the qualms of designing in a new age

"In my experience there are two types of designers, there are those that pass themselves off as designers, but are really just artworkers who can copy stuff. They're pack followers, and although their work may evolve, it is shallow and doesn't break any new ground. Then there are real designers, the ones with talent and ideas, who get inspired by things-art, architecture, photography, film, innovative products, nature, anything really. They adapt and change through experimentation."
- Jay Armitage

If you're a designer, illustrator, painter, film-maker... any kind of artist - you've had this debate. In fact, you've probably had it a million times between peers and hear about it in every art history class you've sat down and didn't fall asleep for. Originality. Creativity. Inspiration. Break-though art is art that is completely new, original, inspirational... but in an age of repeats, how can a designer break through?

In order to be successful in the commercial art field, you need to do something close to what is popular at the moment - but drastically different to make it rise above the rest. It's a hard line to walk on and not get trampled by copy-cat artists. Everything starts looking the same, but they all claim to be original. Worse, what if the style that is popular now is the one you truly enjoy? Force yourself into something different to break the mold or hold on to what you love. Then... do you love it because your brain-washed to love it because you see it everywhere, or do you actually love it? As a friend once told me "if you get too caught up in replication, you can find yourself in a ditch".

The experimental art field has it's qualms as well. Is it crap or is it art? I mean, there are points in our culture where crap could literally be art, so how do we know what is break-through and inspirational or, well, not? Every designer who takes classes and learns the rules slowly becomes more warped into what is good and what isn't because they follow the rules or because they break them effectively. It just feels like the more you learn, the bigger a nay-sayer you become. Every piece of art becomes what somebody else, whom you admire, claims as 'good or not'. Art is subjective. So if you do something you love, then isn't it good enough?

Going into my junior year of college, this is my qualm. I love and am proud of what I do, but I want to get better and evolve. I want to have a style that's all my own and love it for what it is. I feel like now I'm just dicking around and amusing myself with things I think are funny, but they're shallow. When I used to be more of a fine artist, I would always spend the longest time just coming up with a reason to do what I was going to do. If the reason wasn't good enough, didn't say what I wanted it to say, wasn't 'deep' enough - then I would just throw it away. I miss feeling like that about my work, but I feel like it's a mirror of my life at the moment. I create my best work when my emotions are haywire... if I'm just kind of living through the strides of everyday life, then my artwork reflects that. Having up, down, and straight periods just happen - it's a part of life. I feel as though my artwork is more original and inspiring during emotional periods, and becomes more copy-cat(ish) when I'm striding. Hence trying to break out of the stride.

My biggest obstacle to overcome in the upcoming year is the one that will be forced most heavily. Competition. Rochester Institute of Technology thrives on competition. It becomes a completely uncontrollable blind-fold if you let it. Everyone wants to be 'top-of-the-class', everyone wants to move onto the best firms out there, be better than their enemies, be better than their friends... be the best. I know that I need to break way from the competitive feelings, and go more towards experimentation and truly loving what I'm doing, not what the rest of the class is. It will be hard, but this blog is my first step towards it.

.Linzi

Special thanks to Graeme for the quote and inspirational words.