Purpose or Accident?

Taken with iPhone

It’s interesting this idea or definition of design. Is it still a design if we see it one way but the artist/designer meant for it to be seen another? Is it still design if it is no longer meant to function/appear in the same way? I think it’s all possible. I was walking away from office hours at the Art Building here on the UC Davis campus and saw this picture. I took it in as exactly how it was, whether it was meant to be displayed that way or not. Since this is only a two dimensional picture, it doesn’t give much form unless I describe it (it was paper on wall, so it was borderline 3D). 

Even though I love the idea of simplicity as a perfect art, it doesn’t mean that the idea behind a piece can’t be complex. So this is, as simple as it is, two paper cut outs glued onto the wall of the stairwell in the Art Building. The art piece is of two soldiers in combat, something we hear about on the news quiet often. If this was a high quality image, you would be able to zoom in and see that this solid image (that is clearly two soldiers) is actually somewhat abstract up close. For example, the face of the one standing up is merely a few splotches of gray. 

Now here comes the part about the two questions I posted above. I ran my hand across this wall and it seems like where the picture turns into wall, the paper was torn; as if it was a whole piece of paper as a art piece then someone tore it down (obviously not neatly and didn't finish the job). But I felt that this is another form of design, this tearing of the paper only made what soldiers do best: camouflage. This undoubtedly made the picture more complex; it lends a new depth to the design of this piece. Was it an accident or was it done as part of the installation?

Who knows? Who cares?? It looks good, it fits well, it is simple and complex. IT is DESIGN.