Good design is everywhere and no where all at once

I’ve reviewed about 20 this year so far. Some are good, some are bad. Some are phenomenal. Some showcase talent far beyond my own technical ability—people who create beautiful brands, logos, and packaging.

If you’re in the industry, you’ve seen them—portfolios filled with fictional brands and conceptual product packaging, all created to showcase ability. The funny part? That’s not even the hard part of being a designer.

Interpreting vision. Building trust with clients. Negotiating and selling that vision. Design isn’t just about technical ability—it’s about communicating art direction, persuading stakeholders, and making ideas tangible.

And unfortunately, that’s where many young designers fall short. They have the skills, but they lack the context.

And you only gain that context with experience.
It’s paradoxical—and brutal for those trying to build a career in this space.

The Illusion of Accessibility

The irony? Design has never been more accessible.

The software, the inspiration, the books on typography, colour theory—it’s all at our fingertips. We celebrate design, architecture, and art—this is one of the greatest eras to be a creative.

Yet, I don’t see creative thinking.
I see young people who expect an $80,000 salary to change the text on Canva templates, and you know what? If you can afford to have someone do that, thats great. I just know I'd get a few great holidays out of $80K.

Great design comes from evolution—from forces that push us to think differently, to problem-solve.
This is context.

And without it? We see a flattening of creativity. Design becomes a process rather than an output.

The Cycles of Creativity & Stagnation

Iconography and design follow the same cyclical patterns as architecture and interior design.
Both exist in a constant state of evolution—periods of refinement, standardisation, and then rupture.

Just as mid-century modernism gave way to the rebellion of postmodernism, and the polished minimalism of the 2010s is now being replaced by a resurgence of maximalism, we are somehow, at the top end of town, more creatively restrained than ever.

For those who don’t live and breathe design, we are seeing design by committee—corporate in execution, but soulless in vision. Often, even sloppy in delivery.

Templates disguised as originality. Uninspired design that feels more like an automated process than something that moves, inspires—or better yet, converts.

Design is widely accessible—but so often, poorly executed and that makes me ask the question. What's the point?

Maybe this isn’t just about aesthetics.

Maybe we’re seeing the visual symptoms of something much bigger—a reflection of where we are economically, politically, and socially.

Consider this: in times of economic growth and cultural expansion, design movements are often bold, chaotic, even indulgent.

The Art Deco movement of the 1920s? A product of exuberance before the Great Depression.
The maximalism of 1980s branding? A reflection of capitalist excess before the market crash.

In times of instability and uncertainty, design trends become conservative, standardised, and corporate-approved.

Because businesses and institutions fear risk.

Process has overtakes impact.

So, Who Will Break It?

Because the next major shift in design won’t come from AI or market-tested branding strategies (though they help).

It will come from those who reject the corporate sameness—those who take risks and value quality, embrace tension, and refuse to let their brand delivery become another cog in the efficiency machine.

Don't be afraid to tell your story.

We’ve seen this before. The next creative movement won’t be clean, polished, or universally loved.

It will be divisive, controversial—but it will be alive.