Some Random Dude

Spot on!!! Your critique extends far beyond just graphic / web design. My current research project explores the potential role of web-based systems to enable the customisation of textile products – your analysis of trends describes the fashion industry perfectly.

Hah! Quoting ‘Some Random Dude’ in my Contextual Review will be a laugh!!!

That’s hilarious. I would love to see the look on people’s faces as you explain that you cite that one of your sources is from some random dude. ;)

One of the best articles I have recently read.

Thanks Inguna, I’m flattered.

[...] designer should have an eye on web 2.0 design and trends. Some designers even think already how to save a fresh look in this modern web 2.0 ocean. One tip is to do completely opposite and to destroy the web 2.0 [...]

Fantastic response to a deplorable original article.

But say, how’d you make that badge? Can you post a tutorial? I’d like to make my own then destroy it with some grunge fonts.

Thanks Sean. :)

I guess I’m going to have to write a tutorial on the top 10 ways to find tutorials on how to make Web 2.0 badges. ;) Sadly, I think this would be found strangely useful for many more people than we think…

So is your idea of a perfect world somewhere where each and every “creative” task is purely original? I would suggest that, whilst perhaps ostensibly better, this is both unattainable and undesirable. How would the unique be defined if there were no norm? Isn’t there always going to be a space for the hum-drum, run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road that we complain about? Won’t truly creative individuals exist regardless (and perhaps in response to) a sheep-like copycat, trend-following middle ground?
I wouldn’t worry your self about the fact that others can’t use their energy in creative ways. Your task is to lead by example. You won’t ever convert others by just giving them a bit of reason and logic.

No, my idea of a perfect world is where people think for themselves. If folks put serious consideration into a concept and come to a contemporary style, that’s absolutely fine. All I hope for is some genuine thought.

As I said in the article, there are always be this segment of the population in any vocation, all I tried to do is show the fallacy of it – people can decide to do what they wish from there.

Personally, I think we need to rely more on reason and logic to communicate ideas than we presently do. Ultimately, strong design is rooted in strong conceptual thinking. Therefore, I find the exchange of thoughts just as important to designers as the creation of a finished work.

Let me make it clear – I don’t disagree with what you have to say.
But let’s look at that phrase “…if folks put serious consideration into a concept and come to a contemporary style…”. OK, let’s imagine someone really thinks about what they’re doing, to the level that you think they’re capable of. Is there EVER a need for something to be “just like everything else” when you have really thought about it? I’d guess that those situation are very rare. Most enterprises of whatever kind hope to stand out in some way.
When you say that you hope for genuine thought, I think that actually translates as (and I’m only saying this cos I know I’m incredibly guilty of it) “genuine thought, as long as it’s along the same lines of reasoning as I adhere to”. Some people just (for whatever reason – but generally a culmination of environmental and experiential effects) aren’t equipped to make the decisions and conceptual leaps that “genuine thought” requires. Sure, someone could help the process. And yes, maybe we should all be trying to make everyone capable of it, but at the end of the day we have to deal with what the situation is now. We don’t want people to think for themselves – that kind of thing leads to the **** that the human existence has experienced over the last few thousand years. We want people to think beyond themselves. Reason and logic provide a fantastic language for discussion amongst those who understand it, but at the end of the day pure, original thought comes from an awareness of one’s own intellect. I guess I’m just saying that the good will out, and so will the rubbish.
I might sound argumentative, but I just think that if you want to do things differently, you do it yourself. Things do change.

Hey prioritypie, thanks for the response.

Actually, I think there are many things that should be just like everything else, or at least very close. Interface paradigms are a perfect example – to deviate from tried-and-true interaction models can be very problematic in many scenarios. Could you imagine if cars all had different forms of control? Instead of the steering wheel being the way to drive, Honda uses a joystick and Toyota uses a trackball? That would be a nightmare. :)

In terms of thinking for themselves and thinking beyond themselves, I actually think the two are very closely related. This is getting somewhat philosophical, but I feel those who don’t think for themselves are ultimately letting someone think for them. Many times, people that want to think for you are doing so to benefit themselves. I think that has a lot to do with “****” that we have experienced for so long. Wars/violent conflict are perpetuated because the masses do not take a step back and see the obvious – it rarely, if ever, benefits anyone except the few people orchestrating it.

I actually appreciate your thoughts on this as the last thing I would want is for people to just blindly agree. I also think we need to walk the walk – I certainly am trying – but I think we need to (loudly) talk the talk as well.

It is incredibly interesting that design thought at one of the most basic levels (in this case visual style), inevitably leads to the concept of problem solving of these much larger scales (global issues).

I believe that metaphor is a great way to solve complex problems and your post, as well as the discussion, is setting the stage to analyze the lack of unique thought process that exists. On the small scale (forecasting web trends) this lack of individuality is a bit more trivial, but on the large scale it is a serious problem. Regarding one of the most well documented problems of our time (global warming), if critical thinking was more widely practiced in general populations then this new economy that is in its first stages of development would be much more likely to be in its adolescence or teenage years. If more people had thought about the problem when it was first discovered then we may not be in the situation that we are in today.

I think that I would disagree with both of you (somerandomdude and prioritypie) that ‘thinking for yourself’ is a bad thing and it leads to problems. Under certain circumstances thinking for your personal benefit can make for dangerous situations. Currently, our economy creates one of those circumstances and individual gain is often found through shortcuts and controlling the minions that aren’t thinking for themselves. Purportedly, If our economy shifts to one that could be sustainable, then individual thought would be mutually beneficial.

So, what can catalyze this shift? Well I would suggest that it could start by activating peoples brains. Making people ask questions. Visual style is a canvas for this to happen.

This question: ‘How would the unique be defined if there were no norm?’ can be answered by: The uniqueness of a design comes out of analyzing all of the parts of the objective of the design and creating something that addresses them. Uniqueness is not about being different from the norm, it is about being an individual, and if things were made with more individuality then they would maybe provoke the audience to put more thought into what they were looking at. Hopefully, this thought process at the most basic scale would become applied to all media and maybe, then, it could help to solve some of the problems that we are facing.

Merely speculative, but ideas are what lead to change. Great post. It is really nice to see that the discussion isn’t just a pissing match as it seems so many are.