It is clear from reading Nielsen that he ascribes to a set of standards. It is also clear that Nielsen feels he is right about these standards he sets forth. However, I and many disagree based on our own opinion based on some facts. My question to all is: Where is the line drawn on whether something is right when aesthetics is such a subjective subject?
Artwork is a perfect place to start this argument. Michaelangelo's David is considered to be beautiful by many people. There are people who think the David isn't beautiful; they think it is just a statue of a man. Where does one draw the line on what is aesthetically pleasing?
This class talks about websites and how things are usable and not usable. It has been established that it is the designers fault when the user doesn't understand what the designer designed. What if the user is having a bad day and decides during a usability test that the site is garbage because really he is mad since his sandwich from Subway was soggy today? The response has nothing to do with the website, but instead with the fact the tester is having a bad day. Where does one draw the line between actual fact and subjectivity?
One can say with enough objective proof that good aesthetics is something symmetrical. No one likes something disjointed. That is something most can agree on. Wait.. most.. that means not everyone agrees on what is aesthetically pleasing, even with something as simple as symmetry! I know plenty of individuals who think artists who paint with their buttcheeks randomly on the canvas are artists. That has no specific point other than "artistic expression", which is really someone painting their buttcheeks on a paint canvas. I don't think it's art, I think its buttcheeks on a canvas, but that is my subjective opinion based on the facts of what I think art is, which is different than what someone else obviously thinks art is.
As this class progresses, I am starting to believe this idea of "give the user what he/she wants" is really dulling down the very idea of aesthetics itself. As it stands, aesthetic judgment is completely subjective, which makes it immeasurable. Thus, the designer no longer has the license to create something better, since risk isn't rewarded. Risk holds little inherent value when one is banking on the subjective appeal one can create. The artist or designer is banking on creating something that appeals to something immeasurable, which is completely determined at the moment of apprehension by the user who may for whatever reason decide something stinks for no reason other than they "feel" like it.
No wonder artists are mostly starving. Notice how I said most..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where does creativity belong in the midst of all of this?
Aha - I can see now that you really understand art. Unfortunately, it's a business like everything else. It would be very nice to sit and create art or music or whatever and have someone say, "I love it! I'll pay you $10,000 for it!", but this is the real world. Very few artists get to have total artistic freedom. For example, even the most successful musicians are under contract and must produce an album a year (or something like that, unless they have their own labels). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take risks, though. I think we read too much into what Nielsen says. Artists like Picasso and musicians like Wynton Marsalis and Keith Jarrett all had formal training: they learned the "proper" way of doing their art first, and practiced it for many years until they found their own artistic voices. You need a good foundation first, and to learn to "play by the rules". Then, and only then, can you throw the rules out the window. Anyway, all art is really about the connection between the artist and the viewer (or designer and the user). The artist may derive pleasure from creating it, but if he expects to earn any money from his art, he would do best to follow the advice of those like Nielsen and then build upon it. That's what's been keeping art vital for centuries. And, really, when you think about it, how much about art is really, truly new and revolutionary? We're constantly plagiarizing from those who came before and making it better, as did all the great artists who came before us.
Post a Comment