Design Category Redefinition - GFXartist.com - Served over 20,000,000 artworks

Back to forum overview

Back to topics

1 2

Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 03/31/2008 @016 \| edit post

Thanks for the input on the Drawing Categoy....next up is Design

I've already established that we are working with the infrastructure in place, so please put aside discussions about renaming categories, subcategory modifications etc. It's not going to happen as we don't have the programmer support at this time.

Currently Design is defined as:

Design
A bit of the odd one out, this category. Works can be created using a range of techniques, but have a certain functionality or communicate a certain message. Think about print or web layouts, posters, ads, flyers.

-----------------------------

Do your best to help shape your community. I could be an ass and have just the mod/admin team do it, but I want GFX to truly be a site for and by the members.

We don't need 2 paragraphs to describe a category....do your best to be as specific to avoid any subjectivity.

Some factors of discussion include:
The consideration of trying to pass a message
Commercial Intent
Role of typography
Decorative intent (wallpaper, skins etc)

I look forward to your responses.

I know everyone is waiting for the Photomanip category (the last one to be redefined), but as I know that's going to be a lot of discussion, I'd rather get this one out of the way.

To be honest, if I don't see much activity in this thread, I will seriously consider not putting the manip thread up for discussion, and leave it to the mod team. Drawing saw some activity....but by only a few members, I expected more from a community that is constantly asking for change.

This thread will close on Saturday April 5th...pm time frame....EST

Re: Design Category Redefinition
JordanRoots \| 03/31/2008 @052 \| edit post

Any mediums.
It has to be made so as to be printed or applied on something else. for example, it can't be a simple painting, it has to show on what it is applied. for example: http://henning.deviantart.com/art/Spiral-Angel-81456794
For example, if it's a CD cover, we have to see the CD case. If it's a car paint job, we have to see the car with the design on it. tattoo, logos can, however, be posted as a stand alone piece.
this category should include among others:

cd covers
book covers
posters
logos
T-shirt designs
car paint jobs
avatars

etc.

hum.. I'm not really sure my guide lines are really helpful... but I tried.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Daykan \| 03/31/2008 @055 \| edit post

This look interesting... the new Gfx it´s being born... Go on, Brett, some good things will come for all of us.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 03/31/2008 @063 \| edit post

btw...I'm not going to officially update any category until the redefinitions are done for all of them. Design, Drawing, and Manip are the only ones getting touch up treatment.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
kittyKat \| 03/31/2008 @221 \| edit post

please dont kill me for saying this but you were let in as a admin to do this job
I know you want everyone to help but past threads you have made have not really answered your questions kinda only made things more confusing
you have been here for a long time
you know what all these category's are about
why dont you just rewrite them pass it by martin if he agrees
edit the pages.
they could have all been done by now

Re: Design Category Redefinition
MePhIstoZoR \| 03/31/2008 @478 \| edit post

Pam you of all people should know that brett is trying to INVOLVE the community in the decision making process so at the same time they learn and understand the final idea. I don't know why you seem to be so cynical about that fact. He's HELPING, and putting a lot of time into doing so.

Sure, we could have done it by now (at this point you should be thinking "hey that's a good point - it would have been easier for the GFX team) - but that isn't what we are about. The community will hopefully benefit from this process rather than having us shove the new definitions in your face saying "THIS IS WHAT WE'VE MADE" - instead, we would prefer to say "this is what the community has made".

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 03/31/2008 @508 \| edit post

_quote:
kittyKat wrote on 03/31 @221
please dont kill me for saying this but you were let in as a admin to do this job
I know you want everyone to help but past threads you have made have not really answered your questions kinda only made things more confusing
you have been here for a long time
you know what all these category's are about
why dont you just rewrite them pass it by martin if he agrees
edit the pages.
they could have all been done by now

Wow Pam, got any more cynicism or pessimism to add to the conversation? I'm quite disappointed in your lack of support, being a former mod and all.

As past Admin were never here to listen I thought you would appreciate the fact that you now have one that's willing to take the time to see what the community wants, and try to tailor the site to that.

If you just want to complain then by all means do so in a pm...don't spoil my threads that are trying to develop the community. This is about the 3rd time you showed a lack of support for me and this team publicly...seriously, I love ya, but it's getting damn annoying.

I am providing an opportunity, if people don't wish to contribute that's fine....then they just lost their right to complain about it. At least I'm giving them a chance, which by and large...the older admins stopped doing a long time ago.

So get off my back.

[Message edited on 03/31 @508]

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Raphael \| 03/31/2008 @552 \| edit post

Ahem...

To get back on track. My suggestion is:

Design
Art with intent, usually of a commercial nature. Includes (but is not limited to) Web Design, Design for Print, Clothing, Branding, Tattoos, Architecture, Marketing Aids and Typography. Remember, It's nice to see pictures of the work in situ if possible.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
emarts \| 03/31/2008 @630 \| edit post

Yeah, I think Design is any commercial art. It should also be a complete package. Artwork for an advertisement would is an illustration. The entire advertisement would be Design. which kinda begs the question, "Who gets the credit?" If I were to post an advertisement that I designed but hired a photographer, could I post it? Or could I only post work that I did entirely on my own? Or should I post it under the umbrella of my company and list credits in the description?

edit: Oh, and when I mention commercial art I don't mean it had to actually be done for profit.

Can't wait to tackle photomanip!

[Message edited on 03/31 @631]

Re: Design Category Redefinition
chickenfingers \| 03/31/2008 @649 \| edit post

Weird thing about the design category is that it's the only purpose-defined rather than process-defined division on GFX.

Here's what I'm thinking:
Art, marked by an emphasis on structure and layout, which serves a functional purpose ~~by mediating between the audience and the object~~. 2-d design typically facilitates non-narrative and non-metaphorical communication through the arrangement of text and image. Examples include web, print, and type design. 3-d design relates structure, function, and aesthetic considerations in space. Examples include packaging, environment, and architectural design.

I'm not super happy with the 2-d vs 3-d distinction--I think it's more about degrees of interaction. And if we want to stick interface design/skins/wallpapers in the Design category, I can't see it from a "communication" aspect so much as an environmental design angle, with the environment being virtual.
Maybe I'll come back later with some better thoughts.

[Message edited on 03/31 @649]

Re: Design Category Redefinition
MePhIstoZoR \| 03/31/2008 @672 \| edit post

Samson i think if you hired the photographer for a specific purpose, that would be a part of the design process would it not? Either way i think it's important that you give credit where credit is due, even if you hired them for your own idea. Design is a bit different from the other categories in the way that quite often there will be some sort of out-sourcing for content. I mean, if you were to do an album's booklet that had photographs of the band inside - you still designed the booklet, it's just that someone else's work (hired by yourself or by the company employing you) would indefinitely be a part of that (particular) design process.

Of course that isn't the case for ALL design, just an example.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Raphael \| 03/31/2008 @680 \| edit post

When A designer uses someone else's photo's they are shot to the designer's specific brief or direction, OR chosen from stock imagery by the designer. Either way the overall work is the designer's (once all imagery is paid for).

If you wish to post designs that have been created for an employer then you MUST obtain permission of the employer first The design credit may be yours but the Copyright is your employer's.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
emarts \| 03/31/2008 @708 \| edit post

_quote:
chickenfingers wrote on 03/31 @649
Weird thing about the design category is that it's the only purpose-defined rather than process-defined division on GFX.

Wait til we get to photomanip and my definition of what it is.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
emarts \| 03/31/2008 @712 \| edit post

_quote:
MePhIstoZoR wrote on 03/31 @672
Samson i think if you hired the photographer for a specific purpose, that would be a part of the design process would it not? Either way i think it's important that you give credit where credit is due, even if you hired them for your own idea. Design is a bit different from the other categories in the way that quite often there will be some sort of out-sourcing for content. I mean, if you were to do an album's booklet that had photographs of the band inside - you still designed the booklet, it's just that someone else's work (hired by yourself or by the company employing you) would indefinitely be a part of that (particular) design process.

Of course that isn't the case for ALL design, just an example.

Yes, while I would agree the overall design would be mine, I still think the credit for the photography should be mentioned. Because although I may make certain statements to the photographer as to what I would like to see, I am still hiring the photographer for his/her expertise. So there would be some decisions made by the photographer that may go beyond my original descriptions to him/her.

But for GFXARTIST.com's purposes, could I still post the resulting design in my gallery? Is it seen as more of a collaboration? This is just a hypothetical situation. My first opinion would be, yes post it as your own design, but include credits and permissions where applicable.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
pyrokid \| 03/31/2008 @737 \| edit post

I though aslong as the artwork was a DESIGN it comes under the design category. So if you design a CD cover and so on. I didn't really know there was a problem with the design category, I think the artist should state what it is that they are designing, that way you wouldn't have any trouble.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
MePhIstoZoR \| 03/31/2008 @764 \| edit post

@ Samson

_quote:
"Yes, while I would agree the overall design would be mine, I still think the credit for the photography should be mentioned."

- I agree with you mate that's why i said " Either way i think it's important that you give credit where credit is due, even if you hired them for your own idea"

_quote:
"But for GFXARTIST.com's purposes, could I still post the resulting design in my gallery? Is it seen as more of a collaboration? This is just a hypothetical situation. My first opinion would be, yes post it as your own design, but include credits and permissions where applicable."

- Correct again chief. While technically it is a collaboration, they were hired (in my example) either by you or for you to complete your design - so while the photographer may have partial input into various aspects of the photography, in the long run it is to help fulfill your design requirements. So yes, it would be your design, but like i mentioned before - give credit where credit is due (and as mentioned, make sure you have permission to post it depending on company and / or contract requirements)

Re: Design Category Redefinition
ThruMyEyez \| 03/31/2008 @828 \| edit post

I've seen no mention of computer fractal programs such as Apophysis that I've been using to create artwork that for lack of a better area I've been posting under design. I asked you Brett when I first started posting them if design was a correct category. You said you thought it was but would check into it. Any further opinion?

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 03/31/2008 @863 \| edit post

_quote:
ThruMyEyez wrote on 03/31 @828
I've seen no mention of computer fractal programs such as Apophysis that I've been using to create artwork that for lack of a better area I've been posting under design. I asked you Brett when I first started posting them if design was a correct category. You said you thought it was but would check into it. Any further opinion?

lol I said that b/c I knew I was becoming an admin, and the redefinition was on my things to do list

I'm not too familiar with Apophysis, I might download it just to get a better view on the matter of 'autofractals'. Technically they could be considered a wallpaper....good question Gary.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Millink \| 03/31/2008 @865 \| edit post

I cant really find design in the classical definition of art... so I wont burn my fingers on this one ^^

[Message edited on 03/31 @866]

Re: Design Category Redefinition
kittyKat \| 03/31/2008 @880 \| edit post

Apophysis> Wallpaper > Fractals

Re: Design Category Redefinition
ThruMyEyez \| 03/31/2008 @952 \| edit post

Apophysis>Design>wallpaper

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/01/2008 @986 \| edit post

_quote:
ThruMyEyez wrote on 03/31 @952
Apophysis>Design>wallpaper

Wow...I downloaded it and literally within 5 MINUTES of poking around I made this.

EDIT: It was really about 4 min..the final 1 min was rendering

You aren't really painting or drawing...it's certainly not photo or manip. It has a few properties associated with 3d, but not enough to merit it.

Apophysis and other fractal programs will go into design. Specifically b/c it's based on design principles in the rawest form. Use of positive/negative spacing...color theory, directional lines, and layout play big roles.

[Message edited on 04/01 @987]

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/01/2008 @988 \| edit post

_quote:
kittyKat wrote on 03/31 @880
Apophysis> Wallpaper > Fractals

Apophysis = Fractals, and can be used as wallpaper. That's a bit more accurate I imagine.

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/01/2008 @994 \| edit post

I'm really not feeling the 'commercial value' or message aspect of this....as a painting or photo can have the same criteria. I agree, that generally most items classified as (graphic)design tend to have these values, but it's not unique to it.

Now....I do believe that we can also include examples of final products to help articulate what falls in this category. This could help cover the whole 'intent' angle, and leave less interpretation to those wondering if their submission is fitting for the Design Category.

Fractals
Packaging
Wallpaper
Skins for programs
Posters
Fashion
Compositions relying heavily on both imagery and typography
Fonts
Websites
Mulitmedia (flash, video, animated gifs, post video compositioning)

I'm tempted to include mix-media, but that's a fine line for manip too. The occasional emo-goth-candlelit-photomanip-with-scriptive-text-added could be debated for either category. I'm willing to leave it to the author on that kind of scenario.

/random thought

Re: Design Category Redefinition
kittyKat \| 04/01/2008 @003 \| edit post

VECTOR

Re: Design Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/01/2008 @018 \| edit post

_quote:
kittyKat wrote on 04/01 @003
VECTOR

vector what?

EDIT: I'm assuming you mean vector as a medium goes into design

You can have vector AND raster posters, packaging, fashion design etc. So Vector by itself is too general a term...and not in line with the list of 'end products' I listed above.

It would have been nice to have had your input on the Drawing section Pam with specifically vectors

_quote:
Wysiwyg wrote on 03/24 @737
Vector (pen tool work) artwork should be a factor of discussion

Source: Drawing Catagory Redefinition

But that time is over now.....

and as of right now Vectors, as they are created with Vector Drawing programs is going to stay in Drawing.

Now if they were to do a Vector wallpaper...well...wallpaper is design. But if it's just a Vector portrait...then that's drawing. Same way works with Raster. I'm discussing the end product...not the means of creation.

[Message edited on 04/01 @027]

Topic closed

1 2

Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.
This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .

Web GFXartist.com