In my past web critiques, there has not been a website that seemed to severely lack in form, content, style, or design. Most of the sites have been rich in information, easy to navigate, and appreciated for their skillful choice of complex and simple web page designs. I can recall now how I loved ThreeWalls' use of natural wood for their one and only aesthetic attribute, and how MCA's website was a beautiful place where imagery danced before my eyes.
In respect to Mess Hall and the Chicago Art Deparment, these websites are part of the above category. The design of these sites are overall successful and reflect the uniquness and inventiveness these organizations strive to represent. I love the 10 points, the love letter to Chicago, and the fact that Mess Hall's website acts as an alternative resource, which also shows how this organziation is a creative exchange center for experimental ideas. The CAD's website also has a strong design aesthetic that helps translate how this center is a space for and by artists. I wish I had access to this type of gallery at a young age. Here, young artists can make and show their work along with featured shows. Also, I am excited by the fact that these places recontextualize the definition of an artist and the very notion of the MFA degree. In the end, I enjoyed exploring these organizations and their websites.
The Pros Arts Studio, however, is another story. There website comes across as one that appears to be in construction. For instance, the showcase section only has a logo of some sort and does not have any other information. If they added an "under construciton" sign and a short description of the showcase, I would have a better idea of what is going on with the website. The design of this site hindered my ability to get a thorough idea of what this organizatin is all about. The lengthy sections of text were uninspiring and could be reorganized for easy reading. In the end, this website has room for improvement.
The differences between Mess Hall, Chicago Art Department, and the Pros Arts Studio websites have highlighted for me how organized groups and their websites often benefit from having a concise, stylized image. This helps me think about visual culture and how we are now more then ever immersed and influenced by our highly saturated world of imagery. We have become accustomed to aesthetic appearances determining how we connect to websites and their purpose. At lease in my case, I did not connect to the Pros Arts Studio for this very reason. What does this mean? Nowadays, more and more people have their own websites and busines cards, where being marked, stylized, marketed is necessary to be accessible and successful in our highly digitized worlds. Sometimes I find this kind of scarry, even rediculous, but in the end truly intrigueing. Have you ever thought about the impact today's visual cultural and highly saturated environments on how we percieve ourselves and the world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
oh meaghan, those are really great/tough questions. i have a marketing background but a strong distaste for commercial advertising. that said, i know i judge organizations based on their "concise, stylized image" presented on their sites. i feel strongly that arts orgs have to compete in a game whose rules are made by bigger institutions with larger budgets. but i also feel there's artistry involved in appropriating those conventions of commercial visual culture and harnessing them creatively to work for the missions of the arts organizations (and other nonprofits) we believe in.
ReplyDeleteinteresting poijnts, meaghan. and interesting reactions to the site. you've moved in a different direction from lots of other folks, seeing mess hall as a refection of the organization's character, but being frustrated by pros arts lack of form/organization. many people have had the opposite reaction. i think it'll be an interesting discussion in class.
ReplyDeleteand really great question at the end. we definitely look at the world in a different way because of the sheer amount of media/images we are exposed to, versus folks 20-30 years ago. mass media is everywhere, and you can't turn a corner without it striking a thought/reflection/chord in your mind in relation to something else. i think though that visual culture has always been present, just in a more localized and subtle way. now we're so globalized and instantaneous, and i think that's the biggest difference. i'd like to hear other people's resposes to this question in class too.