Now that I’m on it: The blank indexpage I find unnecessary too (as - almost - any page with nothing on it or just a time consuming intro). You might as well start with the bio-links. Those being in pdf, seems silly also: I just want to see them, not print them. But nevertheless, I liked the empty look of her site, and in style with the one photo I finally saw.

The site of Reg. reminds me that you don’t need to fill everything up, less is more, and how bloody important it is that it is technically in order. I assume that people have a reason for doing things the way they’re doing them: in this case, I suspect lack of technical knowledge, which is something I can relate to.

“A good design is a design that does what it’s meant to do.”

I agree. And I didn’t find Regnerus’ site doing what it was meant to do. It’s simple, sure enough, but the images took a while to load, which made me think I was clicking in the wrong places. By the time the images loaded I wasn’t as interested in the content anymore.

Here’s what I think is a minimalist yet striking artist site. The work of Jen Hsieh.

Art means to communicate, not in a verbal language, but in a direct language that surpasses the conscious brain. So, how the webdesign ’should’ be, depends on what you want to communicate. Therefore, there can never be a rule on what style is the best. A good design is a design that does what it’s meant to do.

As for the site of Regnerus, that has a simple look, but it is made in Flash. On a slow connection (a third of the Dutch households), the photographs take abnormally long to show, leading to the impression that there are no photos, and concluding that the site sucks. Good looks, bad design!

You talk about jazzing up a site: that sounds like adding useless decorations. Do you jazz up a painting? Or do you add a certain color, a refinement, any element because that is what the painting needs? Internet is relatively young. It started out ‘minimalistic’ (purely for the sake of sharing flat information), then we tried out all the flashy gimmicks, and now we’re sort of trying to restore the balance between design and function.

I think that minimalism is inherently good for the internet for the simple reason that internet users will only devote a limited amount of time and attention to any given site. By choosing a minimal design, one is constrained to show the bare essentials. This increases the chances that visitors will see the things that the designer considers the most important to see.

It is not easy to prioritize the content of a website, especially when it means that some items or design features might need to be removed for the sake of minimalism. Minimalism looks simple, but to achieve it is not always easy.

A web site is not like a living room. This could be the topic of a separate essay.

Is Regnerus’ site a model for other internet sites? I think the Regnerus site is more of an ideal to keep in mind, rather than a practical model. For a site that is regularly updated, like a blog, visitor want the latest information. The Regnerus site requires the returning visitor to enter the site and look for what is new. In this functional sense the site is not minimal in its demands on the user, despite its sparse layout.

Paintings almost always serve a decorative function? Not a kind thing to say to an artist; maybe it’s true, but that won’t get us into the studio each day.

I like the idea of “content” of a livingspace. I guess the people are the main content.

So where are we then? I suppose the lesson is that if a site is there to display art, and perhaps be an artwork in itself, then the stuff aside the art should be treated as seriously (from a creative design point of view) as the explicit artwork. Minimalism is one approach to this, but not the only one.

Fair enough?