Addressing Studio Creative Practice | VA505

Although the  trendsetting  authorities may change over time,  the existence of popular, confirmed styles is a repetitious issue in graphic design. I t is inescapable that  imitating a mainstream approach without questioning causes disidentification rather than creating a sense of belonging. Correspondingly, t he idea is forced to be behind the visuality and design begins to lose its meaning.   Christoph Niemann As  Paul Boag mentions that it is inevitable as our industry matures and good design is about working within constraints. (2016) These trends are likely to occur due to demand and comprehending users' expectations is essential to interpret this monopolized structure in contemporary design. From books to websites, all products have a perceived story in users' minds and p eople tend to prefer things they  instinctively know which calls the  "mere  exposure effect". In terms of design, t hat means the more users are exposed to the same kind of visual elements, th

Design, as a visual practice, distinguishes itself from visual arts in terms of problem-solving. This core value requires the design to be peculiar to the project and thereby content-oriented. Due to several universal consents to visualization, contemporary design has increasingly become a monopolized structure. It vanishes the main aim of design, questioning. To seek an effective solution without an appropriate problem definition is vain. Yet, emulating an existing solution is not a proper problem itself. The trendy replicas in a mainstream style cause misidentification rather than belongingness. Instead of aiming to create customized solutions, designers tend to follow proven paths. The authorities may change in time but the tendency to the confirmed ways is a repetitive issue in design. The corporately confirmed outputs and excessive simplification are only reflections of this issue in contemporary design. Although the fundamental motivation of design is to create within the concept

It is impossible not to realize day by day contemporary design outputs look more alike. This considerable amount of sameness urges me to think on the sufficiency of questioning behind these same, trendy design outputs. Creating a more refined visual language is one concern but it is important to remember that simplifying things to be more memorable, not to be narrow it down.  Christoph Niemann The usage of approved methods serves the need to be in pursuit of creating something convenient . It is where the term prototypicality emerged, which means categorization with reference to interaction. From books to websites, every product has a background in users’ minds related to their experiences and the users tend to repeat these interactions in every repetition of the process. More precisely, if any of the products we interact with is less than the mental image in the memories, users might reject it on conscious and subconscious levels. The seeking of ease is based on cognitive fluency wh

It's nothing new that day by day contemporary design outputs look more alike . There is a considerable amount of sameness , but the problematic part is so little questioning of why. The designer is offered countless possibilities thanks to the developing technology and is expected to produce experimental works. On the contrary, we are in a period full of designs that will soon be impossible to distinguish one from the other. Besides the visual exhaustion, this absence of an experimental design process causes less expressive creation but more blindly copying. It seems like the limits of technology expand, the limits of our imagination shrink. One of the main reasons behind this monopoly is the aesthetic monoculture launched by the trendsetters like Apple, Facebook, and Google. In one of her interviews, Amy Standen states “There are consequences, both social and aesthetic, of a web that’s increasingly dominated by big corporations trying to sell us stuff. Aesthetically, it means le

The concern of mine, being a hypocrite as a designer, mainly arises from being a pawn in today's monopolized structure. Further thinking on modern-day design approaches and outputs made me realize that there is only a small quantity of approved ways to design. Moreover, their acceptance is based on a universal mainstream , rather than benefits. Design is an optimization process, not finding a uniquely beneficial way. But, sadly, this standardization manipulates designers to create trendy replicas . The idea behind these imitations might be all reasonable, the hypocrisy is applying them without even questioning . It is where an individual quits taking action and start following blindingly. Maybe that's why I started to blame hypocrisy and not myself as a hypocrite. Nowadays we forgot that we are responsible for our actions. We just act unconsciously. At the end of the day, there are many designers, but just a few design outputs in terms of creativity. I wonder if our only ta

       TO DO LIST Hate hypocrisy Be a part of a hypocrite group Judge them secretly Feel alienated Make a snap decision and think that they are/it is the ideal Try to fit in Be a hypocrite Regret and be mad at yourself Don't be hard on yourself Fool yourself when you are ready and say out loud "I am not the problem, bla bla bla is the cause of that" Blame the hypocrisy, hate, and repeat It is a difficult question to answer who I am or what I do. Not because there isn't any logical explanation of it, it is difficult because there are many. Being a versatile and sophisticated person might cause the same problem for some people but in my case, that is not the topic. I mostly refer to " pretending " kinds of personalities of me, as we all have. In a world full of perfect artificial individuals, I have been trying to tell which is which all my life. It was my favorite game to lie consciously on unnecessary occasions when I was a child. To see if they realize or