To what extent is this site an exposition of artwork?
Thursday, June 6, 2002 by Fishbone | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Just want to see your point of view on this matter.I find it really amazing that so many people join their creativity,display their work and share it with others.The only question I have is to what extent this is pure art or just the answear to the subconcious need of modern man to consume images in a fastfood manner.
 |
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
craeonics
Reply #2 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:00 AM
Reply #2 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:00 AM
Ooh, better put together something good then!
It would be really cool if in, say, thirty years there'd be an exposition on the "pioneers of application art" or so.
It would be really cool if in, say, thirty years there'd be an exposition on the "pioneers of application art" or so.
Fishbone
Reply #4 Friday, June 7, 2002 5:41 AM
Reply #4 Friday, June 7, 2002 5:41 AM
Dear Jafo I certainly agree with you.I have the feeling that something new,something fresh and pure is arising from the pages of this site and other sites similar to this one.What I find really interesting is that ones work is accessible to a wide amount of people,a fact that gives to this artform a uniqueness that has no match.For this reason alone it certainly does deserve the recognition! 
Fishbone
Reply #5 Friday, June 7, 2002 5:48 AM
Reply #5 Friday, June 7, 2002 5:48 AM
"pioneers of application art"?!craeonics?Well,it sounds pretty interesting...Cheers! 
paxx
Reply #6 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:19 AM
Reply #6 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:19 AM
Hum... Although making skinz certainly requires good artistic skills, I'm not sure I would label a skin a new form of art in itself. To me, an artwork has no purpose but just sit there and be pretty: paintings, sculptures, photography, etc.
I see designing a GUI (or a skin) more along the lines of designing a new car, or a new dress, or a new contemporary chair. It requires artistic habilities to make something nice, but purpose of a chair is still be e sat on and the purpose of a GUI is still to help you use your computer.
My 2 cents.
I see designing a GUI (or a skin) more along the lines of designing a new car, or a new dress, or a new contemporary chair. It requires artistic habilities to make something nice, but purpose of a chair is still be e sat on and the purpose of a GUI is still to help you use your computer.
My 2 cents.
Ogre66
Reply #7 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:37 AM
Reply #7 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:37 AM
If I recall, there are a few car designs that have been considered art and displayed as such, though I can't think of one off the top of my head :-/
Photographs can be used to capture a moment in time serving the function of allowing those not present at that moment to share in that moment and are often displayed as art. I think art forms can have both form and function. Just my opinion though
Photographs can be used to capture a moment in time serving the function of allowing those not present at that moment to share in that moment and are often displayed as art. I think art forms can have both form and function. Just my opinion though
Jafo
Reply #8 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:54 AM
Reply #8 Friday, June 7, 2002 9:54 AM
A Chanel perfume bottle...a Corbusier chair.....a Zippo lighter...a Sputnik WinAMP skin.....it's not 'that' far-fetched, paxx...
Pininfarina.....Bertone.....Zagato....Ital Design....Pixtudio.....
Pininfarina.....Bertone.....Zagato....Ital Design....Pixtudio.....
paxx
Reply #9 Friday, June 7, 2002 10:05 AM
Reply #9 Friday, June 7, 2002 10:05 AM
To me, Art gives yo the freedom to truly do whatever you want.
A sculptor, a painter, etc. can represent whaterver strikes his imagination, without having to consider any functional limitations.
I see it this way: a scupture can take the shape of a chair or a car, but a chair or a car will never be scuptures. The difference? The scupture was never made to be sat on or be driven around. It took the form it has because of the choice of its creator not because it's the way it had to be.
A sculptor, a painter, etc. can represent whaterver strikes his imagination, without having to consider any functional limitations.
I see it this way: a scupture can take the shape of a chair or a car, but a chair or a car will never be scuptures. The difference? The scupture was never made to be sat on or be driven around. It took the form it has because of the choice of its creator not because it's the way it had to be.
TasT
Reply #10 Friday, June 7, 2002 10:30 AM
Reply #10 Friday, June 7, 2002 10:30 AM
Jafo,
If all this comes to pass would they feature our skins as the "Gray Period" ?
If all this comes to pass would they feature our skins as the "Gray Period" ?
craeonics
Reply #11 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:16 AM
Reply #11 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:16 AM
Yet a sculptor is a limited by his sculpture being a sculpture as the designer of the chair is by it being a chair. Take for example, Rietveld's chair: http://www.centraalmuseum.nl/nl_/nl_rietvel/rieti_stoel5.html Is it a chair or a work of art? If it's a chair, it's not very comfortable to sit in and if it's a sculpture... it's also a chair.
craeonics thinks you are taking the old "form follows function" adagium a tad too literally (originates from this article by the way: http://www.njit.edu/Library/archlib/pub-domain/sullivan-1896-tall-bldg.html )
craeonics thinks you are taking the old "form follows function" adagium a tad too literally (originates from this article by the way: http://www.njit.edu/Library/archlib/pub-domain/sullivan-1896-tall-bldg.html )
paxx
Reply #12 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:28 AM
Reply #12 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:28 AM
I understand that certain functional item can, and often do, have artistic merit. But I would still not call that art in itself.
As for the link chair, it all depends on what it was intended to be. Did the artist make it to be in a living room and have people sit on it, or was it intended to be put on a stool and exhibited. Would its owner hit me on the head if I was to sit on it?
As for the link chair, it all depends on what it was intended to be. Did the artist make it to be in a living room and have people sit on it, or was it intended to be put on a stool and exhibited. Would its owner hit me on the head if I was to sit on it?
craeonics
Reply #13 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:38 AM
Reply #13 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:38 AM
He would nowadays. But he'd probably pick another chair to hit you with.
This particular chair dates back to a period ('20s) in which there was no clear distinction between "art" and "design". In those days, most architects were artists as well.
Perhaps the distinction we make these days is artificial.
This particular chair dates back to a period ('20s) in which there was no clear distinction between "art" and "design". In those days, most architects were artists as well.
Perhaps the distinction we make these days is artificial.
paxx
Reply #14 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:40 AM
Reply #14 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:40 AM
And to push it a little further, good skins are not even necessarely the prettier ones, or the most original ones, or whatever defines a good piece of art. A good skin has to be usable (just like a good chair has to be sittable, hehehe).
So, yeah, certain skins are "wow!" to look at, but then you only use it for half a day because it's just too confusing to use or not too friendly or fast... Good artistic merit, but poorly functional = bad skin.
Good Skin not equal Good Artwork
So, yeah, certain skins are "wow!" to look at, but then you only use it for half a day because it's just too confusing to use or not too friendly or fast... Good artistic merit, but poorly functional = bad skin.
Good Skin not equal Good Artwork
craeonics
Reply #15 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:46 AM
Reply #15 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:46 AM
Or... good artwork does not automagically make it a good skin. Functionality plays a role too, which is why skinning is more interesting than walls and such.
But another example: bridges and stuff. Highly functional, but can be beautiful. Are they then not art?
But another example: bridges and stuff. Highly functional, but can be beautiful. Are they then not art?
adni18
Reply #16 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:46 AM
Reply #16 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:46 AM
I don't think that Fishbone mention the word "Skin". He is a wallpaper artist and I think that he was talking about wallpapers!
Wallpapers are ART! Digital Art.
I think that you agree with this paxx
Wallpapers are ART! Digital Art.
I think that you agree with this paxx
MobiusCo
Reply #17 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:57 AM
Reply #17 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:57 AM
Maybe since i am mostly a wall creator my view is different, but I think that the majority of the high quality walls, skins, and themes are definetly an art form. They are the expression of the desire of vision the creator has in mind for a specific look. Yes it has a function, but at the same time it is based around the look or enhanced look of an application. For example a structural wall has a specific function but once someone paints tag on it, some consider it art. And some of the street paintings are definetly art. Personally I do not find a oversized painting of a cambells soup can to be art, but I find an abstract swirl of twisted shapes in a wall to be art.
It is the in the eye of the beholder, and we are on the edge of a new stage of expression that will lead to and unknown outcome of creativity. That one day may be recognized and then again it may fade away.
It is the in the eye of the beholder, and we are on the edge of a new stage of expression that will lead to and unknown outcome of creativity. That one day may be recognized and then again it may fade away.
Jafo
Reply #18 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:59 AM
Reply #18 Friday, June 7, 2002 11:59 AM
Wallpapers are a predictable, narrow-minded interpretation of the concept of 'art'.
There IS no rule that 'art' must be rectangular, framed and hung on a wall.
I'm speaking as an Architect...where living environments are works of art....yes, they are 'designed', but so are 'paintings'.
Both are intended to be 'experienced', and so are skins, themes [GUIs] and boring old walls [no offence, just stressing there is more to art than painting, alone]...
There IS no rule that 'art' must be rectangular, framed and hung on a wall.
I'm speaking as an Architect...where living environments are works of art....yes, they are 'designed', but so are 'paintings'.
Both are intended to be 'experienced', and so are skins, themes [GUIs] and boring old walls [no offence, just stressing there is more to art than painting, alone]...
MobiusCo
Reply #19 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:12 PM
Reply #19 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:12 PM
Jafo, actually I do take an offense to that statement that walls are predictable, narrow-minded interpretation of the concept of 'art'.....
Yes some walls are just cut and paste, with a filter thrown on top. But many peices that are created and released by the artists have more thought, heart, and soul put into them, than many peices that hang in a museum. As for structures, many structures are works of art, but many others are simply boxes with holes cut into them for windows.
My view is that art is an expression of the creators emotions, desires, interpritations, or just pure and simply an expression of their thoughts. But to flat out say that walls are predictable, narrow-minded interpritations of the concept of art is very offensive.
Yes some walls are just cut and paste, with a filter thrown on top. But many peices that are created and released by the artists have more thought, heart, and soul put into them, than many peices that hang in a museum. As for structures, many structures are works of art, but many others are simply boxes with holes cut into them for windows.
My view is that art is an expression of the creators emotions, desires, interpritations, or just pure and simply an expression of their thoughts. But to flat out say that walls are predictable, narrow-minded interpritations of the concept of art is very offensive.
paxx
Reply #20 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:36 PM
Reply #20 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:36 PM
Sorry, but again, I don't consider wallpapers Art. Sorry.
Some wallpapers have absolutely nothing artistic to them and are still good wallpapers.
But yes, most piece of art can be placed on the background of your desktop. It doesn't mean they will be good wallpapers though. The purpose of a desktop is to have icons sitting on them, and certain work of art are too busy and you lose the icons on them.
But yes, just about any piece of art can be modified and arranged into a good wallpaper.
Don't take me wrong. I don't know if I can't make myself clear because I don't speak English good enough, but I think that some skins, wallpapers, chairs, cars, bridges, buildings, can opener, sinks, shoes, etc. are absolutely fabulously beautiful. They have some truly great artistic merit. But it does not define them as "art".
Point to a painting and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's art"
Point to a wonderfully beautiful chair and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's a chair"
But the thing is, that even a bad piece of art is still Art.
How can I explain this?
I can print a Monet and stick it on a chair. What will I get? A chair with a print of Monet on it. Not Art.
If I scan a Monet and put it on my desktop, what will I get? A wallpaper with a painting of Monet on it. Not Art.
Understand the difference? Yes, you can have Art on a wallpaper, but a wallpaper is not a piece of art in itself.
Some wallpapers have absolutely nothing artistic to them and are still good wallpapers.
But yes, most piece of art can be placed on the background of your desktop. It doesn't mean they will be good wallpapers though. The purpose of a desktop is to have icons sitting on them, and certain work of art are too busy and you lose the icons on them.
But yes, just about any piece of art can be modified and arranged into a good wallpaper.
Don't take me wrong. I don't know if I can't make myself clear because I don't speak English good enough, but I think that some skins, wallpapers, chairs, cars, bridges, buildings, can opener, sinks, shoes, etc. are absolutely fabulously beautiful. They have some truly great artistic merit. But it does not define them as "art".
Point to a painting and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's art"
Point to a wonderfully beautiful chair and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's a chair"
But the thing is, that even a bad piece of art is still Art.
How can I explain this?
I can print a Monet and stick it on a chair. What will I get? A chair with a print of Monet on it. Not Art.
If I scan a Monet and put it on my desktop, what will I get? A wallpaper with a painting of Monet on it. Not Art.
Understand the difference? Yes, you can have Art on a wallpaper, but a wallpaper is not a piece of art in itself.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, June 6, 2002 9:01 PM
Every avenue of human self-expression has been elevated to the status of an 'art', so logically GUI manipulation/skinning has, likewise....
Who knows, one day there may just be examples on display in the Mainstream Museums of Modern Art....they certainly deserve the recognition...