ART 204 Introductory Reading:
Is that computer helping or hindering?
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
Questions for Discussion
Take a look at these questions and consider how the article relates to you as a designer.
Post your responses to the class blog in CI Learn before the beginning of next class.
1. Since you’ve begun using Photoshop and/or Illustrator, what have you found it to be most practical for?
2. Have you seen design work out there that you aspire towards? What companies or styles hold your interest?
3. Have you “borrowed” any ideas/techniques from other designs? Or have you attempted to remain fiercely independent?
4. Do you still work in an “analog” capacity? In other words — do you still work on paper or “non-digitally?” Describe how these projects differ from your digital work?
5. Is it possible to use a program like Photoshop and not have your work look “Photoshoppy”? How can it be done?
6. In light of this article — how might you change your approach to digital graphic design?
7. Create a small design (1000 x 1000 pixels, 72dpi, JPEG/PNG, RGB) which demonstrates some of your skills as a designer, and somehow responds to the theme of this article.
