That design by Joe really looks great on the tee.

jill - Rainforest is definitely not a pun! If you told me that the canopy of the forest was nature's umbrella, then I'd think you might be onto something! But that would be too clever and symbolic to be classed as a pun. Puns are cheap and nasty!

I happen to like puns :p but it IS a visual play on words so whatever you would call that that's what it is :)

concaethetic

aesthecept

And I like Rainforest, I think it's a pretty tee and then you look at it and there's the "Aha!" factor, which I always like.

I've read almost everyones comments here and there are good points on both sides.
In my opinion, I was taught that concept comes first. A purely aesthetic design is what is referred to as a "Polished turd". You can polish it up and make it the most beautiful turd that ever was, but it's still a turd.

Having said that, I was also think that a great concept should have an equally good execution, and THAT area is subjective.

It's funny how people comment on my "style" when I don't HAVE a specific style. I always begin with a concept and then try to find a style that compliments that idea.

your polished turd theory is full of shit.

Style is just how you end up drawing things, your favorite way to draw, it comes out eventually with enough practice.

Yeah - belekas - I think you're wide of the mark saying that some designs have zero concept. Because a design isn't concept-driven, doesn't mean it is devoid of concept. Whilst I think I know what you meant to say - it sounds quite rude to say there is zero concept in any piece of art or design. I'd say that there is a lot of thought that goes into every design that is printed here (and many many more of the designs that aren't!). Some of the aesthetic-driven designs have stronger underlying concepts than a lot of the concept-driven designs. That's been part of my point throughout this thread.

your polished turd theory is full of shit.

lol

again, can't believe a site full of supposed visual people are doggin' on visuals so harshly. i know that wasn't the purpose of your blog aled, at all, but man, these comments are getting dumb.

btw, I actually quite like a lot of the good watercolor designs. There is a lot of them now, but they don't annoy me as much as they clearly annoy other people. I've given the good ones good scores, but I don't think I'd wear any of them.

I think when people are referring to concept they're specifically referring to conceptual wit, or cleverness. You can argue that every design has a concept - or that the medium itself is the concept - but that's just semantics and kind of splitting hairs in my mind.

That said, I think there will always be room for funny shirts and clever, concept-driven designs (look at some of the recent reprints). I don't see those designs wandering off into the sunset anytime soon. It's like when people say the sitcom is dead and then someone comes along and reinvents it.

I guess people always end up taking polarized positions in this kind of debate. It happens a lot on the internets.

this discussion isn't working because people aren't differentiating between conceptual and aesthetic:(
if you apply fatheed's foolproof method of determining it, think about if it was posted in a critique as a sketch that you did on a napkin. if it receives praise, it's conceptual. if not, chances are its purely aesthetic.

icarus - yes, definitely conceptual. an awesome picture of icarus, a well-known (er, maybe he used to be well-known) figure from Greek mythology, falling to his death. Most people would recognize that. there is no subjectivity to what it means.

nature - no way is that conceptual, haha. it's pretty, but it's so subjective. and, had it just been sketched and put in the critique section, people probably would have been like 'wtf?' it works because it's pretty.

all of fatheed's designs - obv. conceptual (although they look really good upon finish, too). they're all posted in the critiques and get laughs, even before they're done!

my personal take on conceptual vs. aesthetic is...i just prefer what i like! looking back, the only conceptual tee i have is Stabby Mcknife. so i guess it turns out i tend to buy aesthetic tees over conceptual ones (and all the tees in my cart are aesthetic, too).
although I must say, of all the conceptual tees on the internet, Threadless has the best ones. if i were to ever buy one, it'd be from here, for sure, haha.

I agree with opifan64

Also, I find a lot of the classic Threadless shirts aesthetically pleasing so it's not a clear-cut argument of aesthetics vs concept... the new printing techniques have simply allowed for a different type of aesthetic to gain a foothold and succeed without any overt joke or cleverness.

ginetteginette on Jul 01 '09 at 10:39am again, can't believe a site full of supposed visual people are doggin' on visuals so harshly. i know that wasn't the purpose of your blog aled, at all, but man, these comments are getting dumb.

I think it's more that a certain style of execution that is popular tight now doens't appeal to some people, and they name that style 'aestectic' which is confusing.

Dang, this thread is getting too long. It's only a matter of time before the Hitler reference kicks in :p

See, I would say that Icarus is very much a visual design. It could be an illustration in a book about Greek mythology because it's a snapshot of the events of that story. If it was (God forbid) Icarus parachuting in for a landing because his wings had melted off, then it that would make it a concept-driven design because it would be a irreverent take on an existing story. The strength is in Joe's execution and interesting composition.

I think the problem is not the visuals we´re dogging, just vanilla/uninspiring/predictable/cliched dipped in chocolate and sprinkled in sugar. It´s almost like why bother coming up with new things/techniques/concepts when we can slap some watercolors/extreme-detail/texture on whatever and get a decent score, if not a massive one.

Concept = idea. Therefore every known thing is a concept.

The difference people are talking about here is that some designs are made with only the technique and/or medium being the thing of interest, and some designs rely solely on the idea to make people think.

That's not splitting hairs or semantics. Concept really does mean idea. It doesn't mean anything else.

i can't get my brain around how changing the idea behind icarus would make it concept based (and worse, yuck). is it not considered concept based to most because the underlying concept was not thought out originally by the designer?

is anything pretty to look at automatically NOT concept based then?

Style is just how you end up drawing things, your favorite way to draw, it comes out eventually with enough practice.

Very true, and I'm not arguing with that.
I guess I am just a different kind of designer.

For example: I'm still new to Threadless but so far I have put much effort into avoided a specific style because I believe that if people know that you designed something immediately after seeing it, it influences their opinion of it, and ultimately their score.
Like if they really like that designer, obviously they'll give it a high score, or vice-versa.

There are some designers here that I know immediately who did it before even looking at their avatar. I always like that sweet surprise of seeing a design that I really like and looking down at the avatar and it was someone I didn't expect.

BUT, that is just me and I don't believe that anyone with a style is wrong, because there are many designers here and elsewhere that have amazing styles and they deserve whatever praise they get.

That's not splitting hairs or semantics. Concept really does mean idea. It doesn't mean anything else.

i'm not sure how the medium qualifies as an idea... but maybe i'm missing something. in any case, my point was that in this particular argument when people are referring to concept they're specifically referring to conceptual wit

I think Icarus has a fair balance of concept and aesthetic.

it's like saying the idea of star wars is that it was filmed as opposed to being presented as a stage play.

the way someone draws something can be the concept, medium, size, printing method - all can be included in making a concept work or not work.

i don't think that star wars analogy makes sense...

i would think the concept precedes the execution

I'd say that illustrating something literally from a story is an illustration of something from a story. Whilst it has meaning, it's not an original concept.



Is that concept based? ^

i should have had a semicolon or something after 'concept'.

it's still based on the concept of icarus, whether it's good or not, or original or not.

you can certainly say it's not an original concept, but you can't say it's without concept. right?

I agree that current trends, the low voter numbers & the addition of a slew of new production techniques has led, as Montro suggested, to a trend towards vanilla/uninspiring/predictable/cliched dipped in chocolate and sprinkled in sugar.

I guess it's just frustrating to see how high some of that stuff scores. For me, with a few exceptions, Jess' top 25 blog has become a catalog of art that is horrifically unsuitable for tshirts. Thats not to say it's terribly executed, just not at all to my tastes.

I still think that well executed, clever concepts will score high & be printed. As will the best of the massive complex aesthetically driven subs. It's just a matter of Threadless getting the balance right.

ginetteginette on Jul 01 '09 at 11:00am
i don't think that star wars analogy makes sense...


if you're arguing that the medium and artistic decisions surrounding a work of art can be the concept itself, then i think it's a valid comparison.

I don't think I'd consider Icarus concept driven either.

all can be included in making a concept work or not work.

This is basically disagreeing with your own point, isn't it? That suggests that the medium is a way of communicating the concept, but I thought you were saying that it can BE the concept?

Or I may have misunderstood :)

what makes it unsuitable for shirts though? the fact that it's not your style or made with the printing methods you are used to?

what does that mean?

and i'm not even asking because i'm into those shirts. the designs i like still don't print very often even with this wave of 'aesthetic' winners.

Because I think they look fucking terrible on a shirt, which is why I qualified the statement by saying "Thats not to say it's terribly executed, just not at all to my tastes."

Just my opinion.

for me, conceptual designs are in no way subjective. if a design has a concept, anyone who looks at it better get the message or they're missing out on a huge portion of the design. if someone didn't recognize joe's design as icarus, it'd be a guy behind a big yellow dot. only when you understand the concept does the design really shine. you're right, though, that design does have great aesthetic appeal, which allows it to be a conceptual design that isn't original. it's just a visual telling of a story we all know and recognize. usually conceptual designs ARE different than the 'norm,' either clever or funny takes on what we'd expect. but i would argue both that sort of design, and Joe's icarus, are conceptual.

aesthetic designs have no real meaning. look at mine, for example. what do they mean? well, i like them. sadly, they don't look good enough to get printed on a shirt, but i'm still trying to get better, haha.
ginette's stuff? any message? nope. it's subjective.
woss' good blood, bad hands? any message? nope.

does that make sense? haha

it's like saying the idea of star wars is that it was filmed as opposed to being presented as a stage play.

opifan, that comment upends your argument, as the message is the medium. Star Wars is on film and as film it has existing context in terms of production and viewing, it references other films, etc.

The concept of the film does not work on another medium, and you can't separate concept from form.

well it doesn't make sense because star wars isn't a theatrical play, and we can't imagine what it would be like if it was... i think a more apt comparison would not be to suggest changing the type of production (music, play, image) but in star wars case, how it's directed can be the concept.

how an image is directed can be the concept.

er, a guy in front of a big yellow dot*

Don't get me wrong for the most part I tend to gravitate more towards non-joke/twist/pun type shirts. I guess I have just grown tired of the massive, detailed, more is more style.

Great thread Aled.

I personally like both types of tee but I do lean towards tees with a concept that isn't instantly recognised. I prefer subtle idea or themes running through designs.

but it existed first as a screenplay... does that mean the central concept of star wars (good vs evil, sci-fi western , whatever) was completely different in the original screenplay than the film?

I really think this argument mirrors the design vs art one, in that 'concept-driven' defined in this blog seems to mean obvious and clear meaning. And if Icarus is not concept, then also to mean that the idea must be changed or modified?

sorry hogboy, i thought you were separating it as being: as a t-shirt horrible, but it being a design good - one a fact and the other a preference.