Archives...

I looked at all of the archives and then looked a little deeper- clicked around. By far the best usability is the Rossetti site, with Whitman, Dickinson,and Blake next.The Markup site receives honorable mention. Rossetti is fabulous. It is the most visual and easiest to navigate. The thumbnails of works presented in the various categories are very clever and a stunning addition. The tabs across the top of opening page provide orientation. Blake is also visually beautiful- how could you go wrong with such material, but I find the opening page with its one graphic and yucky small text and then "enter" is off putting compared with a site that balances visual "WOW!" with an index of what to do and where to go. the link to the Nines project is a great addition and is a fascinating side trip. Walt Whitman also has an accessible first page- initially it was my favorite and the etching of him is compelling. However, upon entering the tabs it is clear that the graphic designers went home after page one. It looks sort of lame and vacant inside, a let down. the possibilities of radiant textuality are such that those who do not/ cannot avail themselves of its potential to be both navigable and beautiful are just dropping the ball. The Blake site is kind of confusing, while the Dickinson site is very well organized, again it falls off in the design area. after visiting the Rossetti site the others appear bleak in comparison.Why can't they LOOK at the page and see that vast expanses of beige with unattractive fonts scattered across them make a reader feel bereft? What is up with the state of design on the Web? Now as tools, strictly to obtain information they all seem fine, and it is a miracle to have these riches a click away instead of in dresser drawers and basements and private collections all over the world. I applaud what is being offered. I am simply giving my visceral reaction to the materiality of these web expressions, holding them all to a high aesthetic standard and critiquing them from that perspective. I mean-- we are talking aesthetics here- poetry, art... and some of the greatest of these ever made.Their sarcophogi should be as lovely as the textual bodies they house. Strike metaphor. Not meant to be visited-- inside. I guess you could call these sites houses, more like. We have a dedicated home you may visit, for each of these notables, in which to wander the gardens, galleries, libraries, take the tour, and sit with and among the works of these artists. Now I prefer the experience to be total. I want the grounds landscaped lovingly and all the fittings to resonate. I want a mood evoked. I want to visit a dwelling that in its own artistry honors the art within , not just a peek in a window at a strip mall in a parking lot. Nor do I want to visit the artist's home and feel lost or disconnected. I want the just right balance, a place that invokes the muse but answers questions in English.