Give me some good reasons why CARI is not a good source of information for design and why should be avoided like the plague . They do some research at least unlike aesthetics wiki in which makes things up. If they are bad what can be done to fix it?
>>458925yeah I'm good manif these creatures seem up your alley then by all means, take advice from whoever you want
>>458925It's fun for moodboarding stuff, the big argument I see against it here is that they make up names for styles that don't have any actual name and people think that makes them look silly.>>458926Froyo Tam is the goat though, everything I've seen from her has been absolutely fantastic. Ahhh!! They're not all boring white men!! So scary!!
>>458932>Froyo Tam is the goat thoughlooks pretty dogshit to me
>>458933https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTa11IKrZpA
>>458934sure that's decent, I'm not sold on anyone else there thoughit wasn't about them being asian or whatever autistic assumption you madeI'm skeptical of anyone that hides their face like that articution dude, and evan collins just seems all around unbearable
>>458935>I'm skeptical of anyone that hides their face like that articution dudeand it appears I'm right to be, there's illustrators with 10 viewers on twitch better than this
>>458936>>458935These are the people telling you your design is shit while they get funding for writing shit posts online.I mean, there is Froyo Tam and a bunch of hardcore pinterest hoarders and they call themselves a team.
>>458943it actually kind of baffles me why Froyo Tam is there, her work is solid but she's among mouthbreathers
>>458945There's nothing thevleast bitcremarkable about any of the examples of her work posted here or in her motion reel. It's just that it's vague and inscrutable enough to trigger a pavlovian reaction in people conditioned to assuming that those traits *must* mean "talent" and that an artist not caring about looking like a fool = "boldness".CARI is only interesting as an example of just how insufferable artfags can be when given free reign.
>>458946post your work
>>458947Why? Are you running a contest? Who's the judge?
>>458950stop deflecting and post your work
>>458946hey tranny
The only way shit like this could be redeemed is if it turned out to have been created by a real teenager trolling the art world with a fake "crazy artist" persona.
>>458926>>faggot, sluts, furrycome on
>>458951This guy again… What you're posting is the culmination of a postmodern pastiche. It's anti-design by definition.
>>458996weird deflection but I'll say again, post your workyou have such strong opinions, surely you have the skill to back them up
>>458998Only one deflecting is you; multiple people have made cogent comments about her work and why they don't like or respect it and all you do is ignore it as if the quality of her work is somehow related to the quality of other people's work.I guess if you're twelve it may seem like a "gotcha" but the people refusing to play your game are actually staying on topic and you are introducing extraneous bullshit to hide the fact that you can't refute what they say about the topic.You are so bad at it that you even have to pretend that only one poster has made those comments, because personal attacks are all you have to work with and you have nothing of any value to say about the topic.And of course you won't post YOUR work to establish the credibility you demand others present...most likely because you know that it will be dismissed in bad faith EXACTLY the same way you plan to do to anyone dumb enough to take your bait at face value.
>>458998Why should anyone here care what you think about their work? What qualifies you to judge anyone else worthy of having an opinion?
>>459000>>459001>writing two posts out complete with reddit spacing instead of simply posting one (1) piece of your own work to back up any of the shit you talklol man
>>459002Still refusing to answer the simple question of WHY should anyone do this?What actual.purpose would it serve?Why should anyone care what you think about their art, when it has nothing to do with the topic?And why wouldn't a person acting in good faith hold themselves to the same standard they demand of others, and post their own work to back up the shit they talk?Lofl, you do nothing BUT deflect; now it's "reddit soacing" that supposedly matters.
>>458925Because its not anything.Its fake it til you make it core trying to be the next k-hole and get some gigs and speaking fees.Thats it. If youre so tumblr core behind the times, sure its useful to you.>lol to you
>>459003I already said why + I'm not the one sitting here calling a collective of people insufferable and garbagenow post your work or stop posting
>>459010>I already said whyThat's a lie >+ I'm not the one sitting here calling a collective of people insufferable and garbageSo? How does that oblige anyone to follow your orders or accept your standards for who is allowed to comment?>now post your work or stop postingNO, it's far more fun to watch you trying to assert some authority to tell people how to act and failing harder and harder every time you try to deflect from the original topic.
>>459010>calling a collective of people insufferable You act as if judging them as a collective is somehow unfair, when they deliberately positioned themselves as a collective for the express purpose of exploiting the amplified power and influence a collective conveys. It's perfectly fair to judge those kinds of associations and the motivations for forming them, ESPECIALLY when that collective exists to position and promote itself as an authority on history and conventions and language itself.Its pretentious, pompous, snobbish and conceited behavior by self appointed "authorities" and most people who aren't all those things find that insufferable.
Their explanatory verbiage just proves that they are utterly clueless about the subject of their work->CARI defines a consumer aesthetic as a visual movement unified by overarching attitudes and themes that survived long enough or became popular enough to be appropriated by capital (a bar that is being lowered constantly as our cycles of cultural propagation accelerate). >CARI mostly handles aesthetics that have broken into "mainstream" culture by way of corporate appropriation.LOL, they want to believe that "consumers" exist independently of business/marketing and that popularity of some visual style crops up organically among "consumers" before it is used in any marketing efforts, and only after it has proven popular is it stolen by business and used as a marketing tool.That's pants-on-head stupid and the opposite of how it usually works...commercial marketing aesthetics and visual styles are appropriated all the time by "fine" artists and mainstream culture and it is applauded as subversive and ironic and highly conceptual. It certainly can be but it's just as often lazy and trite and sophomoric.Meanwhile marketers have to be hyper aware of what culturally valued content they use in advertising and face serious backlash for offending anyone's sensibilities. If anything they are hesitant to jump on fresh cultural trends and only "appropriate" things they know are popular because they are already vetted and less risky. But in many cases that popular trend was originated or heavily influenced by advertising in the first place...posters are a prime example.
>>459013How DARE these capitalist tools appropriate this poor artists' creative gift to culture and use it to sell product!
>>459011>>459012>>459013dude just post a single fucking piece of work and fuck off with the essaysif you're a competent designer I will shut up right now and never post here again
>>459015LMAONOYou don't make the rules and your "standards" are irrelevant.
>>459016that's all I needed man, thanks for confirming
I was thinking about this now.CARI like to slap on the term neo on the "aesthetic" if its being in a revival of sorts. Its like when you call a art nouveau revival Neo art nouveau when its just a revival in set year.I know that neo means also modified. But even then it a has to have reason to be neo.
CARI doesn't tell you much about the aesthetics on their site that you wouldn't get from a Pinterest moodboard.Why was a given aesthetic created? Which artists or companies were originally responsible for it? Who were they inspired by? What in the cultural zeitgeist was it pulling from? Was there a change in graphics technology, material science or design requirements that prompted it? How did the aesthetic change over time? Are there other aesthetics that pulled from similar sources, or that it "evolved" from, or split into?For Gen X Soft Club, CARI's site does mention the 60/70s nostalgia, but one could talk about how the rigid grids of early web design and limitations of early Photoshop contributed to a Swiss style revival. Or the rise of Ibiza as a clubbing destination putting international travel into the minds of club art designers, or the fact that Helvetica was coincidentally a system font on Macs, or how the aesthetic changed as club music became harder and more electroclash-influenced. And to Tam and Collins' credit, they do talk about things and they actually are interested in answering these questions. But there's comparatively little depth on CARI itself as the site's members have gatekept their stuff to a private Discord (desu I get why it's private; the gatekeeping is the issue). It doesn't help that their site layout makes these aesthetics look much more rigid and walled-off than they actually are.I'm grateful for what Tam, Collins et al have done, the latter especially for digitizing hundreds of design documents. But CARI feels like a missed opportunity, because this concept attracts a certain strain of autistic kid who was too young to have first hand experience of the aesthetics they're fascinated by, which combined with the general shallowness of CARI/the Aesthetics Wiki has resulted in a lot of them having bad, reductive takes (see: the synthwaveification of frutiger aero)Sorry for the blogpost
>>459090no keep going this blogpost this is very good
>>459090Like most Internet things it's just there to make people famous or get money. It's just profiting from other peoples work and portraying it as a public service.
>>459090speaking of that here's one of them doing a presentation of the stuff they made up https://youtu.be/DWIvHh6qSxA
>>459090so CARI will go the same way as lost media wiki.
>>459090Forgot to add "What (imagery, aspirations, ideas of cool) is an aesthetic trying to sell?" There's some (not much but some) emphasis on CARI on the role of marketing, but almost zero in the "consumer aesthetics community" as a whole even though it's the reason this shit even exists, beyond some vague idea of "the future we promised" for FA as if Big Tech only began to sell the future in 2006>It doesn't help that their site layout makes these aesthetics look much more rigid and walled-off than they actually are.Adding to this, what CARI does through their site design/layout isA) Formalize/flanderize these aesthetics. Diffuse vibes like "Global Village Coffeehouse" and "Ultramodern Revival" that had no leaders, origin or scene are presented alongside movements like Memphis or Superflat that did, while it pulverizes works together into slop by emphasizing The Aesthetic over their individual traits. A web of influences becomes a pile of water balloons, externally disconnected and internally homogeneous. It discourages designers from breaking the non-existent rules of the aesthetics and results in works that look like AIs trained on individual Aesthetics Wiki pagesB) Present aesthetics as the sum total of commercial design, even if most consumer art does not fall neatly into one (or any) of them. If aesthetics are your only lens for looking at design (again, it's not for CARI's founders but they're creating people for whom it is), you're going to miss shit like the works of Karim Rashid, who you can't tell the story of 2000s design without, but whose work approaches 4-5 CARI aesthetics without fully inhabiting any of them"avoid at all costs" for CARI is too harsh, aestheticfaggotry just makes it too easy to develop bad habits if you're a designer. it can be fun if you're a layman because it'll open your eyes up more to the seemingly-throwaway art around you but if you're here you should be past that point>>459098It's to /gd/ what TV Tropes is to /tv/
>>458925They get a little carried away with the categorization. Some of the stuff, like 'Neon Ooze', just seems like some thing that was commonly marketed rather than a legit aesthetic. Dubious categorization notwithstanding, the site is pretty cool (better than the Aesthetics Wiki imo). If I'm not careful, I'll end up spending hours browsing all the fascinating art styles.>>458926I means chuds don't really touch this stuff. They're still mostly unaware there's more aesthetics out there than the 4 displayed in that aesthetics quadrant image that gets spammed on this site. So you create a vacancy where libs are free to fill the void. The Aesthetics Wiki is even more insufferably Reddit. At least Evan had it in him to cover the buttrock aesthetic:https://www.are.na/evan-collins-1522646491/post-grunge-maximalism >>458935He's definitely not someone I'd ever want anything to do with. But I can still appreciate his contributions to the study of aesthetics, much as I can appreciate a book or essay or article written by a lib. I don't have to agree with someone's warped worldview to find valuable things among their intellectual output.
>>459090most of this happens on their discord, stay there for 5 minutes and realize they're full of bullshit, it's a bunch of adhd teenagers having a hard on categorizing everything, there is no encyclopedic effort, just posting whatever they collect on are.na and pretend to have a critical analysis of it
