41 ms·

I think a standard set optimises for usability over aesthetics. I think this artwork optimises for aesthetics over usability. Both sets are aesthetically plea

I think a standard set optimises for usability over aesthetics. I think this artwork optimises for aesthetics over usability. Both sets are aesthetically pleasing and usable, just to different degrees. I think that’s ok? I’ve seen many chess sets whose primary function was aesthetic rather than to be played. The thing with aesthetics is that it’s highly subjective.

pdpi 2y ago
Insofar as one of the defining characteristics of art is the constraints you impose upon yourself, one of the fundamental constraints of making an art piece out of something functional is that you should either preserve its usability, or break it in a way that makes a statement. This does neither. The concept is great, the board is absolutely beautiful, and, at first glance, the curve is aesthetically pleasing while not getting in the way of reading the board. Texture as the "colour" works great. The figures, though, just look like they ran out of steam, it's like the "horse drawing" meme. They're not evocative of chess pieces, they're not particularly evocative of sand structures either. They're just... there. They're pretty enough, I guess, but in a generic way. When you add to that that the photos have an impossible pawn formation, it kind of screams of "I don't actually care about the subject of my art piece".
JustBreath 2y ago
It would certainly could serve as a fun challenge for experienced chess players. But I'm let down because my chess partner is a 9 year old who is still learning basic strategies.
wongarsu 2y ago
The standard set optimizes for mass production. All pieces except the knight can be turned on a lathe, with minor post-processing to cut notches in the rook and bishop. Older chess sets like the Lewis Chessmen from the 1200s look substantially different, having both better aesthetics and usability than the currently popular set. Like having a bishop that is recognizable as a bishop, not a medium-height round thing with a notch in the top. If you don't want to imitate the standard chess set, improving on it isn't that difficult as long as you don't care about mass production from wood. This set somehow manages to be worse
krisoft 2y ago
> I think that’s ok? Oh yeah. That's a reasonable tradeoff. Just aziaziazi's comment made it sound like the only aspect where distinguisability matters is the colour. So I pointed out that I don't have a problem telling the sides apart, while have more of a problem distinguishing the piece's type. But as you say this is a decorative chess set, and in that regard I think it is a very sucesfull one.
sdwr 2y ago
Arguably, every non-standard set is made for aesthetics (and provides a worse playing experience). If you are a chess player, you are thinking strategy and tactics, and the pieces (at best) blend into the mental background, and (at worst) are a distraction from the game. Which leaves custom sets to the realm of the collector and the enthusiast, people who like to have and think about, but not so much to do.

pdpi 2y ago

Insofar as one of the defining characteristics of art is the constraints you impose upon yourself, one of the fundamental constraints of making an art piece out of something functional is that you should either preserve its usability, or break it in a way that makes a statement. This does neither. The concept is great, the board is absolutely beautiful, and, at first glance, the curve is aesthetically pleasing while not getting in the way of reading the board. Texture as the "colour" works great. The figures, though, just look like they ran out of steam, it's like the "horse drawing" meme. They're not evocative of chess pieces, they're not particularly evocative of sand structures either. They're just... there. They're pretty enough, I guess, but in a generic way. When you add to that that the photos have an impossible pawn formation, it kind of screams of "I don't actually care about the subject of my art piece".

JustBreath 2y ago

It would certainly could serve as a fun challenge for experienced chess players. But I'm let down because my chess partner is a 9 year old who is still learning basic strategies.

wongarsu 2y ago

The standard set optimizes for mass production. All pieces except the knight can be turned on a lathe, with minor post-processing to cut notches in the rook and bishop. Older chess sets like the Lewis Chessmen from the 1200s look substantially different, having both better aesthetics and usability than the currently popular set. Like having a bishop that is recognizable as a bishop, not a medium-height round thing with a notch in the top. If you don't want to imitate the standard chess set, improving on it isn't that difficult as long as you don't care about mass production from wood. This set somehow manages to be worse

krisoft 2y ago

> I think that’s ok? Oh yeah. That's a reasonable tradeoff. Just aziaziazi's comment made it sound like the only aspect where distinguisability matters is the colour. So I pointed out that I don't have a problem telling the sides apart, while have more of a problem distinguishing the piece's type. But as you say this is a decorative chess set, and in that regard I think it is a very sucesfull one.

sdwr 2y ago

Arguably, every non-standard set is made for aesthetics (and provides a worse playing experience). If you are a chess player, you are thinking strategy and tactics, and the pieces (at best) blend into the mental background, and (at worst) are a distraction from the game. Which leaves custom sets to the realm of the collector and the enthusiast, people who like to have and think about, but not so much to do.