Be nice. Or else.
Art Director Joined over 4 years ago
What part of the creative process are you wanting better representation of?
I think since a large part of the creative process is often not visual, it is difficult or cumbersome to capture that in a single snapshot. The challenge there is that it takes more effort to document process stuff because you are in the middle of doing it. Posting the finished product is a lot less intensive.
I've found some great insights into the process on Youtube, Skillshare and even Behance/Twitch streaming—places where you can get an over-the-shoulder type of perspective.
Dribbble is a community. Communities are what they are because the people in them have things in common. For Dribbble, it ends up being certain visual styles and ways of displaying creative content.
Granted, a lot of content has been created for specifically for like-chasing on the platform, but that is inevitable for any platform with a similar social construct. And there is nothing wrong with that either. It's not like there is some external supreme visual style out there that dictates how design presents itself, and by jumping on design trends we go against it.
When it comes down to it, we design for people. People have likes and preferences. Catering to those likes and preferences will get you more recognition within that space. There is no "right way" to use it, people will use it how they do.
On a practical level, I agree. Your circumstances and the people around influence your perception and actions at every level. So if your feedback loop of those influences is negative, it is extremely hard overcome them.
On the other side of the same coin, we are not static by any means. We all have the capacity to change (for better or worse). I definitely agree that success equates to talent, timing and practice, but I'd go further to say that those three aspects are also fluid and driven by each other.
I don't accept that people are born with specific talents though. Disposition (nurture) and advantageous characteristics (nature), sure—but to realize a specific talent is to put in the work and take advantage of opportunities for growth when they present themselves. Having good teachers and mentors is also extremely important.
Interesting--thanks for the insight. I'll give it a spin.
You can absolutely acquire talent, given the right circumstances. How do you think talented people became talented at what they do in the first place? How good vs. great someone is at something is explicitly dependent on the specific person, and their place in the world and time because we cannot be removed from it. Context matters.
Saying that people are "born with talent" is patently dismissive of they effort they put in to get there, and the effort put forth by the people who helped them along the way (directly or not).
However, the "right circumstances" are fundamentally important and not directly accessible to everyone, and it is naive to think otherwise. We are all products of our environment, experience and interactions with those around us. The nature vs. nurture debate is irrelevant because it is both. Nature and nurture. They are not separable from one another, and you are not separable from them.
(in regards to the topic)
As designers, I think we all consider what it means from time to time. If you don't have a firm perspective on what your personal definition of being a designer is and how it ladders up to your professional responsibilities then it's a pretty natural question. "Am I even doing this right? Am I experienced enough to be doing this? Am I even qualified? Can anyone do what I do?" Classic impostor syndrome. That pseudo-nihilistic ethos you mention is pretty compatible with that notion.
But it is only constructive to ask "can anyone be a designer?" in order to understand what "being a designer" means to you. All products, goods and services that are made by humans are designed. So, if you solve or contribute to solving the problem of creating those items, then you are a designer.
Defining design in the broadest sense is as simple as considering a situation and acting to create an improved situation (iterative, novel or otherwise). The reality of it is that we don't design design because we are designers, we are designers because we design.
I was unaware of this one. I dig the minimal interface for sure.
What do you like about newton over spark?
Yes and yes! Spark has been the only email client that was able to fill the void left by Mailbox whenever dropbox shut it down. I just recently started using the MacOS app and it has impressed me every time I use it.
Being skilled with a particular tool is not the same as being a good designer or illustrator, though there is overlap.
Design is the purposeful application of creativity to a problem, and being creative is all about being able to draw novel connections from a large body of experience. The more experience you have, the more readily you can draw those connections to solve a problem. Practicing at specific skills will only help to manifest that creativity more efficiently. Focus of attention in this area is very important!
We are all products of our environment, background and experience. Anyone can be a designer, just as anyone can be creative. It just might take a lot more effort for some to collect the right set of skills and mental models required for any particular definition of "designer."
I do, and this is a good analogy for comparison. Let me try to unpack this a little bit.
If you consider the “health of a patient” or “design of a product” the final outcome, then all contributing members are equally important because that specific final outcome is dependent on exactly those contributions. All contributing members are working towards that goal, directly or not.
Operating under a certain set of skills or responsibilities does not exhaust what it means to be a designer (or a doctor, or a janitor, or a writer, or a manager). That is just one way a designer can be, one way of accessing that area of the process. So, if to create a product is to design it, and there are many ways to access that process and make meaningful contributions, then everyone who contributes in reaching that specific final product/outcome is a designer.
Titles (such as designer in the previously-mentioned narrow sense) are only useful in labelling what kind of experience you have had, and coloring expectations for what you do on a daily basis.
To your point though, acquiring the title of doctor requires a very specific and intensive educational and career path. Design, as a profession, is a lot more open and generally accessible, and there are lot more angles from which you can meaningfully contribute. But when you frame those titles as the outcome of their work, then it cracks open the definition, because the process has many dimensions and points of entry.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.