# Little boxes Published: 2016-01-12 Would the field of data vis benefit from a clear line between art and design? ![Little boxes]() _Photo credit: [James Nash](https://www.flickr.com/photos/james_nash/4758670232/) (CC BY-SA)_ Would the field of data vis [benefit from a clear line between art and design](http://lisacharlotterost.github.io/2015/12/14/The-Line-between-Data-Vis-And-Data-Art/), as Lisa C. Rost suggests (see also the [follow-up post](http://lisacharlotterost.github.io/2015/12/19/Meaning-and-Beauty-in-Data-Vis/))? This debate has been around for a while (see e.g. Lev Manovich's [Info Aesthetics](http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/info-aesthetics), The [Manifesto](http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/blog/?p=644) debate, the [Cargo Cult](https://eagereyes.org/criticism/the-visualization-cargo-cult) debate, Jorge Camões' [attempts](http://www.excelcharts.com/blog/infographics-data-visualization/), but also helpful papers like ["The Role of Design in Information Visualization"](http://infoscape.org/publications/ivs12.pdf) etc) and of course, there is literally a century of discourse on art and design in other fields as well. Here's my take: > First of all, let me get one thing out of the way: the notion that aesthetics is about pleasure ("looks nice") is a simplistic one. Often, in these discussions, aesthetics is treated like sugar (or [bacon](http://well-formed-data.net/archives/669/on-the-role-of-bacon-in-visualization)?) on top of a perfectly fine working thing, which, when added, can somewhat improve the experience, yet, used in too high amount, actually spoils the dish. This simplistic view ignores that **aesthetic value** goes way beyond pure pleasure or decoration, and arises from a couple of other factors, some of which are novelty, allusions, cultural references, unfolding of perceptual experiences… maybe something like "sensual and cultural intriguingness" could be a good alternate term. In design specifically — per definition — aesthetic value also arises from a tight interplay of function and form. That "designer" chair that looks great, but is not comfortable to sit on? Not good design! It is simple as that. > Which brings me to my central point here: the misguided idea that aesthetics is somehow obstructive to understanding. Granted, I have seen aesthetic data visualizations with zero informative value. But, likewise, I have also seen loads of non-aesthetic ones that are plain misleading or ridiculously hard to read; likewise, I have seen striking visuals which were highly informative and also fairly ugly or bland informative ones. > **I have seen literally any combination of aesthetics and informativeness.** > > What if… these two are maybe actually independent dimensions, not arch enemies? Let's take this point further: what if there are actually many more dimensions of qualities a data visualization can have? Here's a few examples: - How quickly do you get to insights? - How deep are the insights gained? - How memorable is the visualization? - Does it use learned idioms vs innovative visual encoding? - What is its impact? What do people do with it? What is their reaction? - How much does it draw you in? - Did you remember it two weeks later? Did you remember the key insights two weeks later? - How much time do people spend with it? - Is it for everyone or a niche group of people? - Does it confirm expectations or present new insights? - How complex is the information? - What is the tone like? - What are the cultural references it alludes to? In which visual tradition does it place itself? Does it use visual jargon? - Does it make you laugh? Does it make you cry? How does it make you feel? - Is the experience the same for everyone, or different depending on your choices or perspective?… This is just a tiny sample of dimensions we could look at. My main point here is, that each visualization will land somewhere in that point-space spanned by all these dimensions, and none of them are a priori opposed to each other. And, in the end, the fact if it will be a **good** visualization will be determined by if the creator makes the right choices, in the given context, for the given audience and purpose. This, of course, is a designerly way of thinking, but, you know what: I think, ultimately, it holds true for artists as well. > Honestly, I don't care what a data visualization piece was "meant" to be. Let's talk about what it achieves, on which levels, for whom, and how! Is it a data visualization that "_engages through a metaphor to raise awareness for a complex, important topic, is hard to get into on first sight, but then delivers deep insights for a small fraction of users_"? Or a "_visual pun good for a 10 second view, designed to go viral_"? Or "_clever appropriation of forms known from financial data to qualified self data_"? Or an "_overaestheticized, sloppy treatment of run-of-the-mill data_"? > **TL;DR** Data visualization is a medium. Let's take it serious as a rich cultural form of expression and understand all the facets involved. Asking for a stricter separation of art and design (and promoting simplistic views of those disciplines) is not helping here. _Originally published at [well-formed-data.net](http://well-formed-data.net/archives/1210/little-boxes) on January 12, 2016._ --- [View on truth-and-beauty.net](https://truth-and-beauty.net/appearances/texts/little-boxes)