billratio wrote:"To me they should be inextricably entwined."
To you they should be. That's nice.
So to you art shouldn't be an integral part of design? Why not? What is the appeal of design without artistry?
"Nowhere does it say this MUST be an art site. But why waste potential?"
What potential? The potential to have artistic t-shirts? What if i don't want to waste the potential of having a funny shirt that i'd actually want to wear? Some of your complaints are legit but you need to understand that just because you think a shirt isn't up to your standards doesn't mean other people shouldn't vote for it. People have different reasons to vote.
The potential to be a meaningful part of an art community.
Imagine your kid is the class clown at his or her school. The teacher calls you in and says that the kid is wasting their potential. Do you say "screw you, teacher, if my kid learns, s/he would waste their potential to be a clown!" or do you work to make the kid the brighter student you know he or she could be?
Woot has HUGE potential for quality, and you can see that in any derby if you scan right around between 11th place and 30th place, where you're most apt to find the best pieces of any given derby. They are diverse thematically and artistically, and deserve to print over just about any fog I've ever seen. You seem to forget that something can be good if you do not like it. But you also have the foolish idea that quality is measured by fans. I don't care how many millions of bucks Insane Clown Posse makes a year, they are still unarguably one of the least talented "musical" acts on earth. There do exist standards to which all pieces should stand up to, and most woot winners simply do not pass muster. To counter this opinion with a foolish comment trying to turn mediocrity into something to strive for says much for how much stock we should put in your opinion: you don't waste the potential to be mediocre. It is when there is a gleam of true brilliance being muffled that it is a waste. Any site can recycle scaffolding. Every site that shows glimmers of brilliance, however, is doing something truly worthwhile to the artistic community.
"where does it say a t-shirt cannot be art, and to that end, where does it say art must be an oil painting?"
No where. I was just using it as an example. Just because something is good art work doesn't make it a good t-shirt. I love Drakxx's art but i would never wear "I like candy." Does it make sense for people to vote for a shirt they would never buy? Judging by the lowly 900 sales that shirt made there are many people who think so but i don't. I feel like that defeats the purpose.
If you think the purpose is to print the shirt that will garner the most sales, yeah, you would. But to me, taking sales into account instead of quality defeats the purpose.
I'm not going to argue that I Like Candy was particularly great (though anyone who believes the final fog choice would have been better is not worth the breath I'd inevitably spend berating them). Indeed, the best of Drakxxx's work has remained unprinted. And yeah, some art should not be a shirt. But I get a feeling, as every other person who says this makes me get a feeling, that you are looking at it ignorantly. You're seeing a shirt with artistic integrity and saying "I don't get it, why would I wear it?" Why would you wear anything? because it looks good. And well done pieces, whether of parody nature or referential nature or pure, original work, look good. There is no reason to wear mediocre work just because it's a shirt. Shirts can feature amazing art, simple art, any sort of art, but it cannot suck. And a lot of what wins at woot is simply flawed in so many ways as to be undeniably sucky.
I don't understand the ignorant idea of "good artwork, but not as a shirt," because it's used so frivolously. It's not used for boxy designs that would look better on a boxy canvas. It's not used for sketchwork slapped on a tee template. It's used in a sense that speaks more as "shirts are not a venue for good art". As I said, some things are not shirtworthy even if artistic. But the concept is overused and ignorantly so, to the point where I see it on almost every design that doesn't have some popculture punchline or isn't pointless deformed attempts at cute.
The fact is that good shirt art, like good any art, pushes people to be better at their craft. For you to look at woot's sole purpose as being buy-centric, you perceive that the best thing is for one sole company to make as much money as they can. I think shirt.woot could be bigger than woot itself. It has, again, potential to do a lot for many, many amateur designers and artists, and small time pros. Not just monetarily. Improving their skill. Getting their name out there. Providing them with a challenge to push themselves further. Providing a chance to bulk up a portfolio that may later attract an outside client. Woot as quality-centric does far more for the art world at large. And my apologies to woot, but I simply care more about the long-term benefits to artistry. That you can sit here and support woot's bottom line, when we all know they're raking it in just about every day, sellout or not, instead of the designers busting their rear ends to provide them with the best work they can, knowing that a paycheck might not even come to them but still putting in the same effort, says a lot about what you value. And none of it is good.
