New goalie gear sightings for 2015-16

[1989]

That's YOUR opinion. I believe the goalies know what they like on their masks more than you do.

Seeing as how I am not the only dissenter, it'd clearly not just my opinion. As a former goalie and as a part-time layout designer for businesses and non-profit organizations, I'm fairly certain I can speak for myself and others when it comes to what designs work and what doesn't. His branding is awful and he simply overloads his work. I've never once criticized his actual ability to produce an illustration - just how he places said illustration and what he surrounds it with.

The best part is, he could make me eat my words tomorrow by just producing a mask with a clean, sharp design - no extra logos, little or no glare, and no "3D" B.S. and glow in the dark. And I guarantee it would be a beautiful mask, and depending on the original art concept and goalie, maybe even iconic. He's perfectly capable. He just doesn't.

But you not agreeing with me is just like, YOUR opinion, man.

 

[Hockeyfan2390]

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the whole thing.

"DaveArt Sneakpeek... @nhlflames @joniortio @nhl #daveartthecradleofcreativity #daveartsneakpeek #daveart"

 

[haveandare]

You can argue whether almost any design imaginable is "good" or not for the rest of time.

It almost always boils down to taste. Some people might like that cluttered look. I assume the goalies themselves don't mind it.

Personally, I hate it. I get that it's hard to illustrate and paint on that surface, and good for DaveArt at being so proficient at that. I don't like his designs at all, but I'm not his client either.

It also bothers me that his type is usually covered by the mask and the leading is such that each line of text touches one another. I get that instagram doesn't provide a very big canvas to communicate all of that with, but come on, a design professional should find a way around that.

 

[Yarborough]

To everybody in this thread who is defending daveart sorry, but creativity is not subjective. His masks are are ugly.

 

[StrangeVision]

To everybody in this thread who is defending daveart sorry, but creativity is not subjective. His masks are are ugly.

Well, this is an awful post. I'm not even a huge fan of the guy, but yeesh.

 

[Yarborough]

Well, this is an awful post. I'm not even a huge fan of the guy, but yeesh.

Sorry man, but that is my opinion. The creativity is subjective argument is dumb. Something is ethier ugly or nice looking.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Considering he's the official Bauer mask designer and most goalies use Bauer masks, I would be incredibly unsurprised if Bauer put on lots of pressure onto goalies to use him as a designer, and most goalies probably don't care enough to piss off their supplier.

You'll notice if you look through the thread that most (not all, but most) of DaveArt's masks are Bauer masks, while most of the masks who use other designers are a different manufacturer.

And?

Goalies still have their say on what they want on their masks.

 

[Yarborough]

And?

Goalies still have their say on what they want on their masks.

Some goalies just don't care what their masks look like and don't give much thought on how their masks look.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Seeing as how I am not the only dissenter, it'd clearly not just my opinion. As a former goalie and as a part-time layout designer for businesses and non-profit organizations, I'm fairly certain I can speak for myself and others when it comes to what designs work and what doesn't. His branding is awful and he simply overloads his work. I've never once criticized his actual ability to produce an illustration - just how he places said illustration and what he surrounds it with.

The best part is, he could make me eat my words tomorrow by just producing a mask with a clean, sharp design - no extra logos, little or no glare, and no "3D" B.S. and glow in the dark. And I guarantee it would be a beautiful mask, and depending on the original art concept and goalie, maybe even iconic. He's perfectly capable. He just doesn't.

But you not agreeing with me is just like, YOUR opinion, man.

He has his style, and you can choose to not like his style if you wish.

However, the guy is immensely talented despite what some of you "artists" think.

 

[haveandare]

Sorry man, but that is my opinion. The creativity is subjective argument is dumb. Something is ethier ugly or nice looking.

You think something is ugly. Someone else thinks something is nice looking. How would you go about proving them objectively wrong?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Sorry man, but that is my opinion. The creativity is subjective argument is dumb. Something is ethier ugly or nice looking.

What looks good or bad is absolutely subjective.

Some goalies just don't care what their masks look like and don't give much thought on how their masks look.

Whatever you say.

 

[haveandare]

He has his style, and you can choose to not like his style if you wish.

However, the guy is immensely talented despite what some of you "artists" think.

Nobody can possibly be an artist by profession and also post on a hockey forum?

 

[Yarborough]

What looks good or bad is absolutely subjective.

And that belief is why the world is filled with ugly looking things like Daveart masks.

Whatever you say.

Okay bud.

 

[Super Cake]

To everybody in this thread who is defending daveart sorry, but creativity is not subjective. His masks are are ugly.

Um, it actually is subjective.

Art is subjective. It always will be.

I am sure there are people out there who dislike the Mona Lisa. It doesn't make them wrong or different in any way. It just means they have a different opinion on a piece of art.

 

[Diamondillium]

And?

Goalies still have their say on what they want on their masks.

I don't have an "and". I explained why the majority of the league uses him instead of other people. I didn't give any insight onto whether the designs are good or bad with that post, just added relevant information to the discussion.

 

[Yarborough]

Um, it actually is subjective.

That's your opinion. Sorry but to me it never has been subjective something is nice to look at or not.

 

[Diamondillium]

That's your opinion. Sorry but to me it never has been subjective something is nice to look at or not.

So, whether is is subjective or not is subjective?

I disagree. I think it's not subjective whether it is subjective or not. Perhaps we can agree that it's subjective whether art being subjective is or isn't subjective.

 

[Ceremony]

He has his style, and you can choose to not like his style if you wish.

However, the guy is immensely talented despite what some of you "artists" think.

He is clearly very talented.

He is also very clearly incapable of properly utilising that talent to optimise the medium with which he works.

 

[And You Feel Shame]

He is clearly very talented.

He is also very clearly incapable of properly utilising that talent to optimise the medium with which he works.

Well stated. And while this IS subjective, it does seem to be the prevailing opinion, at least in this forum.

While we are in art school mode, might as well address the subjective/objective aspects of art.

The quick answer is that art is both.

TL;DR answer is that all art is broken down to form, function and iconography.

Form is entirely subjective: Does the look of the object please you?
In regards to the masks, this is most of what we are seeing and reacting to in this thread. The subjectivity is proven by some people liking a given mask more than another while others can view it the other way.

Function is entirely objective: Does it do what it is supposed to?
This is pass/fail, and in regards to the masks, has absolutely nothing to do with DaveArt but rather Bauer or whomever produces the mask - but "does the mask protect the goalie's head?" is the *only* question to answer here.

Iconography is a bit of both: Does the meaning of the design resonate?
Iconography can be objective - the stars and stripes clearly represents the United States of America
Iconography can also be subjective - an eagle might represent the United States of America, or it might be used as a representation of the player's nickname like Eddie "the Eagle" Belfour (a Canadian).
When we recognize the iconography it might resonate with us "how cool was Cheever's mask with the stitches painted on?" or it might have the opposite effect if it's something we don't care for. We might not even make the connection at all, leaving us to be completely subjective with our own interpretations.

 

[soothsayer]

Rhode Island School of Design. BFA in Illustration '89.

They aren't wrong, nor are they as a general rule not entitled to share their views on the designs despite their training or lack thereof in the field of art.

The problem with DaveArt and many of the mask designers out there now* is that they are overlooking the primary audience for these designs, which are the people attending the game and watching on TV. As others in this thread have stated, the most successful designs are simplified and interpretable from a distance (Vanbiesbrouck, Hackett, Hiller... ).

*to be fair much of the blame goes on the goaltenders themselves, who of course are the ones who must be pleased, and who never view their own masks from farther away than across a room.

Most of the masks from the 70s pass this simple test of visibility/interpretation from a distance. It wasn't because airbrushes were not yet invented, or that there was no means of accommodating such detail. Goalies and the mask designers understood the value of the mask for their own and the team's brand, and that the audience was viewing them from a good distance away. At that time, pretty much only professional goaltenders had customized masks.

Move forward to today, where goalies are getting custom paint jobs done on masks at a much younger age. For those masks, the audience is limited to the players on the ice and the friends of the player who can all see it close up. Detailed artwork isn't a big problem close up, but when the goalie transitions to pro leagues and a full arena or television, they've already been brought up with the idea that the mask visuals can be so intricate and everyone around them will respond with how cool it is. Works great for your friends and teammates, but again not so great for the broader audience.

So... when people talk about how busy some of these designs are what they are really saying is "Unless I am looking at the DaveArt promotional images, I can't see what the heck is going on on that mask."

And that's a real problem.

This is a wonderful post full of sharp observations.

I'm not sure how much say goaltenders in the NHL really have in the designing of their mask. I know for a fact that some goalies leave the entire design up to the painter. What is interesting about this, I think, is that, as someone pointed out earlier, DaveArt is the official painter for NHL Bauer masks. That might mean that goalies who want to wear Bauer masks have to commit to DaveArt as the mask designer. What I wonder is if DaveArt imposing his brand of design on a large chunk of the NHL masks. I mean, why has DaveArt never produced a simple design? Surely not every goalie who wears a Bauer mask wants these kinds of designs.

 

[Hockeyfan2390]

Hideous. All that silver on the front is just awful, what the hell is it.

"Henrik Lundqvist's latest mask edition is here.

A creation built in silver and chrome with a vintage touch. The closer you come the more details you will discover, and the mask enters a new dimension.

For sure it is loaded with all the DAVEART trademark Super FX��, among them the Hologram FX 2.0.

Thanks Henrik, so proud to be your artist!"

 

[Ceremony]

Mrazek mask being worked on:

"The Robo Defender Of Detroit is getting ready... @pmraza34 @detroitredwings @nhl ‪#‎petrmrazek‬ @davidofdaveart ‪#‎daveartthecradleofcreativity‬ ‪#‎daveart‬"

I should say, Robocop with his chin scrotum is hilarious.

 

[Patrice Krejci*]

I should say, Robocop with his chin scrotum is hilarious.

Robocop meets Earthworm Jim.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Nobody can possibly be an artist by profession and also post on a hockey forum?

Hmm... I don't think I actually said that.

And that belief is why the world is filled with ugly looking things like Daveart masks.

I have yet to see one "ugly" mask painted by DaveArt. Show me one.

I don't have an "and". I explained why the majority of the league uses him instead of other people. I didn't give any insight onto whether the designs are good or bad with that post, just added relevant information to the discussion.

It's an irrelevant fact. That was the point. Goalies have the final say on what they want on their mask.

That's your opinion. Sorry but to me it never has been subjective something is nice to look at or not.

Well it is subjective. That is a fact.

So, whether is is subjective or not is subjective?

I disagree. I think it's not subjective whether it is subjective or not. Perhaps we can agree that it's subjective whether art being subjective is or isn't subjective.

The point is, what is subjective or not is NOT subjective. What looks good or bad on a mask is SUBJECTIVE, and there is no way around it.

He is clearly very talented.

He is also very clearly incapable of properly utilising that talent to optimise the medium with which he works.

Your opinion.

Well stated. And while this IS subjective, it does seem to be the prevailing opinion, at least in this forum.

While we are in art school mode, might as well address the subjective/objective aspects of art.

The quick answer is that art is both.

TL;DR answer is that all art is broken down to form, function and iconography.

Form is entirely subjective: Does the look of the object please you?
In regards to the masks, this is most of what we are seeing and reacting to in this thread. The subjectivity is proven by some people liking a given mask more than another while others can view it the other way.

Function is entirely objective: Does it do what it is supposed to?
This is pass/fail, and in regards to the masks, has absolutely nothing to do with DaveArt but rather Bauer or whomever produces the mask - but "does the mask protect the goalie's head?" is the *only* question to answer here.

Iconography is a bit of both: Does the meaning of the design resonate?
Iconography can be objective - the stars and stripes clearly represents the United States of America
Iconography can also be subjective - an eagle might represent the United States of America, or it might be used as a representation of the player's nickname like Eddie "the Eagle" Belfour (a Canadian).
When we recognize the iconography it might resonate with us "how cool was Cheever's mask with the stitches painted on?" or it might have the opposite effect if it's something we don't care for. We might not even make the connection at all, leaving us to be completely subjective with our own interpretations.

This is a great post.

This is a wonderful post full of sharp observations.

I'm not sure how much say goaltenders in the NHL really have in the designing of their mask. I know for a fact that some goalies leave the entire design up to the painter. What is interesting about this, I think, is that, as someone pointed out earlier, DaveArt is the official painter for NHL Bauer masks. That might mean that goalies who want to wear Bauer masks have to commit to DaveArt as the mask designer. What I wonder is if DaveArt imposing his brand of design on a large chunk of the NHL masks. I mean, why has DaveArt never produced a simple design? Surely not every goalie who wears a Bauer mask wants these kinds of designs.

DaveArt being the official painter for Bauer is a meaningless fact. Obviously a goalie is gonna choose a Bauer mask simply because of the quality of the product, and not the artwork. If goalies don't like DaveArt's work, they can simply choose to go with a solid colored mask with no artwork. Goalies also may leave it entirely up to the artist, but it doesn't mean they can't refuse to wear the mask if they don't like it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Hideous. All that silver on the front is just awful, what the hell is it.

IMO, this is a nice looking mask.