The possibility of a semblance between art and design practices stems from the fact that all human interactions with their natural surroundings or with other human beings are forms of work or social practices. Therefore, they do have similarities. Since the Renaissance, some artifacts have gained an aura of superiority over other manufactured articles. The concept of art was born, and within this context the figure of the artist emerged. Humanism transformed the habits of the period. The use of pre-project drawings as the intellectual stage for art, prior to the materialization of artistic or creative production, served as the cornerstone to justify the differentiation between craft and art. This was followed by the institutionalization of the teaching of drawing theory by the Academies of Art and the concurrent legitimization of the higher hierarchy of intellectual activity compared to manual work. Gradually, these institutions which were initially created to free the artist from the medieval guilds, surpassed them in restrictions by regulating in detail Art and judging the good and the bad creative practice. The wear and tear of the artistic class led to the weakening or even to the demise of the said Academies starting from the eighteenth century. Understanding the transformations of the socioeconomic context is essential for the analysis of the changes in creative production. The transition to a monetary and urban economy was decisive for the early modern Western and mercantilist age. Then, the Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the 18th century as the engine for the implementation of the capitalist system of mass production, which introduced a new consumption pattern. In this context, industrial entrepreneurs invited artists to work in partnership to make the shape and appearance of industrial products more commercially attractive. Schools of arts and crafts were created during the nineteenth century in Europe to train creative professionals to work in the industry. The merger between fine arts schools and arts and crafts schools, in Saxony and Moscow, gave rise to Bauhaus and Vkhutemas, respectively. These twentieth century institutions legitimized the notion of the autonomy of what is called design today in relation to the practice of art. Design emerged as a supposedly new field of knowledge. The statement that the practice of design is heir to the practice of art is confirmed: by the common past they share and by the similarity of their struggle to search for autonomy. Additionaly, since the practice of design has not yet succeeded in defining its objectives and its principles, Design can be perceived as a species, part of a broader genus, the Field of Art. This statement is not immune to constructive criticism, but aims to serve as a working hypothesis to be considered in the effort to think about the ontology and epistemology of Design. Critical and official bibliography on the subject informed the present research.