(Old) Creativity is not Design - Taking the Andy Rutledge Test

[Paul Keith]

Too often I notice designers and non-designers alike equating creativity with design. I find this assumption disturbing because it is one of the many fallacies that allow unskilled but creative pretenders to consider themselves capable design professionals when they’re nothing of the sort.

Creativity is not design. Creativity has nothing to do with design. Creativity is bound by no laws, rules, or strictures …which is perhaps why it’s so intoxicating (sometimes to the point of delusion). Design, on the other hand, is based entirely on math, psychology, human perception, and a host of rigid rules and laws that can be broken by only a highly skilled few. Those unfamiliar with these laws and rules, and the associated sciences are by no definition designers.

I don't really know design enough to judge the quality of the test however I felt the premise is interesting considering how many people here tend to discuss about Apple and Linux and design in general. Note that, I disagree with many things in the video but I'm not going to prolong my perspective here.

Part 1 video of someone attempting the test

from: Andy Rutledge.com (link to the test)

[tomos]

thanks Paul !
this is very interesting - especially for someone who isn't trained in design but is dabbling
I about half way through it -
doing okay so far but will have to get a little clarification on some points from a friend who is a designer (I sent him the link: "well all that made perfect sense to me. So I must be some sort of designer" lol)

Too often I notice designers and non-designers alike equating creativity with design. I find this assumption disturbing because it is one of the many fallacies that allow unskilled but creative pretenders to consider themselves capable design professionals when they’re nothing of the sort.

let's see, I've done the same with photography, writing, and now with design...

[steeladept]

Without seeing the video (why does EVERYTHING seemingly have to be on YouTube anyway), I would say the premise is true.  More importantly, the inverse is true.  You can be a decent designer without any creativity whatsoever.  Usually these people are called copycats, but that doesn't change their ability to design.  Unfortunately, designers that are not creative as well are relegated to other fields as their lack of creativity is seen as a weakness and inability to design; and I don't see this as a negative because most people want original designs which necessitates creativity.  Moreover, in this sue-happy world we currently live in, lack of creativity may well mean financial disaster for any design studios that would employ these designers.  Therefore, though the premise may be true, does it really matter?  Design is often a natural talent for creative people, and can be taught for those it isn't, but how do you teach creativity?

[40hz]

Interesting article. Some of Andy's comments smack a little bit of a member of the trade trying to 'circle the wagons.' But for the most part I think his points are well taken.

I think the biggest problem with design is that most people appreciate it when they see it - but usually won't be willing to pay much more to get it. Good design is viewed as the cherry on top a sundae that some places charge you a buck extra for. (FWIW my GF occasionally goes for it. But I always pass.)

My sister is a graphic artist. The fact people don't care about design as much as she does drives her crazy.  

 

[Stoic Joker]

Design is often a natural talent for creative people, and can be taught for those it isn't, but how do you teach creativity?

Good point, but I think Andy is rather narrowly (razor edge) defining the whole designing vs. creating to the realm of advertisements. Specifically ones that are packed full of every (dirty) pop psychology trick known to mankind (but right or wrong, that is advertising).

I get the impression its his version of the 3 F's rule (Form Follows Function) e.g. if it doesn't work, being pretty is irrelevant.