oh, c'mon. you can take anything out of context and focus on just that phrase and it looks insane. but, i know you well enough to know that you understand what i'm saying. you guys are class A#1 designers. no doubts at all. you are really good. but you haven't begun to take that next step into really great stuff. you're still mulling around the borrowed style arena and that is ultimately a dead end. just stop looking at other people's work for inspiration and start pulling out of yourselves instead. not that tough, really. it just means trusting your instincts.
like i said before, "i like all of your stuff, but i just wish it didn't look so much like other people's work" (or something to that effect). i'm positive you what i mean.
so, you can allow yourselves to get all hurt and petty and snippy in response, or you can think about my points and decide if they are of value to yourselves. time will tell the difference.
i've always considered art and creativity an "automatic" process. it's really not a concious process at all. creative thinking happens in the back of your brain and then the trick to being an 'artist' is to figure out how to allow that thought to come out through your concious mind (and your hands).
i sorta compare creativity to driving a car. when you drive, the very last thing ion your mind is actually driving the car. more likely you're thinking about what's for dinner, or listening to music or telling off the boss. but, you're still driving beautifully. some people call it being in "the zone". but that zone is a part of your brain you can trust totally.
as i think on it, i think the closest i've seen to "automatic" design is the work of seripop. it's maybe the most interesting thing about their work. it's as if they sit down and just start up their hands and directly tap into their minds and out comes this amazing stuff. dunno if it's "good design" or not, but who cares? some stuff is just so primal and powerful that all definitions just go out the window.
this aa piece almost looks like a designer trying to do 'a seripop,' but not understanding what is going on with them or what they are doing. it looks like an exercise in another style. an aping, of sorts. as a seripop, it fails completely.
i think seripop's intense background in the artworld prepared them for their unique work in ways the rest of us can only dimly understand or appreciate.
automatic imagery is perfectly legit stuff. there is even less ability to separate one's self from one's subconcious. giger's stuff is wonderful scary beautifully executed stuff. it has depth and individuality and taps into the collected fears and unconcious of everyone. he hits it dead on.
i don't know if i can explain this to you. you are an afficianado of imagery and therefore you have your own fixed view of this stuff. however, i can appreciate really great design work, even if it's derivative and conceptually lazy. in fact, i love extremely well executed bad design, as well. i have been doing this stuff for over 30 looooong years and i've developed a fine-tuned eye for design thought. this isn't some brag or ego thing. it's simply a reality that happens to a person after doing any single thing for that many years.
so, i can see a design piece and (for the most part) understand - actually read - the ideas and the thought and the inspiration and the instincts that went into it. it comes with the territory.
aa does absolutely exquisite but intellectually empty work. there are an enormous number of designers like that out there - just look at design magazines and annuals.
so, i see no contradiction in my views here. whereas you might not get what i'm talking about.
does that make any sense? it's a difference between "pictures" and "design," i guess.