Originality and Design

I’ve seen a number of articles/posts flying around recently that are posed against originality, though the one that’s set me off in this case is Jason Santa Maria’s post of Paul Rand’s “Don’t try to be original, just try to be good.”

I disagree strongly, and I’ve been trying all day to really articulate why. There is an inherent value in doing something original, and indeed, I don’t think you can do really good work that doesn’t have an original component to it.

But more importantly, I think being original is something you should actively try to do—just find an appropriate space to do it. Especially on the internet, there are plenty of opportunities for us to try new ideas where the cost of failure is low or nil. If you don’t have a space to do that, create one. (Mine is my typography site, http://typographics.futuraprime.net/) Try new things. Fail often. If you’re not trying new things regularly, you’re cheating yourself out of a crucial opportunity to grow as a designer.

Don’t settle for being good. Be original as often as possible, and use the good work that comes out of that.

I think there's a difference, though, between having an outlet for your creativity where you can experiment and be original, and looking at the navigation on a clients website and doing something original at the expense of it being good.

It's also a good topic.

Jason was pointing out that it is better to try being good than to be original. I'm pointing out that being the best is even better. You can't be the best if you aren't somehow original. If we are talking about client websites - yeah the best possible solution for navigation might not be original, but the best possible solution for all website overall HAS to be original.

There is no point in being original if it does not work/it is bad.

@futuraprime

I think you missed the point of the quote or what Jason wanted to express with it.

He doesn't want people to stop being original, but rather to put the quality first. You shouldn't worsen the user experience, design or other aspects of a web site design in the name of originality, but rather try to get the best possible result - if you achieve this in an original way, even better.

There was also a great post with a very interesting follow-up discussion on Tripping Words.

The big question here is if originality actually exists at all. If you define something original as something completely new and unprecedented then originality doesn't exist, because every new concept, design or idea is based or evolved on something else that was there before.

I personally don't define originality that way, but simply as something new that wasn't around before (even if it based on an already existing idea or concept) and I also think that we definitely should strive to be original in our work, but we shouldn't disregard other important aspects of our work in order to achieve it.

What would the most original site navigation help us if nobody could use because it is simply unpractical.

Thanks for starting this discussion in any case, it's an interesting topic and I'm curious to see how others feel about this.

Being good (functional) should come first. After, you add eye candy.

Nearly every Apple application is highly functional. Remove the wood textures, Polaroid-like photos, page turning, etc ... and you still have a very useful tool. In Apple's case, being "good" is what makes them original.

I suspect that even those who claim to disagree would end up agreeing on most things, and it's just a matter of perspective. For example, using your drive for originality as your conscious motivation seems to be serving you well, so that, in a sense, it doesn't really matter what you say you are trying to do, ie. be original or be good.

My own point of view is that quality is the primary thing. If one thinks of oneself as a craftsman, it's all about quality and utility.

On the other hand, what if one thinks of oneself as an artist? Actually I *still* think that quality, or rightness, is the primary goal here. A painter knows when a work is finished when it is "right," not when they think they've done something original. In fact, it's almost a truism in art that striving to be original is a big mistake: you have to follow your vision, and whether it is original or not is secondary. Moreover, it gets decided for you, by other people - it's not for you to decide that your work is original.

In other words, the creator should not even think about originality, because it is only ever the public or their peers who will be able to see if something is original or not - not themselves.

I think this applies to conceptual art. I'm a big fan of modernist art from the early to mid 20th century, but latter-day conceptual art usually leaves me cold, and I think this has something to do with the fact that many of these conceptual artists are deliberately striving to be original rather than good.

Me, I don't expect to be original, so it's not too important to me. I increasingly know how to get things right, in design, photography and other things, and that's partly through emulating others. "Emulate," of course, is just a fancy word for "copy." But there's good and bad copying. It can be a subtle, flattering and creative use of another's ideas, to further one's own skills; or it can be a complete rip-off. It's a matter of taste, and I think that's what it all comes down to.

But in the end it's this: whatever works for you.