function. So there is no such thing as 100% purity. Within the fields there have long been artists who make functional objects. Warhol coming from commercial illustration, becoming an artist, but then while he was an artist making many functional things from album covers that were arguably better in quality than the silly industrial portraits that he did to make money for his graphic design project that was Interview magazine. So it becomes, when you look at it tightly, it becomes a little bit convoluted. But in general, I would say it’s function that makes a difference.

CH:
I know you were speaking about Warhol, but in a lot of ways, what you just outlined, frankly can be applied to you.

SS:
I myself enjoyed a design education and really have been in the world of design all my life. So I continue to call myself a designer because that’s really where I’ve come from and I very much like that profession. But it is true that in many of the projects from the last decade there might not have the usual functionality as in, we do an ad for beer that says “buy more beer” when it has that function. So we tend to do bigger subjects. And we tend to use museums or galleries to show these bigger things. But ultimately, they’re still pieces of design.

Yes, if you’re sort of like a meat and potato designer that designs for low level, I am pretty sure that a good part of that will go to AI.

Stefan Sagmeister

CH:
What about the role of the designer when it comes to AI? Can it be a designer? Can it take over your job?

SS:
Well, I’ve been notoriously terrible in predicting the future. So I’m not sure if I’m the most reliable person to give a solid opinion here. In general, I would say no, I myself am not scared that they will take over my job because I think like technologies before it, it will probably take over the lower end of those professions. Yes, if you’re sort of like a meat and potato designer that designs for low level, I am pretty sure that a good part of that will go to AI. I’ve definitely seen not quite well functioning but pretty okay functioning ideas for website design where you tell the AI what kind of site you want, and what it what kind of features it would have, and it builds that site for you. So if you’re running a lower mid-level website design company, a good part of your revenue will probably be automated and will be not necessary anymore.

CH:
This was your fourth Summit. What made you say yes to attending this year?

SS:
I was on the mountain many years ago, once in Tulum and once before on the boat. Basically I said yes because the other ones were very good. And I felt, even though I’m not a person who would go on to a cruise ship, that conferences in small faraway places are way superior to conferences in New York or in London or Paris because everybody stays together. The speakers will be there. You know, if I’m at a conference in London, I know I have so many friends in London, that I’m likely going to have dinner with them, not with the participants of the conference. So I think this kind of works.

You can look at the world from a very long term perspective and pretty much the longer the perspective, the more positive you will see room for development in basically all directions that are important to human beings.

Stefan Sagmeister

CH:
One of Summit’s core mandates is make no small plans. What are your not so small plans for the future?

SS:
Right now, I think I’m very much in the in this trajectory of long term thinking. I’m considering this short term-ness of almost all media doesn’t seem like it’s going to change anytime soon. I don’t think that that job of providing a little carrot to the stick that the media always keeps is going to be over anytime soon. It’s just fascinating that you literally have a choice of how you can look at the world. If you look at the short term, everything by design and by definition will look terrible because bad things happen very fast and are fantastic for that short news cycle. And this is not just an opinion, meaning like there is proper scientific studies that show exactly that: the shorter the cycle, the more negative news. You can look at the world from a very long term perspective and pretty much the longer the perspective, the more positive you will see room for development in basically all directions that are important to human beings.

CH:
The presentation that you gave at Summit was a digital one but for Beautiful Numbers, your latest work, you are not making reproductions – you are modifying paintings from 100+ years ago. Isn’t that a bit of a conundrum?

SS:
These are these are original paintings from 200 years ago. So basically, if you go to the gallery, you’re not looking at the reproduction of a painting. You’re looking at a physical 200-300 year old painting that we put new inserts into. These inserts are lacquered—physically inserted into the painting so that ultimately you will have a flush surface, but the surfaces are extremely different. So if you would see this in real life, you would see a surface that’s 250 year old oil painting right next to an insert that is highly glossy and contemporary. And so these are very physical, non-digital objects.

I think that many designers would feel that way but I would say that specifically in this series, the difference between seeing a photo of it and actually seeing it in real life is gigantic. It really makes a huge difference. I forget that time and time and time again, you really have to see the real thing.

CH:
So why did you choose to not bring any of the real things with you?

SS:
Because they’re heavy. That’s it.

CH:
So for this project you are taking 200-300 year old paintings and physically altering them?

SS:
Absolutely. So basically we are ripping them up, to use a more brutal term. Putting them on new stretchers and inserting new forms that have a minimalism look but ultimately, of course, are data representations.

CH:
You’re taking old art, to use your term, “ripping them up” and making something new from it.

SS:
Exactly. Ultimately the strategy is not one of destruction. But I solve this all for myself. I buy some of these paintings. My great great granddad and grandmother had an antiques store in Austria so some of them came from that, but I also buy many now at small auction houses in Europe. And I solved it for myself by saying, If I would, if my own word ends up in a small auction house in 200 years from now, and there is a designer in 2223, who buys that work and makes a new piece out of it that’s relevant to that time in 200 years, then I would say more power to that person and go right ahead.

CH:
How many of these pieces have you done to date?

SS:
Just about 100 maybe. But it’s taken a bit of scouring because there is a limited number of 200 to 300 year old paintings floating about. However, there is a bit taking advantage of the fact that figurative paintings from the 18th and 19th century are incredibly out of fashion right now.

CH:
So they are available and they are available for a price that I can afford. That’s fantastic.