The twentieth century's distinction between 'design' and 'art' derives from the sudden and overwhelming growth of technological innovation, and the commercial demand for applied design, during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century. The primary distinction was between the so-called "high arts" of painting, sculpture and architecture, and "decorative or applied" design (Collins 17). This differentiation between art and design is sometimes perceived as an unfair elevation of art at the expense of design. Yet, so long as the distinction is based on such qualities as reproducibility, methods of production, or function, it is both valid and valuable. If, however, the differences between art and design are cited as criteria of aesthetic, or even moral, value, the distinction does not hold up, and is of little value to understanding either type of art. In such cases, it is not only pointless to 'elevate' the high-arts, it is also pointless to try to elevate aspects of design to that supposedly higher level.
According to Brett, William Dyce, one of the originators of "conventional art," enjoyed repeating to the staff of the British Schools of Design that, "no person making Art his profession should be eligible as a student" (quoted in Brett 10). The distinction between expressive art and drawing that would meet industry's demand for "new graphic conventions to communicate its need for precision," seemed perfectly clear to Dyce (Brett 3). But, Brett's point is that Dyce, and others, were primarily intent on fitting workers for the demands of the Industrial Revolution. In doing so, they employed theories with high-sounding rationalizations intended to elevate what was, after all, simply the new capitalist ventures' need for well-prepared, well-indoctrinated workers. Generally, the "ideological rationale" employed by those who promoted conventional art did go too far in its claims (Brett 16). But, this was also true of...