Hi. First time for me. Thanks to anethon for asking me to participate.
cool, now we can stop communicating by pm at yh :D
The image is really nice, I gave it a 4. I don’t think I’ll be able to match it on the beauty scale.
Flatterer, I’m sure you’ll be able to come up with some beautiful stuff! :0)
great start. Your image is simple and beautiful, and that’s all I’s got to say about it
that flower gets around, huh? I saw it in a (your?) coudal submission like 10 minutes ago
That shit’s tight! Welcome Conn75!
My only (constructive) criticism would be that the vertical repetition of “simple” is unnecessary and kind of betrays the theme. But it’s almost subdued enough to not really matter. Great first image!
edit: Damn, even the thumbnail is tight!
I enjoy this image. It is ironic to use an image from nature to show something simple because nature is so complex.
At first, I disagreed with inman about the vertical type treatment. I think that this treatment helps balance the reflection of the flower. After reading the definition for simple (“…not made up of many like units, free from elaboration or figuration…”) I believe that inman raises a valid point about betraying the theme. However, the composition is so visual appealing that I don’t mind.
Can’t wait to see more conn75!
Yeah, this flower was also used in my Coudal submission (under my real name). I’m getting my money’s worth out of it! :)
Thanks for the welcome all!
I’m glad someone picked up on the irony of using a seemingly simple natural thing which is probably so complex in reality that nothing man-made could match. This will probably be a feature of most of this designologue.
When discussing this with anethon we mentioned the word minimal, and I know this isn’t particularly simple when you look at the number of elements, but I think the simple look of the flower and gradient background was simple enough in my mind. And I hope future images will be anything from extremely minimal to insanely cluttered, as long as it conveys a simplicity somehow. And portrays beauty.
Oh, and inman…the thumbnail was created following your wonderful email instructions! :)
I give it a 4. I saw the theme name. I saw the image. There we have it.
While, I do agree with inman about the vertical treatment of ‘simpye’, the overall gestalt of the image conveys simplicity.
Excellent work. I look forward to seeing more of this designlogue and more from you, conn75.
I have nothing new to add the comments… I just wanted to say how much I liked this image. Its not necessarily simple, but it is stunning. Welcome!
my first favorite. its that good
minimal doesn’t come naturally for me… anyway…
The first image that came to mind was a girl smelling a flower…
This is my dead horse and I can beat it if I want to: Why didn’t you use the flower from the previous image? Something, anything to relate the two images?
I gave this image a 2 and I’ll explain why. What makes designologues interesting to me is how one designer visually incorporates the others elements into their own image. This does not do that. There’s a new element and the same idea expressed in the first image but why not build on the beauty that was already there? Strike one against this image.
This image isn’t simple, it’s weak. You can have a composition with only two elements but they have to interact, they need to be on top of one another. Strike two.
If I was rating on the strength of this one image alone I may not have been so harsh. But each image should be dependent on the one that precedes it. It’s not a designologue if images are so visually separate that their order can be swapped without anybody noticing.
hmm point taken about the dialog aspect. I don’t think it’s fair to say you HAVE to use the previous image… but this is a good point: It’s not a designologue if images are so visually separate that their order can be swapped without anybody noticing.
But this I don’t buy: This image isn’t simple, it’s weak. You can have a composition with only two elements but they have to interact, they need to be on top of one another. Strike two.
So any design with only two elements must overlap?? What kind of rule is that? Anyway they do interact, their placement is in relation to each other.
But a 2 is acceptable. I’m glad to hear your critique.
Now would the lurker who gave me a 1 do me the courtesy of explaining it? At least?
That’s an example, not a rule. And I think it is fair to say that you HAVE to use the previous images - especially when it’s as beautiful and uncluttered as the previous one. Although there are exceptions to the rule. See no. 001: aviation and blood or no. 002: workingclass we’re I am definitely the guilty party. Doesn’t mean I can’t strive for better and expect the same of my peers.
The challenge of a designologue is working with whatever you’re given. You want to create an entirely new image? Do it. Just post it on your portfolio site with all the other work entirely created by you (but undoubtedly influenced by somebody else), because that’s all that type of image is.
I don’t mean to single you out anethon - you just happen to be the last person to post before I revisited.
I think its nice to hear you spell it out so clearly inman. At one point, i had altogether abondoned using any piece of the previous image. But, its good to hear what you think. Thanks!
I’m all for personal interpretation but when you grab the ball, start dribbling and make a fast break towards the 50-yard line it’s not really football anymore now is it? ;D
Hmm, not sure what to make of all that. I really like this pic, but I suppose if there should be a part of the previous image then that’s a point. Maybe a bit harshly put though.
Anyway, better get to work… :o)
anethon, don’t worry about keeping it minimal.
After talking with anethon today. I think it is very important to be able to discern between honest critique, and personal attacks.
People take it personal when they shouldnt, and people also dont take notice when they should. It goes both ways.
So, as a critiquer, I think you have an obligation to be truthfull, without attacking. And as an artist, you need to get good at knowing when a person is attacking you, and when they have a valid critique.
I initially liked this image, but I agree with Inman that it doesnt hold itself together as good as the first. It looks like two seperate components on the sambe page. It is not completely cohesive.
I also think that you guys have a difficult shoe to fill. Making something sparse, lite, and still beautifull is a hard thing to do.
This shall be an itneresting logue to follow.
I’m sorry that came across as a personal attack. It’s really just me complaining about the same things I’ve been complaining about from day one. The second image of Designologue carried over no elements from the first. It’s my own fault for not explaining my vision clearly from the start. It’s just angst at failing to do what Graphic Designers are supposed to do best - communicate.
And I’m sorry it happened twice in your Designologues Anethon - your games seem to be the only ones in town!
I didn’t take it personal. And actually, as I mentioned elsewhere, I tend to start from scratch because the image-swap site I came from was all about:
1. Take the last guys image and apply cheesy ps filter.
2. Randomly adjust levels, colorbalance or whatever else occurs to you.
3. Paste something else on top of it.
Anyway, critique is good.
Carry on everyone…
I dont think this is a weak image, necessarily. Granted, it doesnt include any elements from the original image, or even have the same kind of flower, but I see the girl smelling a flower (shes pulling away actually, after smelling it). To me, they interact.
But I like this: It’s not a designologue if images are so visually separate that their order can be swapped without anybody noticing, so I think Ill deduct a point from now on if that occurs.
I do prefer it when a dsnlg takes a more visual progression. Although I also think it is pretty interesting when a conversation progresses on a conceptual level. See no. 121: deSIGNs no. 043: 4yourthoughts
Of course the best is when it does both, but it at least must achieve one.
DeSigns wouldn’t work using elements from the last image and there are plenty of others that work in the same way. My response for designocomic is not going to include elements from Lincoln’s start. The style will be totally different but the dialogue will continue so a progression will be maintained. I think finding interesting variations like this is a very cool and vibrant part of this “game.”
This image however, is a little weak on both fronts and that is the problem. This seems to be a more visual conversation so it would make sense to build off of each others vision rather than start from scratch each design. I think most dsnlgs should progress that way.
I am tired of this bitter Inman shit.
Sounds like a mother trying to shelter her kids.
Let designologue grow.
Stop slashin’ roots.
If you want everything to go your way, make a designotopia where you control everything. All participants are characters of your imagination. All designs regulated by divine design of said master inman.
I understand that you did put a fuck load of effort into creating this site, but I can’t help but notice the frankenstein effect it is having on you.
anethon. I think this is a nice response to the vertically janktafied simple antics of conn76.
I am with Tacosaurus on this one. I believe this site is frequented by designers, people who work in a profession where restraints are in place every day (clients needs, petty laws to on sexual gratuity etc.) and this place is a breath of fresh air. It is nice to just come in and do things you feel like doing. Inman, as a child did you ever take your ball home if you were not winning the game?
Nice. Now the good Rev has some ammo for his next Designocomic: The Bride of FrankenInman.
You’re sick of me, Taco? Boo-fuckin-hoo. Fo’ shizzle, my designosaurahnizzle. What you call slashing roots, I consider weeding. I’m trying to keep my garden free of…ha, nevermind, my gardening analogies are worse than my attempts at sports analogies.
And Wolfboy, if I was that sort of guy you wouldn’t be reading this right now.
maybe we should move all this talk to a thread called “Simply UGLY.”
Carrying on the female theme but also keeping the flower theme in there, while still keeping things relatively simple (I never said minimal!). I’ll need to try and move away from flowers for the next one, I think :o)
I didn’t say I was tired of you.
I said I was tired of your bitterness.
Take that out of context.
taco, you dont like bittersweet chocolate? damn you suck…stupid dinosaur…
wow. that sounded harsh.
I like the way you incorporated the last image.. i like the women. im not crazy about the backgoround…
No more flowers, I promise! :o)
this one reminds me of the eighties… yuk.
It looks like it is advertising some sickly creamy girls drink about 20 years ago. The Milktray guy is gonna swing through any moment.
Hmm. Third image seems…a bit empty or mid-nineties-feeling.
I like the treatment o fthe girl — i like her shape — how she’s almost turned into negative space because of her inner treatment.
However, that background in killing me — esepcially the beveling of the negative space in the middle-bottom portion. And the integration of the last image into this one feels a little week — an after-thought maybe. Colorizing it to match the saturation and hue of the inner-girl may have made it more cohesive.
But, there’s a certain delicacy to the image — a quiet beauty which did come across, I feel. Still, though — feels very mid-nineties-basement-photoshopper.
Im begining to wonder if simple and minimal arent the same thing. Cuz this doesnt really strike me as either. Not to say that it has to be simple… It could be about simple things, and handled in a complex way. I cant take points off for that.
I dont mind the background as much as everyone else, but the text inside that blue bar is kind of hard to read.
and its at a funky angle.
Well.. I’m not sure I even agree with my own statement :
I settled on it because conn75 said nature is the greatest designer. And since we are the products of nature, we must all be great designers. Hows that for logic??
But actually if you look at traditional arts, they are beautiful. That’s stuff that people just made for their homes or ceremonies. I do think there’s something about our modern mass consumer societies that has weakend our aesthetics a bit…
I thought we were done with flowers?
I really like the details on this women, and the distance in the drop shadow.
that flower pisses me off.
the flower is exiting… geeze…
I had to use part of the previous design, right?
lol. no, in this case you were specificly not allowed to use that element again. altho, it looks nicer here then it does on the previous image.
Okay, I’d better get into ninja mode…
Fire and light. Another example of apparent simplicity which in reality is pretty complex. And of course, can be extremely beautiful.
I quickly gave you a 4 for this cuz I really like the image…but then I realized that not only does it not carry any visual elements over from the last one, it doesn’t carry any context either.
I’m sure you could stretch some sort of relation, but its pretty much independent of the others in this logue.
I don’t know what you were thinking since inman already busted your chops for this sort of thing in this thread
at least there’re no flowers
I carried over the silhouette of the woman…
Maybe it’s a bit dark on your monitor?
I can barely see it here, my home computer has better settings, I’m sure I can see it there. It’s a good test to see if your brightness/contrast settings are ok… you should be able to see the difference between those two blacks…
Yeah, I like the image too :D The only thing that detracts after looking at it a bit is that the light trail isn’t really related to the match… it’s like I want it to be, but then I realize it’s not…
Why, thank you young man.
I hope people can see it. Looks fine here, but then maybe my settings are all wrong…
Anyway, just wanted to get away from the flowers but still keep a little element of nature about it because nature has all the best stuff.
wow. well, that image is kinda different when you can actually see the lady holding the match. i have an amazing monitor, and i could barely get a combo that allowed me to see her. Dont think it should be so subtle.
and the match looks like its all on its own.
The glow on the match is really weak. And that tracer doesn’t go with the flame at all. The dark lady is too faint and doesn’t make much visual sense. This just feels underdeveloped and poorly executed.
I do like that you are trying to bring up other observations of everyday things and show the beauty in them. Shame that we are half-way through this logue and just now realizing the potential depth of the conversation.
Wow, this criticism is really harsh…do I come across like that? Probably. :D
Of what I can see this is a beautiful image. Since I had to open it in Photoshop in order to see the silhouette that everyone was talking about I can’t say it continues the dialogue seamlessly although you still have my respect for the effort conn75. I think if I could see the woman I would probably enjoy the image less—it gives it a sort of campy quality but it also shows an honest attempt to redirect the conversation without severing all ties to the image before it.
Where did the matchstick photo come from? And the streaks?
I think you are just on a pr campaign Inman. Trying to make up for your critical past. They’re not gonna buy it.
Interesting that we have such opposite views of the image. I do not mean to sound harsh, just telling it like it is. If you have a question about the details of my critique I will be happy to answer it.
Maybe inman is being nice because conn75 is new here.
But, I think this image would usualy strike inman, as it does you Rev, and as it does me. I am really disatisfied by this one.
Conn75 - I don’t mean to be mean. Please don’t take it the wrong way. But, this image just feels empty and blank to me.
Actually, I really do like this imageon it’s own. It just doesn’t feel like part of this designologue. And since I’ve already harped on visual continuity in this thread I’m gonna leave it alone. I really do hate typing it as much as you guys hate reading it (although it needs to be said). :D
Thanks for all the comments, I’m taking them all on board. Maybe I shouldn’t attempt one of these on a Friday night after a hard week’s work.
Regarding the photos, all the ones in the images I have done so far are my own (apart from the female silhouette, which was traced from a picture off the web) and I’m trying to stick to that. Just a little self-imposed constraint, but that might change to a raid on google images :oP So the match and streak are my own pics.
Is that streak from a match or from a flashlight (torch) or something? What I dont like about this image is that the streak and the match dont seem to line up just right. The colors are different, the streaks not going to the glowing part of the match-head, and the flame is straight up, rather than being blurred, or blowing, like it would be if you moved quickly about to get that streak.
I like the idea behind this one, and really admire your using only original artwork, but it’s the details in the piece that you seemed to have overlooked that bring it down.
Yeah, I agree with the point that’s been mentioned a few times now about the match an streak not matching up realistically, but as this is a ‘design’-ologue it shouldn’t have to be. It’s a graphic representation of the woman waving a match and causing streaks with it. I don’t feel that in this context is should have to look ‘real’.
It’s not so much that they should match up perfectly. It’s that the flame looks extremely static and the streak shows a lot of action. The image as a whole isn’t abstract enough to make this visual clash work.
whoa.. i really like.. and congrats to all of you, dwds..
simply.. delicate.. and nice for a card..
well, I had to try and reproduce the match trail effect. This was the image I liked the most, although I didn’t use the flash in this particular one, so you can’t actually see the match.
The words are the simple elements which can create beauty.
I took the light and played with it by using some glass and showing how light can interact with a simple surface.
I went camping at Acadia National Park this summer. One night, in the middle of the night, in the pitch, pitch black, everyone else had gone to bed, and the fire had just died out, but it was still hot. I took a stick out of the fire ring with the tip going as an ember, and started moving it around to watch the trails. I made rings just like you guys have made. In the pitch, pitch black, the trails and rings lasted for a long, long time. I did this for like an hour.
I really like that font, and your treatment of it. I think this one is beautiful, even though the ring itself doesn’t seem to be reflected.
A fleet of simple, beautiful ideas cruise by your heart.
Good first dsnlg conn75.
This conversation started with a strong image that was visually repeated up to the half way point but never bettered. Then it was a race of new ideas up to the last.
This last image breaks from the formula that all those before adhere to though. Whats the reason anethon?
well, the sliver shapes was just an image that came to mind, not sure why.
As far as breaking with the formula, I’ve been thinking about the fact that I’m a painter, not a designer. As much as I admire design, my visual vocabulary is a painters, and that’s what really stirs my interest. So I’m going to try to stay relevant, but pursue my painting aesthetic at the same time.
This partiuclar one wasn’t especially successful at that… but I did use the previous image in my design…
Well, I certainly learned a lot from that. Thanks again anethon. Hope we get together again in the future.