Speak Up Archive: Individuality Lost

By Mesbah Bouha Kazmi

The emergence of new software every year is bridging the gap between computer sciences and design. A software engineer will work to accommodate and offer the artist what they want and need by writing new and updated binary code for each specific tool and process, but it seems that every time a new version of software is released more and more actions are being automated. The adoption of the automation process to some designers and companies is somewhat of a dream come true to some extent, as this gets them to their end-product faster, cheaper and with less hassle. But are we losing something along the way?

In this day and age anywhere we look we are most likely to find work that looks very identical to one another possibly because these engineered tools we are using are becoming an extension of our human senses. We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers to the point where some designers have trouble working if they are not glued to a monitor screen to dissect their ideas and gather their thoughts.

“The artist or author is no longer the only container for feelings, impressions, passions, but is rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing (image) that can know no halt: life never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred”

— Lovejoy, M., Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 2004

The aesthetics of the work loses some of its originality and significance and resorts visually and mentally for the viewer to a state of “been there done that.”

There is no doubt that a genuine designer is one that has a true understanding of their craft, a natural talent and skill and a limitless bag of conceptual ideas. What should be the crucial argument here, is how can we unlearn what we have learnt through being spoon-fed over the years by how-to-books, step-by-step manuals and a load of nonsense bombarded at us by a community of software-producing companies that thrive on the livelihood of our wallets and in turn converting every emerging designer into an identical clone clicking away at those pre-modeled buttons and tools? The notion of being enslaved by a computer is not one that is not irreversible; what if our creative process did not entail having to go through a selection of menus and drop-down lists or bowing down to the customary Xerox-copier culture that happens to be injected into our very consciousness day after day.

It is not then unnatural that our eyes transform into a database amassing images, forms and structures that keep getting reused or re-generated through the aide of a pre-conceived application, the personal computer. In fact there is nothing personal about a personal computer and its software, it is all an illusion of the mind, factory-set and sent away to you to create the illusion of a customized machine, at the end of the day, the only personal aspect linked to that application is the group of engineers that shaped its production. In essence, to build, fit or alter according to one’s individual specifications, one must crack the outer shell of the object and become the sole tailor of that object until it results in a personal satisfaction of the outcome.

Computers now mediate many of the decisions that human beings make. Computers sense, retrieve, and correlate diagnostic information for physicians. They guide surgeons’ tools with a precision measured in microns. Between a pilot’s nudge on a control yoke and the turn of a rudder is a computer that translates a small movement of human hands into a sweeping turn of an airliner. Computers route the flow of money among banks and nations. In these circumstances, delayed, poorly executed, or wrong decisions can lead to loss of life or property (or loss of individuality).

“Computers now mediate many of the decisions that human beings make. To write software that consistently produces the right messages at the right times, programmers must express their intentions clearly to both machines and to human collaborators and clients. Software development is best understood as a social and creative activity, not as a solitary or mechanical process. Exhaustive testing of a software product cannot add so much quality as the patient refinement of a list of requirements, accomplished by a long series of conversations among designers, implementors, and users.”

— Leon Tabak, Cornell College

Mesbah Bouha Kazmi is a Graphic Design student in his final year at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London, part of the University of the Arts. Currently working on his final research project; a study into the loss/lack of individuality predominantly through the dependence on computers in design aided by the emergence of ever changing software, intensification of automation processes leading to work that looks very identical to one another possibly because engineered tools are becoming an extension of human senses.

Interesting thoughts. I can see your point concerning automation of tasks. And, it's nice to hear from an up-and-coming student on these boards.

I'm not sure I buy the arguement that an (im)personal computer can so wholely affect one's work. It is a tool. In the hands of a Designer; nothing less, nothing more. If the work you are seeing seems bland/generic/typical perhaps the fault lies in the hands of the timid/generic/lazy Designers producing it.

A Designer is perhaps less technical than a sergeon, so robots and automation in that field is less than a perfect comparison.

On Oct.13.2004 at 09:02 AM

Of course tools effect what is made; often tools no longer used effect what is made. The first few generations of graphic design software attempted to imitate previous tools: Cut paper collages, mechanical pens, Rubylith, and airbrushes all hide inside Photoshop and Illustrator.

If a tool becomes more powerful that doesn’t inevitably mean that it will become more powerful than those using the tool. That’s the choice of the tool user, not of the tool.

On Oct.13.2004 at 12:34 PM

...more actions are being automated

Just because it is offered doesn't mean you should use it. With all of the filters/layer effects in Photoshop, the only one I use is the drop shadow and I use it for text only because it is not a true drop (cast) shadow if-say you apply it to the outline of of a person.

Sure, when Eye Candy came out with the beveled edge-everybody used it, especially in web buttons. Thank goodness it has seen it's day.

I am not so sure that every design job is sitting behind a computer. Mine all have been, but I know people that sketch on a notepad and present the sketches to their CD. That's it-no computer interaction at all!

Yes-the computer is a tool. Good designers exercise restraint when using all the computer/application has to offer. Poor designers bevel every edge, gradient every color,use fonts like Tekton, use a lot of fonts in one layout, get confused between placing a graphic in a file and opening a graphic file and think they are a designer because they chose on of the preset backgrounds for there Powerpoint presentation (cough cough shake shake).

The process of "good design" (whatever that is) will always be present, regardless of the available technologies.

On Oct.13.2004 at 12:44 PM

Rebecca, Gunnar and Schmitty you all have very valid points, the underlining fact is that at the end of the day technology is a tool which is mediated by us. As a hypothesis or statement it is easy to put it that way I am sure everyone would come up with an answer like that but words dont seem to be as loud as actions because of the constant bombarding of the contrary happening everyday wherever you look whether it is graphics for home-based cleaning products or posters, magazines, gallery spaces..I might be analysing it with a biased outlook. The case of this happening might be a minority, I mean there are tons of designers out there that dont fall within those categories be it because they work different or because they have cracked another innovation in design but that does not transcend as much on society as the negative part of it which in retrospect seems like a majority.

If you pick up a set of 5 magazines, whether women's lifestyle, men's or any other subject and compare the print design you will find 7 times out of 10 something that is so similar that it can either be a matter of one designer being employed by everyone or everyone adapting the style of that one big designers break into several aspects of their publications. And it is not just print, TV ads are the same, you find one successful campaign and before you know it every other advert on tv is incorporating the same editing, styles, humour, typography or what have you.

When it comes to technology it all becomes a matter of mimicking unless you integrate what is offered with what has not been tried. You will have those first few people that learn how to design in a specific manner and that sets off the trend. People using software are using it in a mundane way like Schmitty noted just because it is offered doesnt mean you should use it - theres more functionality with every new version and only a narrow percentage of it is used in any regularity

On Oct.13.2004 at 01:40 PM

I remember my first day of university we were called for a year meeting and I remember one specific comment our year organiser said

"if you think we are going to teach you how to use programs and software and things like that then I am sorry to say that you are in the wrong university and you might as well pick up and leave right now"

At once I recall everyone on my row saying ..what the fuck...what the hell are we paying them thousands of pounds to teach us then?

well they didnt teach us that but they did teach us how to think conceptually and get our brains moving on the other hand I know of many universities in london where monday is photoshop day tuesday is quark day wednesday is illustrator thursday is research and friday is personal work day....so with courses like that being taught wont there be a majority of graduating designers coming out into the workforce stamped with a label "Tested and ready for use. Works best with specific coherent orders" ?

On Oct.13.2004 at 01:48 PM

When I first read this submission — and later decided to post it — I acknowledged that it was oft-treaded territory and one that ultimately comes to the equally treaded rebutal that the tool does not make the user. However, with the digital revolution far, far behind us and with a new generation of designers bred and schooled through computers I think the question does, again, beg to be asked.

In my opinion, the rekindled love affair of hand-drawn graphics, sketchy type and even illustration. is a reaction to the homogeneity that the computer did in fact produce from the late 90s and onward. Yes, there are many designers who are able to transcend beyond their tools, but those are few and the ones that we recognize; in contrast, there are quite a handful of designers who, by no fault of their own, are tied to what the software can do for them. And it is painfully obvious when you see it.

The computer does not control the human mind or anything apocalyptic like that, but it is not helpful to deny the effect — good or bad — that it has on graphic designers.

There is an interesting young-people-made-nervous-by-technology vibe going on at the moment with this essay & Brett Combs' last week.

A couple comments:

"Personal" Computers

I'm pretty sure that the name was chosen to differentiate from earlier building- & room-sized computers, not as a cynical marketing ploy.

No, personal computers are not personal in the sense that you describe them. At the same time they are loved by some with the same fanatacism that some people love their cars. Almost everyone personalises their computer more than they personalise their car.

Sameness

Mesbah, I have to agree with you that there is an exhausting amount of "designed" sameness around us. I'm probably as guilty as most in contributing to it. But I don't think computer technology is to blame for the quality of sameness. It does have a lot to do with the quantity.

Take a look back at the era of type set with film. Lotta sameness. Look back posters at the beginning of graphic design. A lot more sameness than we realise because only the really good posters get reprinted much.

We recognise Art Deco & Art Nouveau because of the sameness.

People copy people. The difference now is that production is easier, so more people have the opportunity to copy.

I think.

On Oct.13.2004 at 02:16 PM

how to think conceptually and get our brains moving

( ((Resounding applause)) )

You are now ahead of many recent graduates and long-time practitioners of Design. Congratulations. Here's your chance to create change in the homogeny you see around you.

But do people recognize a trend or style while it is being created? Do we know a style will be a defining one by how bored we are with it?

On Oct.13.2004 at 04:06 PM

> Take a look back at the era of type set with film. Lotta sameness. Look back posters at the beginning of graphic design. A lot more sameness than we realise because only the really good posters get reprinted much.

Interesting point Jeff.

To counter, I have a question:

Is that sameness of each period reflective of the limitation of the tools available in that day?

On Oct.13.2004 at 04:07 PM

If it were, Italian Futurism would look a lot like Art Nouveau. The practitioners of each form chose appropriate tools from a range of tools that were available. Yes, the tools influenced the form. No, the tools did not define the form.

On Oct.13.2004 at 04:13 PM

Yes, the tools influenced the form. No, the tools did not define the form.

Yow. You can tell someone is getting old and pompous when he starts quoting himself.

I’m interested in people saying that computer software defines the way graphic design looks. I think too many designers respond to what software “wants” them to do than with what they want to do in specific instances but is there an overall style chosen by some cabal in Mountainview? What does it look like? If the shallowest sort of trendiness is automated is that different from earlier herd instincts being played out?

On Oct.13.2004 at 04:20 PM

Computers suck the soul of any creative, resulting in logjams of algorhythmic proportions. I for one am going to chuck this award-winning cheese grater of a Mac out this window and go design with wood type. Right now.

On Oct.13.2004 at 04:36 PM

Computers suck the soul of any creative, resulting in logjams of algorhythmic proportions.

I find computers and programming as creative of a medium and workspace as pen, paper and paint are.

But wood type is nice too. ;o)

On Oct.13.2004 at 05:32 PM

The interesting thing I see is that there seems to be a constant struggle to make what comes out of the computer more hand made looking. We fall in love with the smoothness and perfection, then we fight against it.

Take animation. The first really good computer animation, say out of Pixar, had a certain quality that was unmistakably computer generated. Every step of animation I've seen along the way (and that is not, admittedly, a lot) seems to be struggling against that: adding texture, imperfection and whatever it takes to convince us it's "real", not computer generated.

There's a program for architects called "Sketch-Up" for creating sketchy renderings from plan and elevation drawings. Amusingly, a local architect recently hired my boyfriend to redraw the sketchup illustrations by hand, because they just didn't have the richness of texture and form they were looking for.

But I think it's undeniable that the computer influences the aesthetic and possibly the function of design. I have often wondered about the similarity in toothbrush design (don't get me started) to sneaker design ... and many other things. Are those round, bubble-like forms a conscious effort on the designer's part, or is there something about 3D modelling that encourages it?

That's not to say that the tool defines how we work, or that we are incapable of exploring or breaking the model. But there is an influence; even, I believe, to those of us who feel we have both mastery over the tool and a background which precedes the tool.

Actually I was very recently looking at a body of work that made me realize that by not ever having learned a 3D program (or used Illustrator for anything beyond making flat, vector-based objects), I am unfamiliar with (and could not produce) a certain aesthetic that is proliferating all around us. It is not unpleasant, but I did wonder how much of it was, in a sense, "controlled" by the software that was used to create it.

On Oct.13.2004 at 05:56 PM

I would like to disagree with that statement.

It is not that they suck the soul out of any creativity it is our overdependence on them and sticking to using them in regularity.

How about Ron Arad and his "bouncing vase"? product designer using animation package suites, and i dont mean 3d studio max, I mean using animation to bounce his vase into different degrees of deformation.

How about Frank Gehry and his work with CATIA. CATIA was not massproduced or used for anything except for aircraft design until Gehry introduced it into mainstream architecture.

How about Casey Reas or John Maeda designing with numbers. Their work is produced in programs without graphic user interfaces and are based on algorhythmic proportions. No tools filters or standardized buttons.

Rather than fighting off the interrelation of technology and design, their creativity was directed towards new ways of putting that same overused technology to a different and more individualized kind of use, one that was not conceived specifically for an instructive regulated process.

On Oct.14.2004 at 06:17 AM

I for one am going to chuck this award-winning cheese grater of a Mac out this window and go design with wood type. Right now.

Sure, wood type rules. But of course, there's only so much you can do with it: you're stuck with a small amount of fonts and colors and sizes. With a computer, the possibilities are endless.

I think at the end of the day the computer has led to more variation in design than ever before. Perhaps most designers don't take advantage of all the possibilities, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. If there's not much variation in today's graphic design, it's the people that are to blame, not their tools.

On Oct.14.2004 at 07:15 AM

As Armin stated earlier, the subject of this post is "oft-treaded territory and one that ultimately comes to the equally treaded rebutal that the tool does not make the user."

Of course this is true, and I too like to consider the computer a tool of graphic design, even though I do not hail from a time without them.

The main concern of this thread, though, is that if the toolbox is, in fact, man-made, then anything made by the tools in it will be limited, and somewhat homogenic; that designers run the risk of becoming "tested and ready for use" because they can use the sofware well enough to create something that we are familiar with.

For some reason, though, the fears feel a bit ungrounded. Although I did not realize that many schools in the UK teach software, rather than design principles, the tools are still essential to master. What I have learned is that the guidelines for great type were set nearly 400 years ago, and that with the introduction of any new technology came the fear that it would take the creativity out of the designers. People keep cutting type although there are literally hundreds of thousands literally at our fingertips. While it seems logical to state that the automation inherent in technology could hinder the creative process, has it actually done so, or has it just created more noise surrounding the truly designed design?

Humans have a hard time settling on anything permanent, and so styles change. We create fashion trends, musical trends, and of course technological trends. We thrive on the change. The moment anything becomes too comfortable or cliché, it is categorized as so. The choice to use it again speaks to this categorization and should not be confused as a loss of individuality.

The most recent trend seems to be reality. I'm sure you've picked up on it. From television, to design, reality reigns. I feel this is almost a move by the truly creatives to really stand out among the monotony we're all so afraid of. I'm more afraid of how technology and automated tasks have actually taken time away — a direct contradiction to the purpose of automation — and has forced the creation of the expected; if there's not enough time (or pressure) to create something entirely unique, then often the expected and comfortable are viable solutions.

Technology will never really stop the creative or turn him into a machine. Telephones never replaced human contact, 1984 came and went, and I still like to draw.

On Oct.14.2004 at 11:14 AM

I was going to respond to the excellent responses to my first post, but now that Mr Wexlar has posted there is no need. I'll just repeat one of his sentences for emphasis:

While it seems logical to state that the automation inherent in technology could hinder the creative process, has it actually done so, or has it just created more noise surrounding the truly designed design?

On Oct.14.2004 at 11:32 AM

Reading all of your comments are great but they tend to be very similar in response. I think everybody is standing by the same opinion on this issue whether they are self-proclaimed contributors or just voicing their opinion. We end up at the same result of 'tools do not define the form'.

Instead of just agreeing amongst each other, how about someone comes out and justifies why they think the computer is NOT affecting design.

I think the only way we can come to understand this subject/debate is to be analytical about both ends of the spectrum. At least in that case we can compare things rather than just go with a close-ended conclusion (which would continue on and on and on with nothing significant to add to it)

On Oct.15.2004 at 04:57 AM

I'm not sure that this is what you are looking for in a significant addition, but...

You wrote: We end up at the same result of 'tools do not define the form'.

I don't recall anyone denying that computers, and specifically popular design software, affect design. It would be silly to do so. But Affect is a very long way from Define.

I'm going to state my admittedly non-analytical opinion one more time, then probably swim for shore before I get out of my depth.

The Cause of sameness is not the computer. It is because most people prefer safe, similar - copied - stuff. They like to identify themselves & surround themselves with things that make them feel comfortable & aren't too challenging. (e.g. my last paragraph)

People who are creative & do things differently do so because that is who they are. It doesn't matter whether they are using Illustrator or a rock.

If you want to blame the computer for something, blame it for allowing many more people to be Producers of sameness than there were in the past. (And you could also blame the people who teach Quark on Tuesday and call it a design education.)

For the whys of Individuality Lost you've got to look a lot deeper and farther back - without rose-coloured specs.

On Oct.15.2004 at 06:24 AM

I was going to reply to Kazmi's most recent post with a reiteration of mine, but now that Mr. Gill has done so, I will quote him for emphasis:

If you want to blame the computer for something, blame it for allowing many more people to be Producers of sameness than there were in the past.

additional thoughts:

There is no doubting the computer has affected design, and I don't think one soul who visits this site will argue that. To say that the computer is only a tool with limits is also a fact. But a computer as a tool in the hands of a talented graphic designer has fewer limits than any previous tool available to him/her.\

It's really deep to think that at some level the human mind is being shackled by some exterior obstacles, but that's what human history is: getting past those obstacles and expanding our limit of thought each time.

On Oct.15.2004 at 03:08 PM

The use of a computer has greatly affected my work. I don’t believe, however, that it has made my design more similar to others’ work.

On Oct.15.2004 at 06:36 PM

I am currently a student at a four year university who is working towards a BFA and I have to say that I am just now getting into the Graphic Design classes and can see how many of the students who know the programs seem to have a programmed methodology in their work. While it is well executed, there is no fresh ideas or anyone introducing anything "new". I myself am just getting to know the programs and really can not knock my fellow classmates to hard. I can render just about anything in any media but the computer programs just don't give me what I envision in my mind. While it is only a matter of time for me I see these other students who do cookie-cutter work and I fear that mine will follow that path unconsciously.

Therefore I am going to say what everyone else is saying and that is it is up to the designer to be different. Even a third year student can tell the difference between a designer who relies on their computer to do the work and the other designer who may take an old idea but present it in a new way that is both respected and inspiring to those of us who are still finding our foundation.

On Oct.19.2004 at 09:05 PM

I agree with Mesbah, the computer seems to have become the primary tool of the designer. I think one of the tricks to beating the cookie cutter look for designers is to not use the provided automated features while this is difficult and requires extra time the results of the work will be unique. I am not big into the whole rush idea that is pushed on designers. I feel like deadlines turns designers from artist to industrial workers spitting out things that are not there best for a buck.

On Oct.19.2004 at 09:20 PM

'Tools do not define the form.'

I want to add something to that thought. I have been educated on computers throughout my whole graphic education, and although I agree that the tools do not define the form, tools, in this case meaning computers and the software programs designers are being educated in, limit the form. I see the sameness that comes from students looking over each others' shoulders and asking for tips and critiquing their peers. I also see it in my workplace; one good idea gets carried into another. My thoughts are if every designer was taught first how to design and produce without a computer, the creativity level would be boosted. As an example, Ed Fella has spent his whole career designing without a computer. Everything he creates is hand-drawn and unique to itself.

Jeff Gill wrote: People who are creative & do things differently do so because that is who they are. It doesn't matter whether they are using Illustrator or a rock.

This is also true and perhaps contradicts the statement that I made about computers and software programs limiting creativity; you see, I also believe that the convenience of computers and software programs have made designers lazy. So really, this is on an individual basis whether designers have been defined by their tools or limited by them.

If you need or want to point fingers at the computer, tell it that it stripped the raw creativity from the brains of designers. We no longer have to think about how we're going to do something. We simply use the hot keys and the Pantone color palette and away we go.

On Oct.19.2004 at 11:09 PM