Aesthetics and web design
'Beauty' was the key term in nineteenth century art criticism, but it dropped out of use. If one described a modern work as 'beautiful' it might be taken as adverse criticism, like 'sentimental'. So theorists now speak of a work having 'high aesthetic value' and artists are said to be preoccupied with the question of 'is it art?' instead of 'is it beautiful?. But the old cliches are valuable:
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
'De gustibus non est disputandum' [matters of taste cannot be disputed]
'I don't know much about art, but I know what I like'.
Designers' tend to accept these points but to believe 'good design' is close to being an objective quality: a combination of functional efficacy, technical excellence, good colours and good proportions. 'Objective' means 'dealing with outward facts, uncoloured by feelings or opinions'. 'Subjective' means 'depending on the personal view or opinion of the observer'.
When judging a website as a visitor you should start with self-indulgence and then try to be analytical. So the first question is 'On a scale of 1 to 10, how many points shall I award for aesthetics'. The following points might come to mind:
- The colours sing together
- The layout is elegant
- The scene in the photograph reminds me of a romantic occasion (it was such a memory that led the Kipling's to name their son Rudyard)
- The man has a gleam in his eye
- There is a sense of drama
- The colours remind me of the American flag
But then one has to be analytical, to work out how to change the design and to discuss its characteristics with clients and other members of the design team.
