4 ms·

The sad part is that this aesthetic even "modernized" enough will not be approved by any major media outlet of today. Mainly because "the trends" are pseudo st

by nbzso 5y ago

The sad part is that this aesthetic even "modernized" enough will not be approved by any major media outlet of today. Mainly because "the trends" are pseudo stylized 3d or flat shapes with childishly over-saturated colors. I miss the time when trying to create something unique and deep visually was properly rewarded. And from the looks of it I am not alone.

redler 5y ago
One notable exception is the cover of every week’s New Yorker.
azinman2 5y ago
Aesthetics change. You similarly couldn’t grab magazine covers from the early 1900s either. That doesn’t mean the work is bad. Everything has a place and time, and in the future the current artwork will look dated as well.
- nbzso 5y ago
  Beg to differ. From my practice, design and illustration in the analogue times had higher standard due to lack of "technically" available tools, templates and lowest visual standard ever created by corporations or patrons. You had not be able to produce something without any substantial drawing skill or knowledge. Today you can. And someone will pay you. Artwork when done right and with universal message is never dated. This article proves it. Dated are trends created from corporations to sell you some UX and make money. You have to be blind not to see where are we going to end visually - AI generated nonsense which will be publicly accepted as "the only way".
  - azinman2 5y ago
    There's always been bad design. Just like there's always been bad art. But that doesn't mean there aren't trends... no one is using analog tools to painting now in the style of the 1200s, and rarely in the styles of even the 1700s in composition, color palette, etc. Trends exist anywhere human creativity exists... those who are good and on the cutting edge will want to put their own stamp & twist on their work. That won't ever end no matter what technology affords in simplifying our world. Similarly, iPhones have made it really easy to take photos anywhere. But most photos are crap -- but that doesn't mean there still aren't people doing interesting photography with them. You can find quite a lot of that on Instagram, which is a world that has its own rapidly shifting trends.
    - nbzso 5y ago
      The point that I am making has no connection with your argument. My point is that historically (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/330451.Civilisation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/330451.Civilisation) art quality is defined by cultural levels of the elites. Impressionism is the exception from this rule. Is not about the tech accessibility and ease of use at all. It is about lack of vision and higher standards in those who pay. :) There are countless digital artist who are astonishing, and in desperation. Not everybody can do "the audience" trick and create steady stream of followers to survive.
rchaud 5y ago
The message and the medium are inextricably linked. This level of detail is feasible for a paid periodical that can afford to commission original art that would sit on a desk or coffee table for a while. Today I doubt people would even buy a print computer magazine whose information is a month old. For today's world of instant, disposable information, distributed via video, podcast, web page or serialized via tweets several times a day, this art would also become disposable. It'd be instantly forgotten amidst a sea of templated, corporate-friendly clip art ("assets") from Canva and Adobe Spark.

by nbzso 5y ago

redler 5y ago

One notable exception is the cover of every week’s New Yorker.

azinman2 5y ago

Aesthetics change. You similarly couldn’t grab magazine covers from the early 1900s either. That doesn’t mean the work is bad. Everything has a place and time, and in the future the current artwork will look dated as well.

nbzso 5y ago
Beg to differ. From my practice, design and illustration in the analogue times had higher standard due to lack of "technically" available tools, templates and lowest visual standard ever created by corporations or patrons. You had not be able to produce something without any substantial drawing skill or knowledge. Today you can. And someone will pay you. Artwork when done right and with universal message is never dated. This article proves it. Dated are trends created from corporations to sell you some UX and make money. You have to be blind not to see where are we going to end visually - AI generated nonsense which will be publicly accepted as "the only way".
- azinman2 5y ago
  There's always been bad design. Just like there's always been bad art. But that doesn't mean there aren't trends... no one is using analog tools to painting now in the style of the 1200s, and rarely in the styles of even the 1700s in composition, color palette, etc. Trends exist anywhere human creativity exists... those who are good and on the cutting edge will want to put their own stamp & twist on their work. That won't ever end no matter what technology affords in simplifying our world. Similarly, iPhones have made it really easy to take photos anywhere. But most photos are crap -- but that doesn't mean there still aren't people doing interesting photography with them. You can find quite a lot of that on Instagram, which is a world that has its own rapidly shifting trends.
  - nbzso 5y ago
    The point that I am making has no connection with your argument. My point is that historically (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/330451.Civilisation https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/330451.Civilisation) art quality is defined by cultural levels of the elites. Impressionism is the exception from this rule. Is not about the tech accessibility and ease of use at all. It is about lack of vision and higher standards in those who pay. :) There are countless digital artist who are astonishing, and in desperation. Not everybody can do "the audience" trick and create steady stream of followers to survive.

rchaud 5y ago

The message and the medium are inextricably linked. This level of detail is feasible for a paid periodical that can afford to commission original art that would sit on a desk or coffee table for a while. Today I doubt people would even buy a print computer magazine whose information is a month old. For today's world of instant, disposable information, distributed via video, podcast, web page or serialized via tweets several times a day, this art would also become disposable. It'd be instantly forgotten amidst a sea of templated, corporate-friendly clip art ("assets") from Canva and Adobe Spark.