0 reactions
Using the terms 'designers' or 'creatives' is demeaning and should be avoided
In recent years people have been using the terms *designers* and *creatives* to describe people involved in creating art, music, and writing. But this is really kindergarten-level design or creativity. Anybody can do it. Perhaps not well, but any 5 year old can draw, paint, sing, and write.
Contrast this with someone that designs a plane. That is generally done by engineers, who are generally excluded from the new popular definition of *designer* or *creative*. But they are doing design and they must be creative to be successful. And this is graduate-level design and high-stakes creativity. It requires years of study to be able to do it. Any design must satisfy the constraints of reality and so it often demands a greater level of creativity in order to find a design that works in the real world.
Here are some important examples of design and creativity that were not created by the modern *designer* or *creative*:
* the transistor
* TCP/IP protocol
* the Apollo guidance computer
* a modern jet engine
* the microprocessor
* the cell phone
Engineers (electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical, software, etc.), scientists, mathematicians, etc. are all excluded from these recent and reductive definitions. And yet, the essence of each of these professions is creativity: the creation of new things, techniques, or knowledge.
I'm not saying that artists, musicians, or writers are not creative or that they do not design. Rather, my point is that using the terms *designer* or *creative* to refer only to those of these professions is appropriation and should be avoided.
#art
source
In recent years people have been using the terms *designers* and *creatives* to describe people involved in creating art, music, and writing. But this is really kindergarten-level design or creativity. Anybody can do it. Perhaps not well, but any 5 year old can draw, paint, sing, and write.
Contrast this with someone that designs a plane. That is generally done by engineers, who are generally excluded from the new popular definition of *designer* or *creative*. But they are doing design and they must be creative to be successful. And this is graduate-level design and high-stakes creativity. It requires years of study to be able to do it. Any design must satisfy the constraints of reality and so it often demands a greater level of creativity in order to find a design that works in the real world.
Here are some important examples of design and creativity that were not created by the modern *designer* or *creative*:
* the transistor
* TCP/IP protocol
* the Apollo guidance computer
* a modern jet engine
* the microprocessor
* the cell phone
Engineers (electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical, software, etc.), scientists, mathematicians, etc. are all excluded from these recent and reductive definitions. And yet, the essence of each of these professions is creativity: the creation of new things, techniques, or knowledge.
I'm not saying that artists, musicians, or writers are not creative or that they do not design. Rather, my point is that using the terms *designer* or *creative* to refer only to those of these professions is appropriation and should be avoided.
#art
source
| 7,000 mlx | |
| 7 | |
| 0 |