This question has been in my head for quite a while now.
I started to question myself when I stopped obsessing over detailed design and changed my focus to minimalist work.
At about this time last year I wanted to be as good as anyone with as many styles as possible. It started with creating some dynamic layouts and then skinning them with different themes, grunge, hand drawn, minimalist and so on.
The intention at the time was just to get a taste of each so that when the time came that someone wanted that style, I could produce it.
It was my belief that you had to be good at any design style to be considered a good web designer. I used to think it was a bad thing if my portfolio had a ‘samey' feel to it.
Recently however, my mind has started to change. It hit me when I looked at the top designers in our field and realized that they very much stick to what they are brilliant at. They perfected it and then put themselves in a position where they can charge a premium to create your site.
It's just like some of the best artists are easily distinguishable from each other. You will know right away when you stare at Picasso's work or Pollock's work.
I know of web designers who dance along a similar line, Veerle Pieters rocks the illustration house, Collis Ta'eed has white space in control, Liam McKay and Max Voltar can add detail to a one pixel circle, Jason Santa Maria has a great balance of type and minimalist design and Mike Kus owns hand drawn web design at the moment.
The amazing thing is that despite sticking to their style they still manage to be innovative and move the industry forward at the same time.
The benefit of becoming the master of one is that people will start coming to you for that style and the net result is charging a premium for your work. It's just like an artist charging for a painting, at the end of the day Pollock was just splashing paint and leaving his cigarette buts on the canvas, but, because he was the perceived master at it, the value for one of his paintings is rather high.
I've got a question for you, have you discovered the style that you want to pursue and become great at? Or are you like me, still trying to be good at too many things?
For me personally, I will continue doing detailed designs in the From the Couch mould but I'm enjoying minimalist designs so much that I will also continue down that road. I want to cut out the extra flab on the sides and just focus entirely on those to styles.
On a side note, I have a quick rant. Why do we all think that we are such great UI designers? In some cases the person isn't even a designer but ‘they are great at UI'. What is up with that? It's like some social media experts, they haven't made a cent from social media but have all the advice in the world for you on how to market online.
11 Comments
Good question!
Ive been involved in print & design for nearly 20 years and have yet to find one style for myself.
I came close when charged with the rebrand of my company in 2006 and created a uniform style across all the brochures, web, etc, but having worked in-house for all this time Ive never really had the luxury of trying to find a style for myself.
I like the fact that you compare people such as Veerle as artists as I believe that is what separates them from people like myself!
Well, I think most people that call them self great UI/web designers are people who very rarely have had training(be it graphic design, traditional art etc.), and have a hard time properly defining what they are. I think this has to do with the great and many resources available on the web which enables to people to learn a lot fast, but also confuses them in how to define their skill set.
If I do remember this correctly your analogy of a constructor and designer comes in to play here. People whom are self taught but mostly do great UI lay out and no real Visual design feel they need to be called designer, for either selling them self or just felling "better". I prefer to think the term designer (be it visual-, web designer etc.) is something more for people with a) great natural talent and ability to make something look good or b) someone with proper training in graphic design or traditional art.
As for the jack-of-all-trades designer aspect, I think being master of one or two styles is something most people will tend to naturally or over time. The latter I think find it hard to decide because they feel they could lose business over it. But I think being the master of minimalistic does give you the best base to add other styles onto.
Im still stuck and trying to be good at too many things, David. What I realize though, is that makes me not good at any of them. :)
About Pollock though, I recently read or saw something (of course, I cant remember where) that said his paintings really werent just splatters. That there was actually some order to the splatters, some order that made them scientific as well as artistic masterpieces. His works didnt just have a perceived value.
Nice to see a more personal blog post, David.
@Meredith - My wording for Pollocks art was not entirely correct, you dont become so successful by just throwing some paint onto a canvas. My apologies for that ;)
RE the personal blog post, ye its high time that we put some quality on this site and not only theme related stuff. Hopefully my mind keeps wondering so that I can do more posts like this one.
@Mark - In my eyes the web designers that I mentioned here are much more than just web designers. They take it to the next level.
@wdohmen - Thanks for the comments man, I agree that people slip into the Im a UI guy mode when they havent had proper training or experience. I wonder if some peeps even know what they mean when they mention "UI".
Great read, Ive been struggling with this lately as well. My predicament is between being more web focused and getting more onto the development side of things, or if I really want to embrace design and go full on graphic designer (who probably will specialize in web, haha).
I have developed a bit of a style though that Im really enjoying, which is high contrast, but minimalist typographic designs.
"The benefit of becoming the master of one is that people will start coming to you for that style and the net result is charging a premium for your work."
The downside of becoming a master of one is that someday that specific style, trend will fade, and youll be a master nobody will be looking for.
This reminds me of the discussion happening over here: http://www.nikibrown.com/designoblog/2009/10/14/jack-of-all-trades
I think its important to keep some sense of well-roundedness, though. Just so you can roll with the punches, in case things threaten to go the way Bogdan Pop described.
"It was my belief that you had to be good at any design style to be considered a good web designer. I used to think it was a bad thing if my portfolio had a samey feel to it."
- A good designer do not have to be good at everything to be considered "good". I think it really depends on the quality work that you can provide to your clients. It would be best to find a niche, master it, and excel in it. This way youll be able to create a distinction for yourself.
I think that there will always be a demand for someones skills if they are incredibly good at it. If you to a style and become the go to guy for it, it means that you dont follow trends, you follow what you know. As long as you evolve with your skill set there will always be a demand for you from someone / somewhere.
@Girlie - I agree RE the quality but I have known clients to visit our site looking for creativity, and that can include looking for variety as well.
After five years of being a jack of all trades, Im finally a logo designer.
I feel that discovering and defining ones "style" as a designer is an interesting journey.
In addition, I feel that one doesnt have to necessarily be a master of one style or good at many. In my opinion, the mark of a really solid designer is the ability to adapt to the task set out for them, while retaining a sense of individuality within the design. For example, a designer gets presented with a brief to design a grungy website. The designer may not be too keen on the grunge-esque style, but is able to come up with a solid concept that is then well executed, but when someone else looks at it, they can see elements of the designers individuality within the layout.
Over the last couple of years, Ive observed the designers I work with as theyve developed their skills and defined their own styles. It is now at a stage where, whatever the design style required, I am, for the most part, able to distinguish between the two and justify my conclusions, due to their individual styles shining through the briefed design.
In short, to summarize, I believe that an individual style will show itself over time in subtle nuances and attention to various details. While it is OK to be a master of a particular style, I believe that being able to adapt oneself, within reason, to a variety of styles while retaining elements of individuality, is the way to go. :)
Cheers, Matty.