Is Creating Graphical Environments an Artistic Endeavor?

I have worked on my blog for the past two weeks and I have received a few comments about what a desktop is and is not. I guess this is something that the KDE and Gnome people would be very much concerned about. I created a project called "OpenSUSE  Revolution" in a personal effort to make SUSE understand that they really need to stand out and create better design. This is to make OpenSUSE more accepted by people who are migrating to Linux. To me, this is something that involves art and good design.

I compared a couple of ideas on the desktop to a piece of art by Cezanne. In it, I explained that this expressionist painting was able to make people who looked at it, understand that although it is expressionism, you still understand the shapes and forms in it and relate them to elements in real life. Later, I received this comment "A desktop is a tool, not a piece of art." Is this true? I want to put this question to you all.

To me, being an artist is something that extends beyond the scope of pictures and sculptures. Art is a form of expression to beautify things around you. I believe this is definitively something that can reach the Linux desktop as well. But every time people in the Linux community receive a push for artwork of a better quality, along come people who simply think this way, that your desktop is "just a tool."

One could say the same things about cars. A merely utilitarian tool, right? If this is so, then why do these companies have to spend so much time and effort designing new model of car. They hire people who can design something beautiful that is attractive to people so that they buy it. Then, making a car becomes a work of art, where art will become a functional mean to create attention and potential sales.

One could say the same thing about houses, furniture, etc. The list could go on and on. But one thing is clear, although the Linux desktop is a tool for everyday use it is by no means a tool that is devoid of artistic expression. This is the reason why it is so important for people involved with graphical environments to make the Linux desktop better looking. They work hard into making it pretty usable and a masterpiece.

The problem comes when you want to make your desktop prettier than it is. When your ideas are something that involves art. To make the Linux desktop better and prettier requires an artistic endeavor, then it becomes harder to do because there are those who think that involving art and computers is simply not possible and stupid. Certain people just do not understand the artistic world. They think that placing some glossy buttons on the desktop is as far as you go with being "artistic" on your graphical environment.

Art is design, design is artistic. You cannot separate the two. If you are going to design a graphical environment, you will always aim for what is better. That includes art.

Art is expression that speaks to the mind and senses. Art is part of our daily lives. When I use a graphical environment I look for what looks best. That which is simple and pretty. I enjoy an environment that is flexible enough that will allow me to customize it. Change the buttons, wallpapers, style, etc.

If you think differently, post it. But I doubt my opinion will change.

Written by

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Design is NOT art. Design is creating functional things and sometimes give them a beautiful form too. You can't have design without functionality. You can have design without aesthetic beauty, but even when it is present, the goal of design is to provide an object with a function. That's not what art is about.

However, if you use the term "art" broadly, you can call artists those who design the visual part of a desktop, for instance. However, as evidenced by so many themes, most people creating them are definitley not artists nor designers.

Anonymous said...

Design is art to me! In every aspect of everyday life I want my environment to be as pleasing to the eye, and therefore to the mind, as possible.

For some people perhaps computers *are* just tools, there are certainly enough complaints enough about 'eye candy'. Maybe these people have never learned to look at things? They seem proud of their disability but I don't think the rest of us should suffer because of that.

Beautiful things make me happy, ugly things depress and irritate me.

Unknown said...

I agree with both of you and yes, I am making use of the word art in a very broad sense. Art that touches even simple elements of our lives, such as computers. You know I get pretty bored when seeing the same wallpaper everyday, I want to replace it with something beautiful, more pleasing to the eye. In doing such a small thing like that, I am looking for something from the world of art that can satisfy my simple need.

I think art can definitively be something functional and pretty at the same time. That's good design.

Anonymous said...

It is art...
While I have the technical expertise to "design" a GUI and the common sense to make it "functional", I lack the artistic ability to make one that is pleasing to the eye. The consequence is that the GUI is something that becomes quite tiresome and tedious to use.

Many people can pick up a can of paint and a brush, but it takes an artist to use those tools and create something pleasing to the eye.

Anonymous said...

So you get a desktop like enlightenment, developed in large by someone who was formerly an artist who became a programmer to realise his passion.

Anonymous said...

It's just a tool but it HAS to look good. I personally believe that Microsoft has this down to a T whilst *all* open source desktop environments are only so-so.

Unknown said...

I too enjoy having beautiful things, but only as long as they don't interfere with functionality.

As someone already said, E17 is nice example of beautiful and functional piece of software (I use it for couple of years now).

Try to answer the question 'What is design?'. And if you can, try 'What is art?'. ;)

""Art is design, design is artistic. You cannot separate the two.""
I notice your use of the word "artistic", it's pretty telling to me.
"Art is design" sounds like bollocks.

""If you are going to design a graphical environment, you will always aim for what is better. That includes art.""
I'm not sure if 'art' needs to be or can be improved. Design can of course, it's the utilitarian aspect of it.

However, it's possible to (try to) improve design and leave the world of 'artistic'. If you would design another chair for example, something designers do with alarming frequency, you can't really pretend to make 'art' anymore.

I suppose you 'know' when design is art and when not. It's not a 1-on-1 relationship.

Anonymous said...

I believe art is making things that are beyond the rational and objective use. Touching the user's heart is the goal of all makers, and not only to sell; am I wrong? In that way designing a car can touch, designing a GUI can touch, lacing up my shoes can touch. But not all the people are aware, even some cannot see, cannot hear, but this does not mean art is not there.

Of course the more people can access the emotional part, the more obviously artistic is the piece of work. So the goal of designers could be to work on the largest base users can be touched.

So, what is this base? I believe it is heart openness and culture too. As part of culture is evolving, people cannot be touched in the same way now and a decade ago: look at old cars!

Finally, designing a desktop environment is building a useful and ergonomic thing AND adding some artistic part definitely not rational, related with the creator's culture at the time she/he realized it!

This is only my own point of view.

JME.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your effort in inproving OpenSUSE. This is a very welcome initiative (since I am an OpenSUSE user and I love design).

Design is a combination of many things. That include functionality and usability and estetics.

I want the Linux desktop to improve it's estetics. So it's important to discuss this subject. But the best way to do this is upstream. (In KDE / GNOME) OpenSUSE only does branding. Not design.

Rawler said...

The thing with art is that anything can be art. Including very ugly things, things that make you scratch your eyes out.

User-Interface-Design can, and should, include a sense of what the desired mood of the user should be, and how to use art to induce this, including picking art that will speak to the target audience.

I guess I kindof see art as a required tool for good interface design.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I just want a desktop that works, without things like 3D effects that tend to cause obscure X11 instabilities. Harmless effects would be fine, but I think we need to solve the closed graphics driver problem before that stuff will ever be rock solid.

James.

Anonymous said...

Hi Andy, found you after checking Aaron Seigo's blog...

I want to congratulate you for your beautiful sentence:

"To me, being an artist is something that extends beyond the scope of pictures and sculptures. Art is a form of expression to beautify things around you."

To be honest all the article is excellent, well written and with lot of truth.

Thank you!

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm a user of both KDE SC (awesome DE/WM) and Awesome (which is awesome!), the former in my full multimedia day-to-day home desktop PC with a 23"wide LCD and the later in my ultra portable 14"notebook.

I'm an admirer of both ways: all eyecandy possible and the minimalistic approach on the other side. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” or in other words "each DE/WM for a specific task, KDE SC for mind blown multimedia and general use experience and Awesome for a good wifi hacking experience" :D:D

Jim Sansing said...

As a developer, I am very interested in the principles of user interface design. What I have found by 'eating my own dog food', is that there are definitely differences between good and bad design. And usually, good design is more pleasing to the eye.

But is this art? As an amateur musician, I try to compose music with enough continuity so the listener doesn't get lost, but enough surprises to keep him/her interested. I certainly don't apply that to software development.

I believe the argument between art and science in creating technology comes down to the original intention. The best technology is easily understood and used as a tool, and the developer is attempting to give all users the same utilitarian experience. Art is an expression of a world view that is interpreted differently by each 'user', and the artist expects, even hopes, for such an outcome but ultimately is only interested in his/her own perspective.

So while there is overlap between the two, I have to come down firmly on the side of technology as science, not art. And to drive the point home further, if you find calling the observers of artistic works 'users' to be like fingernails on a chalkboard, you now know how those on the other side of the discussion feel about calling technology art.

Later . . . Jim

Anonymous said...

Well done and congratulations.

As a user, i like to see a full featured desktop with all tools that a can need but with good effects and easy too see.

As a sysadmin i need a power workstation, with tons of tools and rock solid.

But... we can combine this parts and tur the desktop a tools with may possibilities, with a design tha mather for the user, developer an sysadmin.

The design is what attract peoploe to the operational system, this is what makes windows broad used in 90's ans this is what makes IPHONE and MacOS X a option for the users today.

Linux has tow good desktops, but with some gaps in the attractive point.

KDE is very cool and good, but few applications like ManDVD2 do the job of make the desktop beauty.

I Agree whith you and i like to see a rock solid beauty desktop.