I have to agree here. The other author was advocating for self-serving design, asserting that design is subjective and it's acceptable to design purely with intuition or opinion. That's a very egotistical way to approach design.
Design isn't creative for the sake of being creative; it leverages thoughtful creativity to better serve its purpose or solve a problem. It doesn't break conventions for the sake of breaking conventions; it observes tried-and-true inventions from the past, iterates on them, and improves them over time. The author wasn't describing design. He was describing art.
I too have written about this. And now I'm speaking about it.
I have to agree here. The other author was advocating for self-serving design, asserting that design is subjective and it's acceptable to design purely with intuition or opinion. That's a very egotistical way to approach design.
Design isn't creative for the sake of being creative; it leverages thoughtful creativity to better serve its purpose or solve a problem. It doesn't break conventions for the sake of breaking conventions; it observes tried-and-true inventions from the past, iterates on them, and improves them over time. The author wasn't describing design. He was describing art.
I too have written about this. And now I'm speaking about it.