@esdotge

Design software—like Illustrator or Photoshop—led to the belief that anyone who masters these tools automatically becomes a designer. It’s similar to thinking that knowing how to use Word instantly makes someone a writer. For some reason, we find the latter absurd, but the former not as much. The output from design software, when used by someone without an understanding of design, is loud and obvious: it’s a series of decisions made (or dictated) by the machine. Type choices, composition, strokes, color—they’re selected just because they’re available, not because they’re meaningful. The supposed designer becomes an operator, passively following automated paths. These results saturate the world. It’s a journey towards perfection—or its opposite. After the flattening effect of tools like Canva, which erased all traces of personal intention or taste, AI now marks a widespread acceptance that lack of creative intent is not only normal but either irrelevant or even preferable. Technical effect, obedient imitation, and expressive incoherence often replace genuine vision. Tools are neutral in terms of potential, but never harmless—they shape and channel outcomes. Every craft locks the work into certain constraints: oil painting demands layering and nuance, photography is always an instant capture, Illustrator tempts infinite modification… AI, when it comes to design and brand production, is statistical repetition—its bias is baked into every decision it makes. Surrendering intent comes by default. Branding, then, cannot be left to technology alone. Brand3 is about restoring strategy, intention, and creativity to the process—valuing multidisciplinary teams and community-driven participation. True brand identity is not produced by mere technical effect, but crafted through purposeful design decisions that build meaning, coherence, and resonance. https://paragraph.xyz/@brand3

2 replies

3 recasts

5 reactions