Finally, a professional networking site designed to give women a leg up by eliminating 60% of the work force. That’s right, no dudes allowed here. Claiming to provide an alternative to the traditional content provided to women, the biggest problem this site needs to address is the fact that the sentiment suggests that job opportunities and self help advice were never available in the first place. Damsels in Success founder Harleen Kahlon might also rethink her choice of corny girl power name — it may very well be the worst I’ve seen to date.
From left to right: Lis Martin, Dr. T.F Chen, Mikael Vojinovic
Publishing mogul Nick Denton contributes to fine art by putting together an ad program that slots art work in empty ad spaces, and then squandering the idea with a roster of artists so embarrassingly bad any artist with a wit of sense would refuse their chance at “exposure”. Gawker curator Liz Dimmitt of Gumshoe LLC attempted to address the issue of quality earlier this year in a mass art blogger solicitation for advice, though we can’t imagine she received too much response. She clearly hadn’t bothered to look at anyone’s archives, an easy first step before asking someone for charity professional advice. We haven’t noticed much improvement in Gawker’s featured artists since then.
8. DesignSponge and Apartment “Art”
As a whole, DesignSponge and Apartment Therapy aren’t bad sites, but the willy nilly labeling of illustration, craft an anything else you might mount on a wall in your home as art could stand rethinking. Vintage bathing suits in a frame enjoy the elevated to the status of art at DesignSponge, as do illustrations of men raking leaves at Apartment Therapy. People who consider old clothing in a frame aren’t doing any one any harm of course, but with all the bad work the sites feature, readers with any kind of art background end up wishing for either a little more curation or a little less art.
Truth be told every so often these guys break a story or produce a strong comment thread so we debated a little before granting these guys a slot in our Worst in the Web countdown. However, reading the blog again solved this problem, as we were reminded of the seemingly endless supply of dull and pretentious posts the website produces. Of course, by the tone of or The Transom discussing national markets and race you’d think there were all kinds of fresh thoughts on the table. One only need refer to last January’s post and comments on ArtReview’s myspace blog to see just how far this new perspective takes us.
To the best of my knowledge, ArtWorld Salon hosts the only art blog in which professional qualifications are vetted prior to comment approval. In September they announced to readers that more commentors had been solicited, thus opening the flood gates for “informed” debate. Steven Kaplan is a regular on the site, though he started contributing to the site three months prior to administrative change.
Chris Jordan, Skull with cigarette, 2007
Chris Jordan, Skull with Cigarette, detail, 2007
“His staggering visualizations bring to life the throw away statistics to which we would otherwise be numb!” glows one typical blog response to the work of Chris Jordan, as though his photographic collages of disposables had imparted some kind of knowledge we didn’t know already. Facile gimmickry on the other hand didn’t seem to pass through anyone’s lips. Never failing to gravitate to a digestable working formula and easy message, it would appear the Internet nerdocracy is still run entirely by teenagers.
5. New Museum
Pretty much everyone agrees that while the New Museum front page may be easier to navigate than its predecessor, there’s a lot of work still to be done. For example, perhaps the developers could find a way to make the roll over text on their front page icons readable? I am told more images will be made available on the site — which is a good thing given the four they provide for their current Unmonumental show — but maybe while they’re at it they could ad the museum’s exhibition archives. It’s a rather gaping hole.
Assuming the New Museum is still working though these problems, they are still in a better spot than The Whitney. That institution may have finally given up on its lone plight to preserve wholly flash websites — that being its own — but they still have a long way to go before they give people a reason to use their site. Like tiny ugly drop down menus? If so, the Whitney’s got a site for you! Hate all those biennials? No problem, all but the last website are gone. Rather imagine exhibitions than view them? The Whitney believes in this too – all past exhibitions feature only one thumbnail, and a short press release if you’re lucky. Of course, two of the current shows list many more images, but there’s no way to easily click through pictures you like. Care to waste all kinds of time clicking on links you may not be interested in? The Whitney gives all this to you and more…
Institutions notoriously host awful websites, RISD the worst of the lot, opting for floating menu titles users have to chase across the screen to click on. These headlines prompt teany tiny drop down menus impossible to read or easily follow. The site makes us question the quality of their design department – even if they don’t have anything to do with it. As for the rest of the program, passing any speculative judgments based on the quality of its website will get prospective students no where. It would be nice however, if the site lived up to the school’s alumni.
Will these sites forever suck? How long can a web publication exist without rss feeds? Artnet might tell you indefinitely, since they’ve been online since 1995, and still haven’t managed to accrue enough web savvy to add this basic feature. Artinfo might look even worse for having introduced an online magazine during a time when RSS feeds were standard, and still overlooking it.
More importantly however, both online magazines feature some of the worst writing in the business. Putting aside a variety of basic structural problems in the articles both sites publish, nobody cites accolades from an artnet or artinfo review because the magazines are so vapid. Artinfo invests virtually nothing in their writers which an array of light reporting pieces on the market and found stories reveals, and Artnet, while fairing slightly better sets the standard for lazy writing.
A comparison between Artnet’s pricey auction database and Artinfo’s free sales index won’t be happening here except to say collectors, gallerists and appraisers still have very little choice in regards to these services. Artinfo’s database is too incomplete to be competition to anyone, which means Artnet’s still the best game in town, even if it is full of errors. And it is.
Saatchi gallery is to the artworld what myspace is to musicians…big and ugly, but with no overnight success stories, fewer search options, and less mailable page templates. Basically, it sucks. We can’t even identify the “biggest” problem the site has, – it’s got so many – though certainly one of the larger ones stems from the fact that it lacks the basic tenets of popular social networking sites today; greater search and curatorial abilities. Perhaps a larger issue still however, lies within Saatchi’s conflicted means of gaining artists more exposure. What good for example, does it do an artist with representation to have Saatchi come up over their own gallery on the web? Not much. And what use is a site populated entirely by amateurs to the emerging artist or collector? Also not too much. We’re sensing some impending irreverence in YourGallery’s future.
Bonus: Failed non-profit redesigns of 2007. We invite regular visitors to read this post again for the first time!
{ 56 comments }
Wow – this is the best “worst of…” list I’ve seen this year. Dead on with nearly every entry – ArtWorld Salon is especially deserving.
Being who I am though, I do have to quibble with the presumption in #8 that calling something art “elevates” it…especially if your concern is that labeling it as such implies that it’s Chelsea-type-art. To me that would be a denigration – sort of like saying, “hey this is an incredibly insular and specialized object that very few people care to think about or look at.”
My guess is that they’re saying this is something worthy of your attention, something that has meaning in the context of my everyday experience, I like it and want to share it with you. If only people “with any kind of art background” were as humble and generous.
Wow – this is the best “worst of…” list I’ve seen this year. Dead on with nearly every entry – ArtWorld Salon is especially deserving.
Being who I am though, I do have to quibble with the presumption in #8 that calling something art “elevates” it…especially if your concern is that labeling it as such implies that it’s Chelsea-type-art. To me that would be a denigration – sort of like saying, “hey this is an incredibly insular and specialized object that very few people care to think about or look at.”
My guess is that they’re saying this is something worthy of your attention, something that has meaning in the context of my everyday experience, I like it and want to share it with you. If only people “with any kind of art background” were as humble and generous.
Haha!! As a student of graphic design at RISD, I’ve always been embarrassed of the school’s site. It’s true that the design department had nothing to do with it. Someone got a little too giddy with 90s Flash-yness. Maybe Maeda can help.
Haha!! As a student of graphic design at RISD, I’ve always been embarrassed of the school’s site. It’s true that the design department had nothing to do with it. Someone got a little too giddy with 90s Flash-yness. Maybe Maeda can help.
Oh my god, I was reading along thinking you were being a little tough on Artworld Salon, saying to myself, “If she thinks they’re bad, I’m going to have to point her to RISD’s website.” I chortled when I scrolled down.
I remember several years ago talking with someone on the museum’s staff (I used to work there) when she asked me out of the blue, “What do you think of the website?” I started to stammer, not wanting to say flat out that I thought it stank, when she gave a wicked smile and said, “Not a fan of the duck gallery, huh?” And that’s exactly what that awful front page is like. Evidently there was a lot of anxiety over it having an appropriately impressive design, pressure that ultimately delivered the absolutely wrong result.
The worst part, however, is the museum collection pages. They took the time to present extensive selections from all departments of the museum–in images so small as to be worthless. Keep in mind that, after the basic information–hours, admission fees, current exhibitions–collection pages are what visitors to the museum’s part of the website most want to see. In person, William Powell Frith’s Salon D’Or, Hamburg is nearly 50 inches tall and over 100 inches wide, with every person depicted engaged in some distinct action charged with narrative; online (it’s number 8 on the Painting and Sculpture page) it’s about 1″ x 2″ and impossible to see. Keep in mind it was just as much work to create pages of tiny, crappy images as it would have been to do it right.
Oh my god, I was reading along thinking you were being a little tough on Artworld Salon, saying to myself, “If she thinks they’re bad, I’m going to have to point her to RISD’s website.” I chortled when I scrolled down.
I remember several years ago talking with someone on the museum’s staff (I used to work there) when she asked me out of the blue, “What do you think of the website?” I started to stammer, not wanting to say flat out that I thought it stank, when she gave a wicked smile and said, “Not a fan of the duck gallery, huh?” And that’s exactly what that awful front page is like. Evidently there was a lot of anxiety over it having an appropriately impressive design, pressure that ultimately delivered the absolutely wrong result.
The worst part, however, is the museum collection pages. They took the time to present extensive selections from all departments of the museum–in images so small as to be worthless. Keep in mind that, after the basic information–hours, admission fees, current exhibitions–collection pages are what visitors to the museum’s part of the website most want to see. In person, William Powell Frith’s Salon D’Or, Hamburg is nearly 50 inches tall and over 100 inches wide, with every person depicted engaged in some distinct action charged with narrative; online (it’s number 8 on the Painting and Sculpture page) it’s about 1″ x 2″ and impossible to see. Keep in mind it was just as much work to create pages of tiny, crappy images as it would have been to do it right.
Randall, you stole my thunder re: #8.
Funny post, Paddy!
Randall, you stole my thunder re: #8.
Funny post, Paddy!
Re: #8. Actually there is tons of Chelsea art on those blogs. I suppose I might have just picked that stuff out, but it gets under my skin when I see everything labeled fine art, as if there were no distinctions to how its being thought about when its made.
Re: #8. Actually there is tons of Chelsea art on those blogs. I suppose I might have just picked that stuff out, but it gets under my skin when I see everything labeled fine art, as if there were no distinctions to how its being thought about when its made.
Yech, RISD. It doesn’t even look like departments there have their own webpages which would give them better content to draw on. Reeks of a disconnected marketing / design / publications department.
Yech, RISD. It doesn’t even look like departments there have their own webpages which would give them better content to draw on. Reeks of a disconnected marketing / design / publications department.
Your turn of phrase: “facile gimmickry” delights me. I can’t wait to drop that gem out in the field!
Your turn of phrase: “facile gimmickry” delights me. I can’t wait to drop that gem out in the field!
JL and JW: Yeah, the RISD site is truly horrible and the duck gallery is a brilliant description for the front page! I wish I had thought of that!
I still haven’t been able to navigate through the entire site yet. It becomes rather dispiriting after a while and trying to read everything at such a small size gave me a headache so I had to stop.
JL and JW: Yeah, the RISD site is truly horrible and the duck gallery is a brilliant description for the front page! I wish I had thought of that!
I still haven’t been able to navigate through the entire site yet. It becomes rather dispiriting after a while and trying to read everything at such a small size gave me a headache so I had to stop.
I’ll also note that, while I’m too much of an outsider to judge the motivation behind the Steve Kaplan website linked to above, the link itself could use a little warning for those not knowing what they’re going to find.
I’ll also note that, while I’m too much of an outsider to judge the motivation behind the Steve Kaplan website linked to above, the link itself could use a little warning for those not knowing what they’re going to find.
Loved your shot at Artworld Salon. I used to think that by reading them I was stimulating myself intellectually . . . but then the lights came on.
There’s snooty and then there’s Artworld.
Loved your shot at Artworld Salon. I used to think that by reading them I was stimulating myself intellectually . . . but then the lights came on.
There’s snooty and then there’s Artworld.
JL: Right you are. Warning added.
JL: Right you are. Warning added.
I’m surprised your art site lists, Best and Worst of the Web did not include any galleries. Were your judgements based more on technical user operation, formal presentation or content? How would u rate the more Neo-Classical authority of Mary Boone against the rabid 80’s art mall at Deitch? Maybe a best/worst list of art galleries is in order? I would be very interested in your takes on gallery web sites. Please.
I’m surprised your art site lists, Best and Worst of the Web did not include any galleries. Were your judgements based more on technical user operation, formal presentation or content? How would u rate the more Neo-Classical authority of Mary Boone against the rabid 80’s art mall at Deitch? Maybe a best/worst list of art galleries is in order? I would be very interested in your takes on gallery web sites. Please.
Denny: I wrote a review of the best and worst gallery websites in 2005, and consider the topic a separate post given their numbers. This list wasn’t put together using a very scientific method of evaluation. I tried to add sites that met the criteria of “bad” in some cases for their design more than content (though the two are inevitably linked), in other cases more for the content. The fact that you can’t find the content on the Saatchi site, but it will fuck up a represented artists’ google ratings easily made it top dog.
Denny: I wrote a review of the best and worst gallery websites in 2005, and consider the topic a separate post given their numbers. This list wasn’t put together using a very scientific method of evaluation. I tried to add sites that met the criteria of “bad” in some cases for their design more than content (though the two are inevitably linked), in other cases more for the content. The fact that you can’t find the content on the Saatchi site, but it will fuck up a represented artists’ google ratings easily made it top dog.
Living in Providence, I’ve spent a really unnecessary amount of time debating which is worse: The RISD website, or the website for RISCA, the state’s arts organization (http://www.arts.ri.gov) I mean, RISD is a huge arts institution and RISCA is one tiny office, so it seems like RISD’s should automatically be worse. But, then you click on the link for the state’s film/TV office, and you’re back at the beginning.
Living in Providence, I’ve spent a really unnecessary amount of time debating which is worse: The RISD website, or the website for RISCA, the state’s arts organization (http://www.arts.ri.gov) I mean, RISD is a huge arts institution and RISCA is one tiny office, so it seems like RISD’s should automatically be worse. But, then you click on the link for the state’s film/TV office, and you’re back at the beginning.
As a RISD alum with great fondness for the institution, the site just hurts. Menu options blowin’ in the wind, tiny print, a Flash splash page of student headshots leading to HTML content, oy. It would be nice to see this straighten out under Maeda.
As a RISD alum with great fondness for the institution, the site just hurts. Menu options blowin’ in the wind, tiny print, a Flash splash page of student headshots leading to HTML content, oy. It would be nice to see this straighten out under Maeda.
Saatchi is absolutely terrible, it’s true!
While RISD is pretty bad, I’m horrified at the terrible site design and user incapability my alma mater has adopted– Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, NY.
Saatchi is absolutely terrible, it’s true!
While RISD is pretty bad, I’m horrified at the terrible site design and user incapability my alma mater has adopted– Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, NY.
Funny, sharon, i believe Pentagram had a hand in your alma mater’s new site. I think they did a better job on the new site for RISD’s neighbors: brown.edu.
Funny, sharon, i believe Pentagram had a hand in your alma mater’s new site. I think they did a better job on the new site for RISD’s neighbors: brown.edu.
brown’s site described here as “so scruffy”:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.brown.edu/
but yes… better than the maddeningly awful RISD. it has been that way for years too! i would be happy to trade a semester of tuition to redesign their site employing “best practices” instead of the worst imaginable…
brown’s site described here as “so scruffy”:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.brown.edu/
but yes… better than the maddeningly awful RISD. it has been that way for years too! i would be happy to trade a semester of tuition to redesign their site employing “best practices” instead of the worst imaginable…
Yep that Saatchi Gallery is a stinker
Yep that Saatchi Gallery is a stinker
In myspace’s defense on the band tip, it does come in handy when booking a tour or conversely after returning from a tour and trying to track down some of the folks you met and saw along the way. Not that I’m a big champion for myspace but it’s pretty great to be able to type in a few random bits of info and track down a group on the other side of the globe.
The Saatchi site on the other hand suggests that you might get noticed in one of their stupid showdowns or possibly seen as work scrolls across the top of the screen on the home page which is just dumb. There are so many people on there and so much of the work is baaaaaaaaaaad that I can’t imagine many people sifting through it for too long. It’s a sea of crap.
In myspace’s defense on the band tip, it does come in handy when booking a tour or conversely after returning from a tour and trying to track down some of the folks you met and saw along the way. Not that I’m a big champion for myspace but it’s pretty great to be able to type in a few random bits of info and track down a group on the other side of the globe.
The Saatchi site on the other hand suggests that you might get noticed in one of their stupid showdowns or possibly seen as work scrolls across the top of the screen on the home page which is just dumb. There are so many people on there and so much of the work is baaaaaaaaaaad that I can’t imagine many people sifting through it for too long. It’s a sea of crap.
http://www.myartspace.com is going to give Saatchi, Artnet, and Artinfo a run for their money. I observed Brian Alfred’s work on there. I’m expecting BIG things from that site. You should have included Artmesh.org on your list, that site is horrid and there is not community at all there. A sea of ‘no icon selected’ blank faces.
http://www.myartspace.com is going to give Saatchi, Artnet, and Artinfo a run for their money. I observed Brian Alfred’s work on there. I’m expecting BIG things from that site. You should have included Artmesh.org on your list, that site is horrid and there is not community at all there. A sea of ‘no icon selected’ blank faces.
Saatchi’s site for emerging artists does look very outdated even when stacked against art sites that are 10 years old. It is hard to believe that Charles Saatchi is the king of advertising when viewing it. How many works of art has he bought from the artists on the site? I thought it was supposed to be his personal playground for finding fresh faces. The Showdown is nothing more than a popularity contest as well. It looks like a huge scam to me. He must be cashing in on all the traffic that dreamers bring to his site thinking they will be the next Damien Hirst.
Saatchi’s site for emerging artists does look very outdated even when stacked against art sites that are 10 years old. It is hard to believe that Charles Saatchi is the king of advertising when viewing it. How many works of art has he bought from the artists on the site? I thought it was supposed to be his personal playground for finding fresh faces. The Showdown is nothing more than a popularity contest as well. It looks like a huge scam to me. He must be cashing in on all the traffic that dreamers bring to his site thinking they will be the next Damien Hirst.
Saatchi’s site for emerging artists does look very outdated even when stacked against art sites that are 10 years old. It is hard to believe that Charles Saatchi is the king of advertising when viewing it. How many works of art has he bought from the artists on the site? I thought it was supposed to be his personal playground for finding fresh faces. The Showdown is nothing more than a popularity contest as well. It looks like a huge scam to me. He must be cashing in on all the traffic that dreamers bring to his site thinking they will be the next Damien Hirst.
Saatchi’s site for emerging artists does look very outdated even when stacked against art sites that are 10 years old. It is hard to believe that Charles Saatchi is the king of advertising when viewing it. How many works of art has he bought from the artists on the site? I thought it was supposed to be his personal playground for finding fresh faces. The Showdown is nothing more than a popularity contest as well. It looks like a huge scam to me. He must be cashing in on all the traffic that dreamers bring to his site thinking they will be the next Damien Hirst.
Saatchi online does not deserve the exposure it has had. Everyone knows that it would be one of the hundreds of shoddy art sites if it did not have his name attached to it. Since it does thousands of artists are duped daily into begging for Saatchi ShowDown votes. Which is probably why their traffic is so good! If I see one more “Vote for me on ShowDown” bulletins I’m going to scream! The sad thing is that there are some great art sites that will never get the exposure that site has. You should explore that as a blog entry!
Saatchi online does not deserve the exposure it has had. Everyone knows that it would be one of the hundreds of shoddy art sites if it did not have his name attached to it. Since it does thousands of artists are duped daily into begging for Saatchi ShowDown votes. Which is probably why their traffic is so good! If I see one more “Vote for me on ShowDown” bulletins I’m going to scream! The sad thing is that there are some great art sites that will never get the exposure that site has. You should explore that as a blog entry!
Saatchi online does not deserve the exposure it has had. Everyone knows that it would be one of the hundreds of shoddy art sites if it did not have his name attached to it. Since it does thousands of artists are duped daily into begging for Saatchi ShowDown votes. Which is probably why their traffic is so good! If I see one more “Vote for me on ShowDown” bulletins I’m going to scream! The sad thing is that there are some great art sites that will never get the exposure that site has. You should explore that as a blog entry!
Saatchi online does not deserve the exposure it has had. Everyone knows that it would be one of the hundreds of shoddy art sites if it did not have his name attached to it. Since it does thousands of artists are duped daily into begging for Saatchi ShowDown votes. Which is probably why their traffic is so good! If I see one more “Vote for me on ShowDown” bulletins I’m going to scream! The sad thing is that there are some great art sites that will never get the exposure that site has. You should explore that as a blog entry!
Gawker artists embarrassingly bad?
Hmmm…you have almost guaranteed that one or more Gawker artists will go on to become the next VanGogh.
No matter what you say, it always works out that way. No matter how much someone thinks he knows, the quality or greatness of artwork cannot be determined myopically. It is an indisputable fact.
Gawker artists embarrassingly bad?
Hmmm…you have almost guaranteed that one or more Gawker artists will go on to become the next VanGogh.
No matter what you say, it always works out that way. No matter how much someone thinks he knows, the quality or greatness of artwork cannot be determined myopically. It is an indisputable fact.
Gawker artists embarrassingly bad?
Hmmm…you have almost guaranteed that one or more Gawker artists will go on to become the next VanGogh.
No matter what you say, it always works out that way. No matter how much someone thinks he knows, the quality or greatness of artwork cannot be determined myopically. It is an indisputable fact.
Gawker artists embarrassingly bad?
Hmmm…you have almost guaranteed that one or more Gawker artists will go on to become the next VanGogh.
No matter what you say, it always works out that way. No matter how much someone thinks he knows, the quality or greatness of artwork cannot be determined myopically. It is an indisputable fact.
Thank you for sharing this information. I found it very needful for me. Thanks
Thank you for sharing this information. I found it very needful for me. Thanks
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }