Does technology inspire you to be creative, or what?

As someone who has only discovered the possibilities inherent in computer-aided design fairly recently, it is difficult for me to really say how my personal design process works. I am a big fan of anything hand-crafted, but as my enrolment on this course shows, I recognise the huge potential in combining the artist and the machine, and the importance of staying up to date with current technologies.

On the one hand, I am a firm believer in the importance of working ‘off-line’, that is, allowing the mind to run free and develop ideas separate from the computer. To use a non-visual design example, I certainly find that I do my best expressive writing by hand before typing it up; somehow the stark format of the word processor seems to get in the way. I think the distraction factor plays a part in this problem (for with the computer inevitably comes tempting access to the internet and other concentration-draining diversions), but there’s definitely something about the visceral pen-to-paper experience that makes it easier to connect to the ‘flow’ of creative thought.

This rule also applies to visual design, for me at least. I can’t imagine doing preliminary ‘sketching’ of images or layouts using Photoshop or Illustrator. Perhaps I’d feel differently if I had a quality graphics tablet, but the software and its necessary in-between steps, never mind the clunky mouse, slows down and distorts the brain-to-physical-image process infuriatingly at a time when spontaneity and speed are of the essence.

Once I’ve had the opportunity to get my rough ideas down, however, I turn to software to take them to the next level. The process here is not so simple as bringing a finished idea to fruition exactly as it was envisaged before laying a hand on the computer, though. The most exciting aspect of digital design is how features of design software open up new avenues for the concept itself. The more I learn about the workings of Illustrator, the wider the range of possibilities for the realisation of any given design. Of course, with greater potential comes greater choice, and with this comes its own problems. It is easy to become overwhelmed by all the options on offer, and for this reason it’s important to approach the design task with some kind of idea of the final result. To impose some limitations can work in favour of the artist.

This issue inevitably brings up a “chicken and egg” type question: what comes first, theoretical art/design training in layout, aesthetics, etc., or technical/software skills? I think few people would disagree that technological wizardry does not necessarily equal design genius. As Pina Lewandowsky and Francis Zeischegg put it, ‘acquiring a mastery of the language of visual communication requires a little more than familiarity with a few software packages’ (p.6, Lewandowsky and Zeischegg. A Practical Guide to Digital Design. Ava Publishing, 2003). They characterise design amateurs as those who ‘use software-specific solutions without really thinking’ (ibid.). Clearly it’s important to remember that technology can only bring to life a design which was strong in the first place. The software alone cannot generate a successful image.

Another danger inherent in computer-aided design is the pitfall of cliché. Thousands of designers using the same programs are bound to generate similar-looking images if they aren’t very careful to maintain their originality. If it is easy to tell at a glance that a design has been created in Photoshop due to its over-use of tired filter effects, for example, then its designer has failed, in a way, because all we see is the software, which gets in the way of the image itself. Lazy over-reliance on the easily generated yet striking (before they become tired clichés, that is) effects on offer through design software makes for dull, predictable, and unoriginal artwork.

In conclusion, while I certainly appreciate the immense possibilities for technology to bring creative ideas to life, I also recognise that it’s very important to keep at least a portion of the design process ‘lo-tech’. There is no substitute for good, raw concepts, and the best software won’t transform a poor idea into something truly engaging.