To what extent is this site an exposition of artwork?

Skinning sites are repositories of what really is a NEW 'artform'.....the artistic manipulation/modification of a Computer's GUI.
Every avenue of human self-expression has been elevated to the status of an 'art', so logically GUI manipulation/skinning has, likewise....

Who knows, one day there may just be examples on display in the Mainstream Museums of Modern Art....they certainly deserve the recognition...

Ooh, better put together something good then!

It would be really cool if in, say, thirty years there'd be an exposition on the "pioneers of application art" or so.

Dear Jafo I certainly agree with you.I have the feeling that something new,something fresh and pure is arising from the pages of this site and other sites similar to this one.What I find really interesting is that ones work is accessible to a wide amount of people,a fact that gives to this artform a uniqueness that has no match.For this reason alone it certainly does deserve the recognition!

"pioneers of application art"?!craeonics?Well,it sounds pretty interesting...Cheers!

Hum... Although making skinz certainly requires good artistic skills, I'm not sure I would label a skin a new form of art in itself. To me, an artwork has no purpose but just sit there and be pretty: paintings, sculptures, photography, etc.
I see designing a GUI (or a skin) more along the lines of designing a new car, or a new dress, or a new contemporary chair. It requires artistic habilities to make something nice, but purpose of a chair is still be e sat on and the purpose of a GUI is still to help you use your computer.

My 2 cents.

If I recall, there are a few car designs that have been considered art and displayed as such, though I can't think of one off the top of my head :-/
Photographs can be used to capture a moment in time serving the function of allowing those not present at that moment to share in that moment and are often displayed as art. I think art forms can have both form and function. Just my opinion though

A Chanel perfume bottle...a Corbusier chair.....a Zippo lighter...a Sputnik WinAMP skin.....it's not 'that' far-fetched, paxx...

Pininfarina.....Bertone.....Zagato....Ital Design....Pixtudio.....

To me, Art gives yo the freedom to truly do whatever you want.
A sculptor, a painter, etc. can represent whaterver strikes his imagination, without having to consider any functional limitations.
I see it this way: a scupture can take the shape of a chair or a car, but a chair or a car will never be scuptures. The difference? The scupture was never made to be sat on or be driven around. It took the form it has because of the choice of its creator not because it's the way it had to be.

Jafo,
If all this comes to pass would they feature our skins as the "Gray Period" ?

Yet a sculptor is a limited by his sculpture being a sculpture as the designer of the chair is by it being a chair. Take for example, Rietveld's chair: http://www.centraalmuseum.nl/nl_/nl_rietvel/rieti_stoel5.html Is it a chair or a work of art? If it's a chair, it's not very comfortable to sit in and if it's a sculpture... it's also a chair.

/me thinks you are taking the old "form follows function" adagium a tad too literally (originates from this article by the way: http://www.njit.edu/Library/archlib/pub-domain/sullivan-1896-tall-bldg.html )

I understand that certain functional item can, and often do, have artistic merit. But I would still not call that art in itself.
As for the link chair, it all depends on what it was intended to be. Did the artist make it to be in a living room and have people sit on it, or was it intended to be put on a stool and exhibited. Would its owner hit me on the head if I was to sit on it?

He would nowadays. But he'd probably pick another chair to hit you with.

This particular chair dates back to a period ('20s) in which there was no clear distinction between "art" and "design". In those days, most architects were artists as well.

Perhaps the distinction we make these days is artificial.

And to push it a little further, good skins are not even necessarely the prettier ones, or the most original ones, or whatever defines a good piece of art. A good skin has to be usable (just like a good chair has to be sittable, hehehe).
So, yeah, certain skins are "wow!" to look at, but then you only use it for half a day because it's just too confusing to use or not too friendly or fast... Good artistic merit, but poorly functional = bad skin.

Good Skin not equal Good Artwork

Or... good artwork does not automagically make it a good skin. Functionality plays a role too, which is why skinning is more interesting than walls and such.

But another example: bridges and stuff. Highly functional, but can be beautiful. Are they then not art?

I don't think that Fishbone mention the word "Skin". He is a wallpaper artist and I think that he was talking about wallpapers!
Wallpapers are ART! Digital Art.
I think that you agree with this paxx

Maybe since i am mostly a wall creator my view is different, but I think that the majority of the high quality walls, skins, and themes are definetly an art form. They are the expression of the desire of vision the creator has in mind for a specific look. Yes it has a function, but at the same time it is based around the look or enhanced look of an application. For example a structural wall has a specific function but once someone paints tag on it, some consider it art. And some of the street paintings are definetly art. Personally I do not find a oversized painting of a cambells soup can to be art, but I find an abstract swirl of twisted shapes in a wall to be art.

It is the in the eye of the beholder, and we are on the edge of a new stage of expression that will lead to and unknown outcome of creativity. That one day may be recognized and then again it may fade away.

Wallpapers are a predictable, narrow-minded interpretation of the concept of 'art'.
There IS no rule that 'art' must be rectangular, framed and hung on a wall.
I'm speaking as an Architect...where living environments are works of art....yes, they are 'designed', but so are 'paintings'.
Both are intended to be 'experienced', and so are skins, themes [GUIs] and boring old walls [no offence, just stressing there is more to art than painting, alone]...

Jafo, actually I do take an offense to that statement that walls are predictable, narrow-minded interpretation of the concept of 'art'.....

Yes some walls are just cut and paste, with a filter thrown on top. But many peices that are created and released by the artists have more thought, heart, and soul put into them, than many peices that hang in a museum. As for structures, many structures are works of art, but many others are simply boxes with holes cut into them for windows.

My view is that art is an expression of the creators emotions, desires, interpritations, or just pure and simply an expression of their thoughts. But to flat out say that walls are predictable, narrow-minded interpritations of the concept of art is very offensive.

Sorry, but again, I don't consider wallpapers Art. Sorry.
Some wallpapers have absolutely nothing artistic to them and are still good wallpapers.

But yes, most piece of art can be placed on the background of your desktop. It doesn't mean they will be good wallpapers though. The purpose of a desktop is to have icons sitting on them, and certain work of art are too busy and you lose the icons on them.
But yes, just about any piece of art can be modified and arranged into a good wallpaper.

Don't take me wrong. I don't know if I can't make myself clear because I don't speak English good enough, but I think that some skins, wallpapers, chairs, cars, bridges, buildings, can opener, sinks, shoes, etc. are absolutely fabulously beautiful. They have some truly great artistic merit. But it does not define them as "art".
Point to a painting and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's art"
Point to a wonderfully beautiful chair and ask me "What is that?" I'll say "It's a chair"

But the thing is, that even a bad piece of art is still Art.
How can I explain this?

I can print a Monet and stick it on a chair. What will I get? A chair with a print of Monet on it. Not Art.
If I scan a Monet and put it on my desktop, what will I get? A wallpaper with a painting of Monet on it. Not Art.

Understand the difference? Yes, you can have Art on a wallpaper, but a wallpaper is not a piece of art in itself.

ok so you classification of art is limited to only the medium that it is on. A Monet that is painted directly onto a chair is only a chair, but if Monet then took the fabric off the chair and put it on a frame and it was placed hanging on a wall it would only then be art?

Wallpaper is just a medium that some artists use as their canvas. It is no different than a painter that uses canvas, stone, brick, paper, or etc. It is the medium of choice of some. If the same work was released as a wall and then also printed out to be framed and sold as a gallery does not change the base content and creativitiy that is put into the work. Just because it is displayed on a screen compared to a wall in a gallery does not lower the catagory of the artistic quality.

That is like saying a Frank Loyd Wright(spelling wrong) is only a house.

Art is not limited by the medium that it is created on, it is only limited by the people that created it, and sadly is condemned by the limited view of some sides of society.

The purpose of a desktop is to have icons sitting on them..

Not always true.......there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.

/me thinks the 1964 Corvette Stingray was/is a work of art!

/me thinks the bottle of Sam Adams currently sitting in front of him a is work of art.

(And let's not forget the '64-65 Ford Mustang)

MobiusCo:
A Monet that is painted directly onto a chair is only a chair, but if Monet then took the fabric off the chair and put it on a frame and it was placed hanging on a wall it would only then be art?
Yes. Because if it hangs on the wall it definatly isn't meant to be sat on.

Koasati:
there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.
I also know some people who have nothing sitting on their "real" desk. But it doesn't mean that the purpose of a desk is not to have things on it.

I am amazed at the limited view of what art is. The fact that some feel art is only something that hangs on a wall is astounding. It totally elimanets the vast majority of the art world. In the musical world there are peices of music that are considered artistic masterpeices, sculptures are free standing artistic expressions, just as a painting is. A pure visual multi media presentation can be art, art is not limited by the medium or placement of the peice. To say that art is only what is on a wall, is saying that every other form of art does not exist. And for some of those that do not know, there are many wall paper artists in the digi communities that do have their works displayed in galleries, and etc.

I am still astounded by the limited narrow view of art.