3 ms·
You know, it's art even if it has no ambitions to be exhibited at the MoMA. > It's a computer wallpaper that monopolistic megacorp funded to show off how wealt
by sph 2y ago
You know, it's art even if it has no ambitions to be exhibited at the MoMA.
> It's a computer wallpaper that monopolistic megacorp funded to show off how wealthy it is.
Groan. It's not possible to have a serious discussions with someone starting from such a cynical position. After all, what is even the point of creating anything? We're all going to turn to dust and be forgotten forevermore.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y agoThe point is it's poorly done by the standard you'd expect from top level no-expense-spared commercial graphic design. And that reflects poorly on the company and the product. The Win XP field was the opposite. It was organic, calming, and oddly fascinating because you couldn't tell if it was a plain photo or an edit or... what. And it had an unexpected reference to the Windows branding in the composition. Win 10 was more like meaningless window-shaped visual noise.
- sph 2y agoAgain, it does not matter, and it is entirely subjective, if art is poorly done or not. It does not matter if it doesn't calm you. It does not matter if it reflects poorly on Microsoft. Why do you care so much? Like it or not, art exists in a vacuum. It does not need to justify its existence. That's the very definition of art.