Preserved Topic: Creativity & Imitation in Web Design

Im a new designer, just learning how to use photoshop, javascripts, asp, etc...I have seen many of the asylum inmates complain of plagiarism (or just a general lack of creativity) in many webpages. However, I find that many, if not most, of the websites I have seen mimick each other, or use techniques I have seen in one of a thousand photoshop tutorials. In a perfect world I'm sure we would all have our own individual styles of design...and I personally would like to eventually develope one of my own...however...honestly...my skills aint there yet! But what I try to do is create something is original but may contain elements that have been used before. (Hey...haven't we all used a rounded corner square...or t.v. scanlines!)

In short...Where do we define the line between original and imitation...live or memorex...Freud or Faux...?

Now THAT is a philosophical question!.
I think the answer lies in that fine veil between product and process.
In other words, in you use the process and/or technique to create YOUR OWN WORK, then fine - it's original. If you rip off Doc Ozone's Spheroid for your own site (I think someone actually tried it once), you'll have the 9HOTA on your ass.

There was actually a Supreme Court case (OK, I THINK it went to the court) where an Alaskan indian tribe tried to sue a major museum for millions, saying that some Totem pole replicas were made with their tribes TECHNIQUES - therefore an infringement on intellectual property... The defendant prevailed (this time).

In other words, I don't know, but I think that's the distinction.

quote:

---

I have seen many of the asylum inmates complain of plagiarism (or just a general lack of creativity) in many webpages. However, I find that many, if not most, of the websites I have seen mimick each other, or use techniques I have seen in one of a thousand photoshop tutorials.

---

Why did you say however, what you said after this actualy supports the inital sentence? I'll assume you just phrased it in an odd way...

Are you talking about Design or Art? Now, if i was to turn this into a discussion about weather design and art share anything at all then this thred would likely never end, so I won't do that. But I will simply say that to be unique with art you have to make it personal.

Once you progress to the point of being able work freely without the constraints of only being able to do what a tutorial tells you, you will eniveatbly become unique (at least you should!). Once you learn to produce work that is of a personal nature it can be almost nothing but unique, that is if you do it correctly.

Although this is more about art then design. And if art is merely a copy of something that contains nothing personal than, it is not art!! but it may be a nice copy . Design is strange in this sence, many so called designers copy what other people do their entire life, does this make them designers? Hell I don't know, but many designers have to design for specific pourposes therefore are not able to express any sort of personality in their work. Does this then mean that their work it not unique? No, as the design should express the traits of that company and this should be unique.

Although you seem to still be confined but the limitations of your computer. A ture designer or atrist should be able to see through these limitations and understand that by spending their time doing tutorials on how to produce x effect by using x filter they will never be all that they can be. Think of the tutorials as lessons on how you hold a pencil or how you use a paintbrush, once you have learnt these then you can go away and create something real, don't just copy the tutorial again.

But there are many truely unique web sites out there, you just have to find them. But sadly there are not many which is why many of the people here will complain. However, if you produce something that is truely personal then most of the people here will see this in your work and will like it more.

Edit: Just fixing the quote.. hehe.. oops



[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 05-22-2001).]

amen Drac... originality never existed.... in essense...

we are all a rehash/repeat/reflection/refraction/regurgatation .....and you choose not to be? its been done before.

The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already, in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after.

--Qoheleth

It's about developing your voice.

In an interview with Stan Getz (a great tenor sax player, with a distinctive, recognizable sound), some jive-ass asked him about what kind of reeds he used, and what kind of horn, etc to get that characteristic sound. He said "It doesn't matter. I sound the same no matter what I play on." He had a voice.

You learn, you develop, you assimilate, and during the process, you either grow a voice, or not. I personally don't think you can get there until you have mastered the techniques so well that you can forget them.

Ah ha...Dracusis...thank you...oh...the however was a simple lack of proofreeeading...hehehe..
I must agree with you...I just find myself becoming frustrated at times...stiving to be creative and at the same time limited by my current expertise...or lack thereof!

I especially appreciate your comments about tutorials...blueprints...they could be called i guess. I definetly would like to be able to use my art to express the only truly original thing I have....my soul.

Thus...I must practice...it is around 11:08 PST (Phortay Standard Time)

thanx and farewell to you all

I saw on TV recently an interview with a Swedish guitar player - Yngwie Malmsteen. He claimed that he never listened to any music at all, where upon the interviewer asked why.
His reply was that that is the only way he can keep his music the right way - coming from the heart. If you listen to what everyone else does, and then try to do the same, you have sold out.

Though I am not a fan of Yngwie Malmsteen, he does have a point.
Maybe you are better off as a web designer not surfing the web. Maybe you are better off disconnecting yourself completely, and then spend the next couple of years developing your own style with no influence from what other people do?
But then I guess you might come back to a web where everything you do is very outdated...

ZOX - i see your point, but such actions depend on your mission, really.
if your designs are purely art, then yes, leaving the web could be a good idea. But, then i ask you - if you design a site then, sure, it wont be a copy of another site, but could it be a copy of an external object that has influenced you instead of the web?
but if your designs are for human use, are a form of technology, then you should go around, look at as many sites as possible, find out what works, what elements you like, and copy from all of them.
is this original? maybe not.
depends how you do it.

anyway, onto site design...
personally, my attitude is to try not to let my skills inhibit me as much as possible. (and believe me, with my skills [or lack thereof], its quite a challenge!)
how do i do this?

i sketch my site design on paper, or rough it out on photoshop (took me a while to learn how 2 do this!), and make a picture of how it should look, roughly.
then, for the imaging, i dont give up until it looks that way. lucky for me, i like simple designs, so i would say that i can put most of my pages onto photoshop without major trouble.
then, i MAKE IT WORK, with as little compromise as possible. i use this place a lot for that, especially the DHTML.
let your content dictate the site design, and if everything comes together nicely, then i dont give a shit about originality - i like it!

___________________
b u n c h a p i x e l s

ZOX: I'm not about to say your wrong here but I think Yngwie Malmsteen's Claims were rather untrue, or shall I say misput.

I don't know anyone that has ever picked up in instrument of any kind that has never listened to music. How did he learn to play? How did he become interested in music? Surely music wasn't a concept he thought of himself. What I think he should have said is that once he got into creating his own music he stopped listining to other peoples music.

The music he listened to beforehand infulenced him to the point of shelling out for a gituar, and well that's quite an infulence.

Although, there are always be someone who is the first do do anything, nowdays however, this is rare indeed.

Yeah, Malmsteen used to say he was the next Johann Sebastian Bach, too.

well, it was probably me misquoting him. The meaning was probably that he does not listen to music nowadays. I have not really heard much of his music to know if he is a new Bach, but I highly doubt it. In fact, on that show I was watching they said he had been voted as the most overrated guitar player of the 19th century.

And I agree that it is impossible to really create something which is not inspired by something, may it be a tree or a website you have seen.

I agree with Dracusis that it is when you know the techniques without even thinking that you can be truly creative. And though I don't really think you are better off staying away from the web, I think that in some sense you might actually be better of from staying away from the endless Photoshop tutorials you can find. That by doing those you steer your mind and the way you think in a predetermined pattern. And there is a risk that you will be yet another one making webpages with the standard bevelled pills and rusted metal surface.

Myself I feel that I am more free from the "technical" aspects now than I used to be - that when I think of a design using pen and paper I need not think about wether of not I am able to actually do it on the computer. Though of course there are still many limitations in what I can do and what I can't...

Zox, you raise a good point...It reminds me of an article I read some time ago...It was an interview of a graphic designer. In the article the artist claims print, T.V., music, and her outside enviorment as sources for inspiration. However, she did not claim the web. (Interesting...at least I thought) I also remember a site (preliminary) review submitted by the author of 'HyperPark'. Many in the asylum found his work to be reminiscent of other designs on the net. The author of the site in question defended his work (as most of us would have) claiming to have cleared his mind and created he design. Finaly, I am brought to examples in other areas of society. In martial arts, athletes often drew from other areas of thier enviorment to enhance and advance thier skill. To be specific, the many styles that imitate animals in karate.

I gave some additional thought to the ideas of Dracusis...and to piggy back on his statements...I also think the desicion needs to be made by the individual. Some designers...many who place more emphasis on function...are not concerned with originality of design. For example, If designing a on-line store or website based on particular data base functions....the site orginality takes a back seat to function. (Correct me if I'm wrong...plz) The argument could certainly be made to the value of equity between the two, but not orginality over the function. On the other side of the coin, I like to think that I will eventually develope my own style. This is mainly because I have the desire and passion to do so. (Even if it takes many years!) This is my choice.

Which brings me to another twist on this topic: Cookie Cutter Websites!
Is it fair to fault someone for using a Frontpage or Dreamweaver Template? If so, when would it not be. If someone asks you to make a personal website to put up pictures of their vacation in Nebraska, should I feel an obligation to produce a masterpiece simply because it is my work? Or does the purpose and situation change things?

Holla Back!

Yes, it is very true that making a page unique and innovative is not always the best way to go. In fact, for many pages it is the wrong way to do it.
It is my experience that most customers do not want something special in that way. They want something with function, and it is surprising how often the customer mentions some horrible page with animated gifs and applet menus and tell me that that's what they want.

But while I don't create something unique and fantastic each time I make a new page, I do have some sort of pride to make something which is good and solid. And I think many web designers feel the same way. Sort of like handicraft people back in time - a blacksmith would never dream of making something just so-so only because it was to be used for some less important task. And in the same way I would not use Frontpage to make a web page.

But I think in many ways this is a rather egoistic feeling really. It is for my own good I do things the "hard" way. Because honestly most web visitors would not have a clue if a page is made in frontpage or not, and they do not care in the least. As long as it works, that's what important. It is only us web designer that even care to look at the source of a page.

I am sure that I could very easily make a page that would make a lot of people go "wow" by just using all the standard effects in photoshop - a few bevels, some drop shadows, maybe an animated gif etc. But anyone who is into web design would just dismiss a page like that staight off. It would just be a bunch of web design clichés.

Hmm... when I started writing this I thought I had a point, but it must have disappeard along the way... I better go to bed instead.

I'll sahre a quote from the front page of my HandsOn site, the text is unchanged from the first day i posted it, only the form has changed...

quote:

---

I've had a few folks ask me why I do this, aren't I afraid I'll lose all of my "trade secrets"? The techniques I use when creating my graphics are just that, techniques, something anyone can learn giving enough time and practice. I can share every one of them, and will have lost absolutely nothing. Hopefully the 'net will end up being a more attractive place to be.

---

Those would be my thoughts on the matter. Using techniques from others will always exist, and nothing bad can come of it. Developing your *own* techniques is better, but they make art students copy the works of the Grand Matsers for a *reason*.

Now, repetition and other derivative (sp?) works are still original, but... well, repetitious and derivative. Hence, boring if nothing new is added to the mix. Creativity is hard to pin down, but when you see it you can usually tell. (Even stolen works can be obviously creative, just the credits are wrong! )

Your pal, -doc-

I first read that quote that Doc just posted in 1997. It struck a chord *deep* within me and it has been one of the guiding principles of my online life since then. The net *is* a better place because of people like the Doc who are willing to share techniques.

Funny you should say that Bugimus...

I just came from the guru's tutorials. Although I had been there before...long before, I say them in a new light. Looking more to understand the tools and use the techniques as spring boards. By the way...when I first visited that site I couldn't even follow along with them. At least I learned something in the last few months.

Like Zox, although I do envision employing my skills on projects allowed more artistic freedom and integrity, I am most frequently fixed withing a smaller subset of possibilities by a commercial client. However, I have still developed a real pride in what I do because it takes so much practice and understanding of the medium. I do not doubt that after ten years of doing this, one becomes a master - just like if you spent ten years woodcarving or something. I wonder if 20 years of woodcarving or web design equates to twice the mastery... but that's another subject.

Besides employing creativity within a more confined space, I sometimes feel compelled to design following certain trends of design of the type of site I am doing. The client can more easily identify with a site I produce if it is a good example of the top tier of sites in their business. Generally this involves overusing certain tecniques - in photoshop and html, primarily. However, I still feel it is possible to be creative and efficient executor of an established style and purpose.


(edit= where did I learn English grammar? Good grief.)



[This message has been edited by Metahedron (edited 05-25-2001).]

I am intrigued by this thread. I've had this question burning in my loins for ages but can not figure out if I'm the only one who habours a certain opinion re: what qualifies someone as an artist. The burning question:

Does coloring clipart with painting programs (not using hand shadings mind you) and filtering programs to create very nice looking pictures qualifies a person as "an artist"? How does this differ from "being a (digital) painter"

I for some reason tend to think of "artists" as those who create something original.

Wack me upside the head if I'm way wrong.
Jane


\Research . Content . Design \
Who says scientists have no personalities?

Hmmmm. A lot of interesting ideas on the themes originality, banality, design, art and almost the meaning of life. Web-design. I think the name kind of describes it best. Not web artist. Designer. We work with the tools of our trade to create something. Exactly like an engineer must use the laws of physics. Our tools, however, have less to do with physics (even though it is there), and more to do with limits. How many ways can I make a selection? How many colors do I have to choose from? What technique should I use to simulate metal? Combining experience with what works and doesn't work defines an original style (IMHO). Since experience is uniquely an individual trait, it's always different from person to person. The question is, do I dare be original? Most customers (at least mine) don't want something 'too' original, more they want something familiar. And so I find myself inside of these limits, struggling to create something strictly mine but retaining enough from 'standard' web techniques so that the customer is not alienated. And so, therefore, a lot of websites 'look' the same, feel the same. Conformity of the masses for the masses. And that's what I get paid for. Were it different, if I didn't need the money, and therefore could design for free, I would therefore have more choice. My limits would be different. Maybe in 10 years that will all change. Who knows? It is sometimes frustrating. How about you, Doc? Have you ever had a customer that 'just' wanted a generic site? How do you deal with such situations? Anybody else?

The only thing I imitate is my own layout - over and over and over again