There is no such thing as pseudo-philosophy - everything is philosophy. There is such a thing as pseudo-intellectualism, though. Telltale signs of this in a person are: Foul language in conjunction with entry-level "collegiate" linguistics, shrewd and acute, yet often fundamentally false observations dismissing disputing subject matter in a tonally sarcastic manner, usually intended to impress another by dressing it up as "old hat" for the Pretending Intellectual, personal attacks, and referring to oneself in the third person. What you should do when you encounter a pseudo-intellectual is exit the conversation as soon as possible. Make final remarks if you must, but if they respond, do not reply. This will feed into their ego, they will feel as though they are actually debating with you, and it will ultimately contribute to the growth of their very deep psychological illness.
Wow, that's a mighty pretentious paragraph you got there. I really shouldn't talk to arrogant asshats that think they're above everyone else just because I don't feel like dedicating a wall of text just to blatantly insult you and say you have a mental illness. (Really, you think I have a legitimate mental illness just for disagreeing with you and being sarcastic? What planet are you from? Armchair psychology much?) This is how I naturally talk, and how I've always talked, it's not me trying to act pretentious like you are right now. I can't even afford college, honestly. Probably not going to be able to for a few years. Live in the ghetto of Long Beach. Pretty sure you're gonna stomp me for that, and be all "Ha! I was right!" and call me an idiot.
But I digress. There's no ego-stroking going on here on my end. I just don't like it when people act like they're deeply offended by something totally irrelevant, or hardly relevant for that matter. It feels like you were just looking for some way to relate it to the struggle of the 1%, and whine about this artist expressing that they don't take certain jobs.
I understand if they don't want to hear your input on the design. They did hire you based on your style so your input should be valid. If however they do listen to you and make changes or allow you the freedom to make changes that you see fit to work with their design, then there is no room to complain. If you do communicate the things you may see that don't work in an articulate way and they don't listen then go on rant I am with you on that.
Anyone providing a service also has the option of accepting which projects to do, but I can see how irritating it would be if everyone that contacted you for work - hadn't really thought out their idea!
But If You Are Getting Payed For It...It's Kind Of Your Job To Execute Them. That Like That One Animator Chick On Youtube Who Made A Big Show Of Telling Her Boss She Quit Over The Fact She Did Not Get To Draw What She Wanted. It's A Job. You Do What You're Payed For And If You're Not Happy Doing It You Find Something Else To Do. It's Kind Of Entitled To Think You Can Get Payed To Do Whatever You Want When What You Do Comes From People Paying You To Do What THEY Want-Freelance Art And Payed Art Sometimes ARE The Same Thing (If You Create And Sell Them Yourself) But Not Always (Like When Your Job Is Drawing What Your Paycheck Tells You To). Agree Or Disagree All You Want-But It's A Cold Truth. Good Day To You Sir/Madam.
I have to agree. No one's forcing you to get payed for designing. Good luck finding people who will decide what theme they are looking for based on your self-satisfaction designs of what "you want to design without anyone telling you what to do".
Glad You Agree. I Mean Don't Get Me Wrong I Know Art Is Not Always Easy But If You Want To Draw Art On Your Own Terms You Sell Peaces On Your Own. If Your Get Payed To Draw On Someone ELSE'S Terms Then That's What You Do And That's What You CHOSE To Do. I May Not Know Everything About This Stuff Since I Can't Draw To Save My Life But Logic Is Logic And You Do What People Pay You To Do If You Intend To Use Any Skill To Make Money.
some people seem confused. Clients don't hire designers to execute their ugly ideas. (or should not) That's not their job. They hire designers to help them figure out what is the idea and how to make it work, what they pay is first of all the visual expertise and then the product itself
Actually it really should be the former. I expect all my clients to have clear, concise ideas of what they want, and most industry professionals I've spoken/worked with (at least in the concept art field) have always preferred that they be told almost explicitly what the client wants, so there's no room for error and they (the designer) don't waste a lot of time guessing at what the client wants. Granted, it's expected of the artist to make suggestions to improve the piece, but ultimately it is the paying customer's final decision.
It's true. A designer should have his own handwriting and style and should be hired only, if the client can see his project going in a similar direction. If he just wants his idea realized he can simply go to people who do just that, e.g. Frontend Developers in Webprogramming who do nothing but program the site exactly as the designs show.
But I think it's also necessary to communicate accordingly. If the designer says he does everything and takes every job, there's no wonder the client will ask of stuff the designer deems false or inefficient. The better the designer promotes himself and the more specialized he is, the less jobs he might get, but at least the ones he will get are the ones where he can shine.
But a good designer also needs to be a good salesman and be diplomatic, so if we're realistic we know we cannot turn every offer down that won't necessarily go into our portfolio afterwards, and adjust to the type of client we get. Some are cool and easy, and others will be nitpicks and pricks, so it's the designers job to consult the client to his best knowledge and if he won't get heard he simply does what he's asked of, even if the result will suck. Just be sure to setup contracts that cover all the problems, in case the client doesn't like "his" version after all. Time's been spent and time's oughta be paid.
As someone who's worked in graphic design for a while, it seems incredibly limiting to have a "style". Design in its best form should be problem-solving in conjunction with art. As much as humans have their specialties and preferences--god knows I do--you should be able to take a direction or thought from a client and make that direction or thought beautiful (or at least agreed upon by the relevant parties). If one client owns a french restaurant and wants high-class menus made that articulate their cultural background, you'd do something COMPLETELY different from a client who wants an ad campaign promoting their economical line of cars. Of course you'll add your voice and professional perspective to it, but why not be able to see, understand, and create in the voice of a wide range of styles? How can you possibly be expected to answer the demands of a graphics industry if you have YOUR look and can't do anything for anyone who might not fit that look?
If you were an illustrator or someone more purely an artist in the classical sense, there could be an argument made for style exclusivity, but in my experience that doesn't necessarily get you far in this particular industry. Maybe if you're, say, the hyper-realistic icons guy, and you have one thing you kick everyone else's ass at, but for the vasty majority of people that just isn't feasible.
Designers are artist... Yes, they probably have their own style and ideas of beauty, BUT, as an artist ( and not only, everybody should be aware of this), one should know that ugliness is relative and totally subjective. There's no such thing as "ugly idea" just a "different idea"... And if something from that idea is really not suitable, a designer can try to explain that to the clients. BUT firstly and most important, a designer should know and understand their clients. A designer ( as any artist that does something for a client) should know what their client wants, the client's preferences, ideas and expectations. An artist has to challange their creativity in order to fit into someone's else ideas. Sure, all of this applies when it comes to money and getting paid. Designers, musicians, painters etc they are all free to express themselves through their art whenever they want. That's the beauty of art! But when it comes to working for someone, an artist needs to express what their clients cannot.
My opinion? You should do what the clients want, or you're not getting paid. I am not a professional, but I'm pretty sure the reason they hire you is to execute their ugly ideas, no matter how horrid it is. I suppose you could tweak your rejected ideas a bit, then sell the art to people who would appreciate it.