4 ms·

Jumping in here as someone who has been designing for the web and other medium since 1994 I think what drew the OP to that question is lack of historical contex

by tb303 11y ago

Jumping in here as someone who has been designing for the web and other medium since 1994 I think what drew the OP to that question is lack of historical context. This site is great. It's clearly 100% deliberate, tongue-in-cheek, like randlet said here as well. Scrolling headers, blink tags, superfluous animation is what dominated the web like drop shadows / leather & satin / "flat" / etc. later, as we found we could use it — then jodi, nn, and other text-only web artists incorporated into their work. This is a nod to both sides.

hodwik 11y ago
I'm not so sure it's tongue in cheek anymore. The problem with post-modernist design is that eventually it just becomes codified cool. Look at the Terry Richardson shots for American Apparel, the works of Banksy, or Miley Cyrus's outfits -- the original intention was to produce camp, but to young people, without context, they just look cool. The designers get to feel like they're doing something high-art, because there is intended irony behind their work, but the masses are just experiencing it like any other loud obnoxious art -- it still drowns out anything of subtlety.
- barretts 11y ago
  There is art that revels in loudness, and art that embraces subtlety. They can coexist. A Palahniuk novel does not negate an Ishiguro. The world is too big and audiences too fragmented for any one thing to dominate.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    The world of music shows that inexperienced audiences will flock to loud novelty over quiet depth and substance every time. The decline and death of classical music illustrates as much. The barrier to entry for the subtle works of the old masters is too high in the face of easily accessible garbage. Or look to fine art, where people are more aware of Jeff Koons' balloon animals than they are Bouguereau's The First Mourning or the sculpture of Daumier.
    - tb303 11y ago
      Really appreciate your writing this. While I agree 100% that those realities are unfortunate, I think it's a related but somewhat tangential issue bordering on threadjack due to loud vs quiet, classical vs "garbage", etc. Those are subjective. What you're getting at is the current unquestioned appeal of the shiny and new. Reminds me of a quote I mention often, heard when mentoring a junior designer a few years ago. He said, "yeah I've got a book on typography, but, you know, it's from the 90s."
- tb303 11y ago
  This is a fun conversation and I feel I may be too ignorant on the topic to hold any informed stance. But my feeling is the problematic issue has a lot less to do with the producers and a lot more with the consumers. As in, you're right — the intention may be there, but the result is misguided since the audience can't appreciate it. Well, I appreciated it at least. (Banksy's original intent was not to produce camp — read his pamphlets and manifestos from the early 00s. Highly socio-political, black mirror stuff.)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - hodwik 11y ago
    If Banksy isn't trying to produce camp he is officially the worst artist of all time. http://www.fecalface.com/news2/1-11-11/banksy.jpg http://www.fecalface.com/news2/1-11-11/banksy.jpg

by tb303 11y ago

hodwik 11y ago

I'm not so sure it's tongue in cheek anymore. The problem with post-modernist design is that eventually it just becomes codified cool. Look at the Terry Richardson shots for American Apparel, the works of Banksy, or Miley Cyrus's outfits -- the original intention was to produce camp, but to young people, without context, they just look cool. The designers get to feel like they're doing something high-art, because there is intended irony behind their work, but the masses are just experiencing it like any other loud obnoxious art -- it still drowns out anything of subtlety.

barretts 11y ago
There is art that revels in loudness, and art that embraces subtlety. They can coexist. A Palahniuk novel does not negate an Ishiguro. The world is too big and audiences too fragmented for any one thing to dominate.
- hodwik 11y ago
  The world of music shows that inexperienced audiences will flock to loud novelty over quiet depth and substance every time. The decline and death of classical music illustrates as much. The barrier to entry for the subtle works of the old masters is too high in the face of easily accessible garbage. Or look to fine art, where people are more aware of Jeff Koons' balloon animals than they are Bouguereau's The First Mourning or the sculpture of Daumier.
  - tb303 11y ago
    Really appreciate your writing this. While I agree 100% that those realities are unfortunate, I think it's a related but somewhat tangential issue bordering on threadjack due to loud vs quiet, classical vs "garbage", etc. Those are subjective. What you're getting at is the current unquestioned appeal of the shiny and new. Reminds me of a quote I mention often, heard when mentoring a junior designer a few years ago. He said, "yeah I've got a book on typography, but, you know, it's from the 90s."
tb303 11y ago
This is a fun conversation and I feel I may be too ignorant on the topic to hold any informed stance. But my feeling is the problematic issue has a lot less to do with the producers and a lot more with the consumers. As in, you're right — the intention may be there, but the result is misguided since the audience can't appreciate it. Well, I appreciated it at least. (Banksy's original intent was not to produce camp — read his pamphlets and manifestos from the early 00s. Highly socio-political, black mirror stuff.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hodwik 11y ago
  If Banksy isn't trying to produce camp he is officially the worst artist of all time. http://www.fecalface.com/news2/1-11-11/banksy.jpg http://www.fecalface.com/news2/1-11-11/banksy.jpg