18 comments

  • Thomas Michael SemmlerThomas Michael Semmler, almost 5 years ago

    There is value in collaboration on anything in the world, but it will not automatically make it a better product, just because of collaboration. Designers fought with CEO's, Marketing people and other Stakeholders who were just simply not competent to provide usable feedback - and those people are not more competent now."Opening" up design will also not automatically make them more competent. What gives expertise is gaining experience from cultivating hard and soft skills that are needed to perform this craft.

    Just imagine, opening up systems architecture or development to everyone. How would you feel if your first level supports sets up database tables?

    The truth of this entire industry wide conversation, is that people believe they are designers because they have eyes. Because they can deem something as "not nice", they automatically think that they have become stakeholders for design decisions. Yes we don't need celebrity designers, but not everyone who has a subjective opinion about something visual is a designer. Imagine they'd have an objective opinion about relational databases or containerization and you'd have to hear them out, only to explain to them for 15 minutes, why their opinion is not constructive.

    10 points
    • Andrew C, almost 5 years ago

      Great post!

      But, as a side note, I have had many conversations about relational databases and service scheming. As a designer I demand the end result and user be represented even in the planning stages. You'd be surprised at how much better the engineers can plan architecture if they can anticipate the seemingly random complexity they'll encounter downstream.

      0 points
  • Rhys MerrittRhys Merritt, almost 5 years ago

    I'm baffled by the comments in here? Did anyone actually read the article? These comments seem like they are aimed at a different article... I'm super confused...

    I found this write up to be very motivational and insightful - especially the parts about Redefining what it means to be “great” - I get the sense that Tim and the Abstract team are exceptionally grounded people.

    Another part that really struck a cord was the idea of changing the word but for and when giving feedback. I think this is a wonderful approach! It really does shift the tone away from belittlement. Very simple yet powerful change.

    I really loved this read, and just shared it with the rest of my team.

    6 points
  • Nick Orland, almost 5 years ago

    Let's talk through the context of individuality. Yes, teamwork is important and sometimes is necessary, but at the end of the day, it's a pile of compromises. This may be good for the technical part of the project, e.g. for UX or for developers and engineers but it's not (always) ok for creative development. Just look at the history of art for example (yes, design is art), I do not see any teams, only brilliant individuals.

    1 point
    • Thomas Michael SemmlerThomas Michael Semmler, almost 5 years ago

      well, design is always a compromise, even if you do it alone. There is value in doing it collaboratively. I don't agree with the premise of the article, but it is not true that great design is only driven by individuality. I also find it quite disturbing to exclude any form of systematic work, development UX from creative processes, they are as much part of creative work as visual design is.

      1 point
      • Nick Orland, almost 5 years ago

        It depends on the type of project, as well as your "celebrity status" or client's trust if we talking about commercial design (I'm talking about compromise). Also, I did not say that great design is driven by individuality only :)

        1 point
    • Selv GrimmSelv Grimm, almost 5 years ago

      Design is not art. Art is art. Good design SHOULD come from a very different place than art. They have similarities, but the main difference is that design has goals, needs to work to be considered good. Art can leave you angry, outraged, and it's still good art. The process behind it is also quite different.

      Design is a lot closer to UX and development than art, but all of those can be considered part of the "Creative field", depending on what's being done.

      0 points
      • Nick Orland, almost 5 years ago

        It’s a different topic but graphic design is (in most of the cases) art, like logo design, poster design, illustration, digital manipulation, "new media" design ... Some UI / GUI and especially HUD design is art etc. Yes, UX is something else, but it's still creative thinking.

        -3 points
        • Antti Kareinen, almost 5 years ago

          I’m sorry man but you’re way off. Logos, posters etc. have to serve very specific purpose. If you don’t manage to create a strong, recognisable logo mark you have failed. If you don’t design a poster that conveys the information it should what’s the point? Art is a lot more harder to judge since it’s always an expression of the artist and open for interpretation.

          0 points
          • Nick Orland, almost 5 years ago

            Really? So, random photorealistic portrait or random brush stroke is art but an expressive typographic or illustrated poster is just an informational medium. The new generation of designers obviously does not know enough about the history of design.

            1 point
            • Thomas Michael SemmlerThomas Michael Semmler, almost 5 years ago

              It depends on the intention of the creative process and the purpose of the thing created. But the line between art and design is blurry and cannot be defined objectively. Look for Dadaism to explore this topic further.

              But as a rule of thumb, I would also recommend to not equate design with art - it would not do service to either.

              2 points
              • Nick Orland, almost 5 years ago

                It depends on the intention of the creative process and the purpose of the thing created. But the line between art and design is blurry and cannot be defined objectively. - Well said.

                -1 points
              • Waldy Przybyslawski, almost 5 years ago

                This. I imagine the debate has been going on for decades as I distinctly remember when I started my career in the early 2000s, we were all debating "but is it art?" regarding Joshua Davis' or David Carson's work.

                0 points
      • A. N.A. N., almost 5 years ago

        The only difference between them is that Design is the expression and purpose of a Brand/Product/Service and Art is the expression and purpose of an artist.

        But Art uses design like design uses art, so technically and methodology speaking they are the same, even though the line between them is blurry.

        0 points
  • Perttu Talasniemi, almost 5 years ago

    Article implies that the "open design" is a new thing. It's been there for long time in many forms ex. Co-Creation that includes all the stakeholder in the production process thus making it a team effort.

    1 point
  • Bart Claeys, almost 5 years ago

    It's interesting that the film industry has managed to put credits before/after it's creations mentioning absolutely everyone who was involved (including catering etc.) Yet, for web projects, there is no such habit, meaning there are no credits at all besides, in best cases, the mention of a company behind it.

    0 points
  • Account deleted almost 5 years ago

    clickbait article

    -2 points
  • Stan Marsh, almost 5 years ago

    Didn't read the article. But I love the theme going on the site.

    -5 points