zamb, I think you're being a bit cheeky here.
Let me ask you something, do you make bags? Why? Following your logic you should stick to clothing.
But then you start talking about complimentary products. Now, is it bags only? Or shoes as well? Perhaps a wallet? Who says it can't be a table?
Thing is, I imagine you make bags that compliment your clothing because you know how to do them well. And because you know that keeping everything coherent is important.
So if a designer knows how to design a website well (understands the UI quirks, the attention span, the layouts, the tech behind it, etc), why say "trust it to someone else"? Sure, you can trust the technical implementation, but why not have a design input to make sure it suits your brand? Why don't you just outsource your bags? Say "I want a black leather one" and trust the factory and their designers? I can't see how this is different.
Designers come from all kinds of backgrounds. If a designer was actaully studying to be an architect, who says he can't build his own unique store implementing his vision perfectly?
It's good to limit yourself so that you won't overstretch, but if you're confident that you can guide/do something that compliments your vision and is relevant to your business but isn't necessarily clothes - why should you constrict yourself?
And zamb, making a client happy? Puh-lease, then we'd all be making H&M vests. Look how many millions of people they make happy. But you'll say "hold on, I want a particular client to be happy, he's very different from the H&M one" - well then, it kind of negates your statement then. You make what makes YOU happy, but it makes YOU happy more or less because it makes the client that YOU go after happy. Not the other way around - the client TELLS you what makes him happy, you make exactly that, and then you are happy.
That way of thinking is that of a tailor, not a designer. A tailor makes something that his client wants, how he wants it, with designs resembling something that a client envisions/owns.
A designer has it's own vision, even if it's derivative/inspired, or if it's mostly unique; and then follow the clients, the loyal customers, and then you stay true to YOURSELF and that way your loyals are happy and you are happy. If people would come up to RO and say "man, I really loved your AW09, AW11 is nothing like it, why don't you go and make it the same as it was 2 years ago, and how I want it?", and if he would accept that, than the brand would stagnate and become really old really quick. RO is a designer, not a tailor, he needs to explore some new material to keep himself motivated. He is not doing the same jacket as in 2003 for clients to be happy. Well, some of the things are re-imagined every season, but that's a bit different.
I hope you find my arguments coherent enough zamb, I know it's a bit of a mess. Early morning haha
Let me ask you something, do you make bags? Why? Following your logic you should stick to clothing.
But then you start talking about complimentary products. Now, is it bags only? Or shoes as well? Perhaps a wallet? Who says it can't be a table?
Thing is, I imagine you make bags that compliment your clothing because you know how to do them well. And because you know that keeping everything coherent is important.
So if a designer knows how to design a website well (understands the UI quirks, the attention span, the layouts, the tech behind it, etc), why say "trust it to someone else"? Sure, you can trust the technical implementation, but why not have a design input to make sure it suits your brand? Why don't you just outsource your bags? Say "I want a black leather one" and trust the factory and their designers? I can't see how this is different.
Designers come from all kinds of backgrounds. If a designer was actaully studying to be an architect, who says he can't build his own unique store implementing his vision perfectly?
It's good to limit yourself so that you won't overstretch, but if you're confident that you can guide/do something that compliments your vision and is relevant to your business but isn't necessarily clothes - why should you constrict yourself?
And zamb, making a client happy? Puh-lease, then we'd all be making H&M vests. Look how many millions of people they make happy. But you'll say "hold on, I want a particular client to be happy, he's very different from the H&M one" - well then, it kind of negates your statement then. You make what makes YOU happy, but it makes YOU happy more or less because it makes the client that YOU go after happy. Not the other way around - the client TELLS you what makes him happy, you make exactly that, and then you are happy.
That way of thinking is that of a tailor, not a designer. A tailor makes something that his client wants, how he wants it, with designs resembling something that a client envisions/owns.
A designer has it's own vision, even if it's derivative/inspired, or if it's mostly unique; and then follow the clients, the loyal customers, and then you stay true to YOURSELF and that way your loyals are happy and you are happy. If people would come up to RO and say "man, I really loved your AW09, AW11 is nothing like it, why don't you go and make it the same as it was 2 years ago, and how I want it?", and if he would accept that, than the brand would stagnate and become really old really quick. RO is a designer, not a tailor, he needs to explore some new material to keep himself motivated. He is not doing the same jacket as in 2003 for clients to be happy. Well, some of the things are re-imagined every season, but that's a bit different.
I hope you find my arguments coherent enough zamb, I know it's a bit of a mess. Early morning haha
Originally posted by zamb
View Post
Comment