-
Creativity is the combining of two or more elements in order to synthesize something new. We all demonstrate creative thinking, daily, hourly, minute-by-minute.
We do not judge wether it's a good or bad expression of creativity, but we accept that this expression has resulted in a familiar likeness with this new thing.
With this said; many people and companies presume that there is a process, something repeatable, learnable on a mass scale—predicated on the industrial model, to consistently produce and express creativity with identical success each time. Unfortunately "creative process" is an oxymoron. Creativity is idiosyncratic, rarely pragmatic, and often a result of informed ignorance (another oxymoron). Technique is making a perfect mistake—an unintended discovery, while having honed the technical skills to refine and shape the mistake (or discovery) into something familiar. Technique is what defines the expression of creativity into something useful; acceptable; beautiful, ugly, useless, abstract—
We should also be clear and isolate creativity from art, or art-forms. You do not need to be an artist to express creativity. But artists (in all fields/art-forms) are generally more receptive to receiving external input and thinking, translating it through an art-form, yielding a form of creative expression (writing, music, design, art, sculpting, architecture, fashion, industrial design). Show me anything in this world that wasn't created, by someone. Regardless of their job title or function, artistic ability or skill. The world around us has been shaped and refined through creative expression, for better or worse.
With all I've stated above, and to answer your question specifically; No. These are self-induced allusions and another creative attempt at expressing—expression. It generally depends on the individual, and their ability to receive; interpret; translate; and express their creativity within the external world.
Many people incubate, many rapidly iterate, many work methodically—linearly. But under no circumstances does everyone work the same way. That would be the antithesis of creativity. And limit the diversity of thought and expressions of culture, and humanity as a whole. We'd all be a bunch of self-replicating, unaware bots.
Many people can and do work in teams, but rarely do you ever see one head, and many wrists. If you do, it's because many of the concepts and creative forms have already been decided or expressed in such a way that other's are simply copying a defined technique, not engaging in a creative process.0Add a comment
-
Hello people on the internet. I have been busy designing, building, creating, making, and running.
I'm also modifying the design of the blog, and should have this completed within the next two weeks.
In the meantime; Feel free to try out a few products I've been working on. Feedback was so positive, that I built a company and brand around the products themselves. The process, brand, and products have evolved organically with lo-fi feedback from people using the web app versions.
DeliEmpire was created to house a series of food apps, available in the App Store soon, that I deployed as sigle page web apps, first.
Feel free to poke around on your mobile, tablet, or desktop and let me know what you think.
SandwichDial
SeafoodDial
PairingDial (recipes are not active)0Add a comment
-
I was asked on Quora, What is the history of design?
Which was followed by a video that proposed it knew the origin, as if it were a succinct, concise point in time. I'm not going to post the video, but I find these types of broad and over generalized answers really confuse people. And in some cases, they convolute the means to understanding what design is.
Design is a function, not a specific form.
This is a very broad question. The video referenced juxtaposes Design with Art, as a lot of the speaker's references are not examples of Design. They're overly-generalized examples of art, architecture, and later, design.
These types of videos confuse the terms for people.
Everything is considered an art-form, but under no circumstances is one form definitively art. If we replace the word art with design, the previous statement is still true.
Design, as defined through it's etymology originates from to word designate.
This is why we preface design functions with more discriminate titles: Fashion Designer; Graphic Designer; Industrial Designer; Interior Design; User Interface Designer. The prefix denotes context for a type of design.
Function has now been given a form.
The function of design is to solve problems.
Art does not require function.
If you're one of those people who are interested in learning the/a history:
Start with history—itself, and then art-history. I would suggest starting with what's considered contemporary design thinking, and work your way back.
Art with an objective subsequently becomes design.0Add a comment
-
What is the difference?
In my professional opinion; nothing.
They're both over-intellectualized representations of contemporary identity creation practices.
Using a graphic to house, contain, float behind, or otherwise contrast a symbol or corresponding graphic does not present information to the audience any differently upon initial inspection.
Broadcast designers have utilized these techniques for many years. And, in my opinion, should probably be considered the inventors, or at least, the designers who refined the method.
There is always a fixed mark, icon or corresponding graphic, which becomes actually a logo as focal-point. Despite the intent or definition someone gives it, it's still a logo.
If I added a silhouette of a car behind nike's swoosh, does that automatically make it fluid? Is nike perhaps now effectively promoting a new extension of their brand? I don't think so. Varying the background element or the mark itself based on the context of specific messaging, is not a new design model. It's simply new jargon.
Don't cling too tightly to their definitions. In the case of design, consider the notion of a fluid/dynamic identity a result of the contemporary graphic designer's adjusting identity systems through evolving media platforms.0Add a comment
-
Can we bill based on contingency-based arrangements?
No, not in my experience.
Who would agree to such a structure—based solely on emotional responses and an individual's unique perception of each brand experience?
The logical fallacy in this question is: Brand equity is not quantifiable. Branding is not enduring. While a brand name may be persistent, the perception and definition of it, changes over time. It should, in order to stay relevant.
Brand is associated with a unique, narrowed perspective. Equity is associated with a finite number broadly applicable to a base set of values. Even with a floating arrangement, it's still not quantifiable to X. And what's the contingency? Someone remembers an ad or makes a sale? If so, now let's apply the varied media components to X. All channels are not trackable because there is no way to know when a message exceeds it's originating channel. And it would be a huge liability to brands and agencies, if it were. We should never want that information captured.
Top-of-mind is what it really comes down to for branding. Its strength is in the emotional responses of individuals. Remedially, social media provides a degree of sentiment tracking. And this is considered top-of-mind by contemporary standards, which translates to neo-branding.
Yes, and this may be a solution.
I've written and mentioned this before; Agencies should go into licensing agreements for the content they create. Brands can then choose to re-run creative through media channels and pay as they go, versus flat rates and hourly fees. Perhaps an upfront production cost can be arranged, but creative can be licensed and syndicated. Which allows for the extension and development of existing creative to new media channels as they emerge.
In the long-run however, it's pointless to consider branding beyond the logo and a few key thoughts. It's plausible to assume that intelligent delivery mechanisms/agents will be handling the direct messaging for products and services with vendors being selected based off a merit/reputation-based system. Preferably automated to avoid gaming the system.
Brandingwillhas become very abstract as it's created on the fly to meet the needs of the one, versus the many.
Display advertising already gives us a dose of this.0Add a comment
-
With recent events, involving government and hackers alike, I'm disturbed by the amount of rhetoric circulating online the perpetuates the notion that Free services or products mean a trade-off or the sacrifice of your privacy. Both as an individual and consumer, privacy should never be treated as a commodity. But of course, it's being marketed that way.
Free does not make for consent of an invasion of privacy. In-fact; free has given us the tools and technology we now have, and use to violate one's privacy. This is abusive behavior, plain and simple. And there is absolutely no reason or justification for this violation. I am amazed by the marketers, creatives, technology companies, and security companies themselves who, while it's a clever quote, epitomize the aggressive behavior of:"The more free software you use, the less free you are".
However, it's unfortunately true, if you've been paying attention to the news these past few years.
Many articles and pundits posit this premise—curiously, it parallels another passive aggressive notion:A women's provocative dress will undoubtedly lead to harassment—what did she expect? The woman is to blame...
I'm certain no reader of this post or pundits respectively, support this thought. It's certainly a disgusting way to perceive the world.
Let's be a little more proactive, less reactive, and most importantly less passive aggressive about systems that are designed to abuse the very users it purports to help. Unfortunately, these articles and pundits perpetuate the tired cliché and tyranny of dead ideas that continually plaque the newer entrants into the web as a marketplace, namely: Pay-to-play is the only way to play.
If you're just another iterative product or labored xerox-copy in the market, I suppose your alternatives are limited avenues of profit earned by selling people's information. If so-this is not credence to invade your prospect's privacy and continually force user behaviors onto them.
Free, or a loose presentation of free, is very good for ideas, products, and services in general. Society benefits the most. It's a model that isn't be capitalized on because most people refuse to understand it as a new model. I'm doubting those who claim to have tried.
Teach and inform with selling as an extension thereafter.
Try being a reputation protector. The web is still very young. We have plenty of time to find solutions to this type of behavior.
Securey yours, Anon0Add a comment
-
My First HTML Banner AD and its Source files
I decided to give +Google Web Designer the 'late night try'. This is either going to be very easy, or very difficult.
It was very easy—28 minutes of easy. I spent the majority of my time within Photoshop creating image assets. The animator/keyframer works as expected, and I would say it's easy to understand for those familiar with these toolsets.
I think some people may have some trouble looking for things like: 'Import picture file' 'Delete Layer'
After initially scanning the tools, I figured image files were drag + drop, and removing an item from the stage was as easy as selecting it and using the delete key on your keyboard.
My Immediate issues:
1. Most important: Once I published my banner ad, GWD would not open the source file and allow me to re-edit the code. It gave me an error twice. So, I modified my code in Coda.
2. Buttons should be easier to make. This includes over-states and animations that require rollovers. I gave up and simply added the link through Coda. If Google is going to be pushing this as a tool for making banner ads, I'd suggest making that process easier for the new user. Clients love their buttons...
3. The Scroll Bar for the layers/scrubber is on the far right, while the layers are on the far left. It's an idiosyncratic gripe, but it's a huge gesture to move left-to-right constantly ;)
4. a Initially, I presumed I could select/embed fonts from within GWD. But have since convinced myself I'd rather do this through a code editor. Type choices are limited to the typical and ubiquitous screen fonts. The down-side is that when you've created an ad with one typestyle, and then switch it after publishing, it changes alignment and design patterns.
4. b Type was converted to an image for animation. The type is not HTML, it's a graphic. I can think of a few reasons for doing this, but the best reason for not doing it is; Crisp type on screen, and lower file sizes. However, I cannot prove that file sizes increase without having actually placed this on an ad-server.
5. I centered my banner ad by hand. I could not easily find a way to do this. But remember, I spent a total of 28 making this.
6. Lots of code... I wanted to separate and create isolated files, but it looks like GWD has their own JS, so I left if for now. I don't need the bandwidth issues. :)
It's deceptively simple to use. Making websites will be a breeze for beginners, and I suspect a lot of people will fall in love with the ability to create their own web experiences with Google Web Designer. You can download the source files here, if you're interested in taking a look at the code base. More than I expected.1View comments
-
I'm currently trying my hand at it (well, for almost two years, on a super personal project), so this rhetoric comes from a beginner:
Writing Sci-fi is difficult. The future is expected to be perfect or better than, so you're forced to juxtapose contemporary drama over it. It's easy to create new-fangled gadgets and inventions from the perspective of the physical world, but when trying to include–say, a higher-state-of-conciousness over humanity, you can lose the reader easily or pontificate more than you should.
You can only create based on what's been done before, anything truly new is too abstract for most people to relate to. Good contemporary writing, in my opinion, is just a few footsteps from where we are currently, despite the timeline of your universe.
And that can get boring. Any thoughts or advice?0Add a comment
-
Concordance is the most common rule that I'm aware of. But most importantly, balance and symmetry in the blocks of copy they create.
When objectively defining type pairs, I think it's important to consider the type of content, space it's being seen in, and the message it's communicating.
There is not a generic rule. And I'm confessing to a crime I repeatedly commit: I shot the serif.0Add a comment
Archive
Add a comment