Tuesday, February 17, 2009
i have nothing to say about that .gif, i just thought it was funny.
i find a simple interface really, really appealing. especially as we are dealing with involved content (i.e. essays, photography, articles and art) that asks your conceptual participation... i feel like a convoluted website would be overkill. sexy, simple, with essential information.
example of bad, convoluted interface: fecalface. that, and the name is really kinda unbearable (i'm sure people would disagree with me) BUT the content is awesome BUT the homepage makes me panic. literally panic. okay not literally.
profiles and links to artists' sites: good idea. especially for people who are trying to get their work out there and circulated. if the printed media is where we are really going to concentrate on putting together pieces of artwork into an integrated, whole work then allowing the website to give us more context is a great idea (context i.e. who the artists are, what they do individually, their statements and bios etc.)
actually i like that. the magazine and the website are complementary. text and context.
so. would that image in the previous post be the actual homepage? if so, i like it. i also think, though, that instead of the sleek and quiet fonts that perhaps allude too much to interior-design-webstores and the like, what if we did something with the same simplicity but more flesh and color:
new zealand-based chocolatiers . find their website really appealing bc it has the simplicity of something you could hold. it's charming, it's simple, slightly sinister, and it's not trying too hard to sell itself or genre itself. and i don't panic about where to find information. it's just simply pleasing.
click around on it - it's awesome. and i call and talk to the people about what/who they are using to design this - we carry their chocolate in the store where i work.
well. i was going to linkup http://www.cranbrookart.edu/Pages/Ceramics.html (cranbrook academy of art) because they used to have an interesting and appropriate website for their different disciplines - each was different based. but. it's a little less interesting than it used to be. worth it to look around on, anyway.
brian knox (who isn't reading this blog or the emails but soon will be... as soon as i remember to email him) has a 2d design style that i would love to be visually associated with - rich color scheme, ambiguous imagery, not serious, not overly ironic, and what i find most appealing - it's like nothing i've encountered. i don't know his level of experience with putting together a website. hah. great with photoshop though! surely those skills transfer.
alright that's all i have today.