Contempo about design, art and society

Contempo, (nice site styling, but all flash is a bit last century in internet years, especially for a purveyor of things contemporary) the new and refreshingly convergent publication presenting homegrown creative style and cultural sophistication is posing an open question around the relationship of art and design. Imposing a 200 word limit is me thinks a good thing. So my unedited initial response to the question goes:

Isn�t design and art simply sides of the same coin. Is there really any interesting or important differences beyond the superficial parameters of selective subjection to either mass-marketeering or mega-ego-mania cults monopolising culture?
Being a tad airy-fairy-ical, but its late. Are there distinguishable attributes to the roles they play in society, when accepting the general notion of design as commerce oriented, technology biased, mediations on- interventions in- and inventions of production for consumption. In other words taking design as avatar, or temple of the great expansive �consumpteriate�. That in contrast with art as exponent of adoration fixated pursuit of showing, of adoring, of owning some idealised noble splendour?

It is all about value, ain�t it? What is this thing we call �our society�? Where does it begin and where does it end. Does it have physical boundaries, demographically defined shape or is it just a fashionable abstract, suitably disposable form.

For me, design that transcends subservience is art. The inverse of this statement around artistry and insolence also holds true.

Can or does either art or design change the world? No they don�t, not really, but they can and do make it a better place to be in. Don�t they?

(I�ll probably have a different answer tomorrow, and another the day after and so on and so forth � the joy of being a Gemini 7 :-)