Having ‘good taste’ won’t save designers
“Taste will be the key differentiator.” “Taste is what AI can’t replace.” “Taste is our competitive advantage.” Have you heard these as many times as I have over the last year? It feels like every time technology is mentioned, especially AI, the go-to argument is that as execution gets easier, we have to move upstream and be hired for our thinking. Then that standard conversation around “taste”…
Designers are feeling uncertain about the future of their industry, particularly in light of the rise of AI technology. Many argue that "taste" is the key differentiator, but the author questions whether this is a convenient narrative or a legitimate defense against AI. The author points out that designers have faced similar threats from technology in the past, such as Fiverr, Canva, social media, and now AI.
However, they argue that these challenges have often led to innovation and evolution within the industry. The author suggests that the focus on "taste" as a competitive advantage may be misguided, as it is a passive attribute that does not necessarily lead to meaningful contributions or action. Instead, they propose that conviction and the willingness to bet on one's taste could be a more effective approach to navigating the uncertain landscape of the design industry.
The author shares a story about David Bailey, a photographer who defied the plans of a fashion editor to pursue his own creative vision in New York during a freezing January in 1962. Bailey's rebellious spirit and conviction in his artistic instincts ultimately led to groundbreaking work, demonstrating that innovation can arise from taking risks and trusting one's instincts, rather than solely relying on the notion of "taste."
Written by urgent.news from Fast Company's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
