Designers Replaced With Software?
Tuesday, October 14, 2003A new piece of software being developed by Xerox asks the question, “Who needs graphic artists?”
The software uses genetic algorithms to intelligently (and dynamically) layout given elements such as text and photos onto a page until the software “thinks” it looks good.
This reminds me of such hands-off “design” software as The Logo Creator.
Why bother educating people in aesthetics, design, typography and layout, when a computer can do the job for you? I’m sure some 3D spheres, chunky type and bevelled swooshes is not what the inventors of CAD had in mind when they coined the term “Computer-Assisted Design.”
On the other hand, I’m all for keeping people with zero design skills from even attempting page layout. I wonder if other professionals are equally wary of do-it-yourself solutions.
fink says:
How often do you hear “that’s amazing, what computers can do”. And why is it only in relation to art and computers?
Nobody ever says after an accountant finishes a spreadhseet that its amazing that computers can do that. People always seem to remember that a human was needed to complete the process.
No-one ever says to a writer that it’s amazing what computers can do when they have finished their latest piece.
-----
Anna says:
At first I was going to just weep quietly at my desk and keep it all to myself, but…
I am always really irked when I tell someone that I am a graphic designer (actually, I’ve started just saying “book cover designer” and cutting to the chase) and their immediate response is somewhere along the lines of, “Oh, so do you use Photoshop to do that?” As if Photoshop (or Quark, or Illustrator, or even the computer itself) is designing stuff all by itself. Somehow it never occurs to them that my SELF (and all that’s connected to my brain, including my eyes) factors into the process at all.
We are not designers because we know how to use certain computer programs. I would still be a designer with a rock and a stick. Yes, it’s great to have the computer as a tool and it makes my life a billion times happier and the execution of my work a trillion times faster (and cheaper), but it has NOT made me a better designer.
And Fink, I am going to have to remember that accountant analogy the next time this comes up—thanks.
SPU says:
A computer can be capable of “designing” an eye-pleasing layout given a set of algorithmic rules on how to do it. Therefore, it’s possible that software - properly written - could create beautiful and astonishing designs, but only if a person had told it how to do it first.
So, a computer can recreate the works of Picaso if you told it how Picaso created in the first place. Creating a new “masterpiece” via computer without that input is impossible, because a computer lacks creativity.
That said, most companies don’t need a masterpiece or work of art for their websites. They will just be happy with something that “looks good”. In those cases, software could suffice.
At the very least, the software is an advancement in the field of artificial intelligence.
Robot Johnny says:
You have no soul, SPU.
SPU says:
Why’s that?
Robot Johnny says:
Because you’re willing to accept design-by-computer. Whether a human programmed the software or not, the end product is still not created by a human.
Your example of Picasso is a prime example. You could never teach a computer how Picasso painted something because nobody knows other than Picasso himself.
Design is art, too.
SPU says:
You misunderstand me. I do not accept true design-by-computer. Only, say, “replication of design” by computer. Through my example, I attempted to explain that a computer could recreate Picasso’s works if Picasso went and taught the computer how each piece was created. It could then go and recreate those pieces, even combining them to make something that looks new, at least to the layman’s eye. However, there is no creativity in that process and any “new” piece it would generate would not include any true originality or artistic merit, because those virtues are human alone.
Perhaps a good analogy is a Hollywood movie made up entirely of cliche. A computer could piece all those cliches together and generate a “new” movie. (I personally believe “The Transporter” was created in this manner.) The end result may be fun to watch (to some with little taste), but it’s not going to advance the cinematic art.
Zombie Claire says:
Sometimes I would prefer a movie made by a computer than one made by humans.
Zombie Claire says:
PS: You cannot diss The Transporter. Jason Stratham wrestling in oil!!!!!!! PERFECT.
SPU says:
“He was a bastard, but he was still my father...”
Gag gag hack gag.
ryan says:
SPU said :
Through my example, I attempted to explain that a computer could recreate Picasso’s works if Picasso went and taught the computer how each piece was created.
It stands to reason that this is the current process. Except substitute picasso for say, me. I am telling the computer how to draw/recreate with every input command I give it. Mouse click/key stroke, what have you.
And your last statement isn’t true, the computer cannot be taught. It can be programmed to differentiate between two variables ON/OFF when given certain situations, or magnetic charges course through it’s wires/mother board.
It could then go and recreate those pieces,
Here’s what would happen if the computer had the final say and artistic liscence throughout the design process.
If I make a business card, let’s say input my name phone number, logo image, favourite colour etc etc. Everytime That same information is inputted, it would result in the same design. I couldn’t go back two days later and say to the computer, naw I don’t like that do it again, this time differently. It would spit out the same result of the same variables put into it.
even combining them to make something that looks new, at least to the layman’s eye.
That exists yes. But this software in the article is nothing new. Photoshop combines stuff all the time, layer masks, selections, fills, filters, different tools like clone/heal etc etc. All do this already.
However, there is no creativity in that process and any “new” piece it would generate would not include any true originality or artistic merit, because those virtues are human alone.
I don’t see how it would create anything new in the first place.
For cliches in action check out the next photoshop contest on Fark. You’ll see how unpleasent cliches and or regurgitated ideas really are.
Leroice says:
Ryan, beautifully illustrated.
I can’t stand the idea of Design, it’s culture, and the skill and learning it takes to understand and then create it, becoming redundant due to a computer program being created.
As a designer I am constantly appaled at people who believe they are a designer just because they are using the tools of the trade, such as photoshop or illustrator etc. I would never assume that just because I can use my father’s tools I am a plumber.
At least the one positive of this will be to cut down the number of people who believe they can actually design, when it is quite clear they can only click a mouse.
I am sure that regardless of such “miracle” breakthroughs in technology in relation to the world of design, knowledge skill and passion of the designer will always be what creates good design. Not a bunch of zero’s and one’s.
Erik says:
As a graphic designer and cartoonist I am wary of these “solutions”. First of all, a computer simply cannot replace a designer or artist for that matter.
When I visited the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, CA the paintings showcased there by artists like Picasso and Van Gogh exuded human creation. I simply cannot see a computer being able to recreate (or reproduce) those works without human intervention.
Sure, a computer can scan in a drawing and randomly apply algorithms to replicate the look of brushstrokes, but the essense of any art piece is that of the artist himself.
Granted, I’m not against utilizing the computer to aide in your art but the computer as the sole creator of masterpieces, artwork and graphic design? Never.
In a way this relates to Disney firing a good portion of their 2D artists to replace with 3D CGI. Nothing spells doom than a world without the intervention of humans. I’m envisioning a Terminator universe and that’s scary.
Zombie Claire says:
Kraftwerk says: “COM-PU-TER LOVE!”
Zombie Claire says:
I couldn’t go back two days later and say to the computer, naw I don’t like that do it again, this time differently. It would spit out the same result of the same variables put into it.
But you told it to do it differently so it would.
You could probably tell a computer to do something different over and over and it would not get mad at you.
I don’t see how it would create anything new in the first place.
Data and his robot friend Lal are just weeping at this whole conversation.
Robot Johnny says:
cough cough nerd cough
Zombie Claire says:
Either way it’s designs will be finite, while the human beings designs will be limitless.
But humans get ticked off at their clients after like maybe 5 re-dos!
he could produce 10-25 concepts none of which are based on calculation, but pure imaginativeness. I could then say to him, I don’t like any of them!!! Make it better (not an uncomman practice by clients), and he could produce 10-25 fresh brand new concepts.
OMG 10 - 25 twice?? I hope the next time I work for a company that hires a designer we hire you because I’ve never seen that many concepts from a designer before!!!! We have not been hiring good people.
ryan says:
Zombie Claire said:
But you told it to do it differently so it would.
You could probably tell a computer to do something different over and over and it would not get mad at you.
So you can program some minor (or major) randomization. Big deal. The randomization, as based on the same variable count, would then as well, be just a identical. You’d get the same 10 choices or whatever. Either way it’s designs will be finite, while the human beings designs will be limitless.
Point is, I could go to John, give him my “variables”, and he could produce 10-25 concepts none of which are based on calculation, but pure imaginativeness. I could then say to him, I don’t like any of them!!! Make it better (not an uncomman practice by clients), and he could produce 10-25 fresh brand new concepts.
Of course who needs John when you’ve got me, but that’s besides the point.
FYI @ John: A Nerd has a star wars slant, A Geek has a Star Trek slant. I am the former.
ryan says:
I’ll consider that a lead.....
michael says:
http://www.graphicpush.com/articles/wormhole.shtml