I’ve been taking part in two discussions on two different blogs today.

The first, on Chris Fahey’s graphpaper.com, where the discussion is about graphic design on the web. I don’t have time to summarize so please go to the thread and check it out. But my point wasn’t well made. If we’re going to discuss graphic design vis-a-vis the web, it doesn’t help to inject the web into what is a conversation about traditional graphic design.

If you want to crit Google’s logo, crit Google’s logo. What does the fact that Google makes its money via the web have to do with anything? Now. If you want to crit Google’s home page in regard to it’s visual design, that’s another story. The main design decision of Google’s home page isn’t the logo. It’s the singular search field. You could put any reasonably designed logo above this search field without significantly changing the function or feel of the page. This distinction, IMHO, embodies the disconnect between graphic designers critiquing the web and web designers critiquing the web.

+++

The other is at ArtFagCity. My comment is still waiting moderation (Paddy please fix these long waits… makes it hard to have a discussion) but here it is:

Tom Moody wrote: “Art about the art world inherently blows”

I can never understand why some folks think certain subjects are inherently bad. It’s obvious to me that no subject is inherently bad — even the art world.

If a certain piece is naval-gazing bullshit, fine. If you think a certain subject is being over-explored (like skulls perhaps?), then say it.

But, to declare one subject off-limits because it “inherently blows” makes no sense.

Actually, good art about the art world is perhaps even harder to pull off because of the risks of a) naval-gazing and b) subject over-exposure.

permanent link to this post