Too quickly, too easily, too automatically. Each of us is a creator. Consciously or not, today it's incredibly hard to escape this fact.

In his book The Cult of the Amateur, Andrew Keen presents a pessimistic view of the Internet’s influence on culture, focusing on the negative aspects of Web 2.0. He argues that the Internet is “destroying culture,” flooding us with content of dubious quality created by amateurs—by all of us. In the Web 3.0 era, as we noted in our conversation, this phenomenon seems to be intensifying further.

Meanwhile, as AI algorithms can now generate texts, images, and music on a massive scale, this issue takes on a new dimension. Will we soon find ourselves overwhelmed by “mechanically generated mush,” devoid of originality and value? Doesn’t the modern emphasis on speed and efficiency kill our “spirit of exploration,” of experimenting and wandering, which is an essential part of true creativity? Especially in a reality where culture has become a commodity in the marketplace, and its values are leveraged to build a “new spirit of capitalism.”

The democratization of creativity, fueled largely by increased access to creative tools and social media, is often viewed as a highly positive development. Each user is no longer just a consumer of culture but its participant and co-creator. However, it’s not only about the democratization of creation but about the homogenization of the patterns on which culture today is based. I feel we’re continually recycling the same templates, and that in this age of unprecedented access to design tools and various possibilities, we are witnessing a systematic degradation of visual language. This may be a bold statement given the powerful stimuli we experience, yet creativity—and, in fact, the very context being produced—seems to be orbiting certain trends and themes in a repetitive cycle. But that’s not the main issue here.

Generative artificial intelligence is not just another tool in the designer’s arsenal; it’s a fundamental challenge to the very essence of the creative process. The increasing accessibility of these tools also brings a major redefinition of the act of creation itself, whether we’re talking about art or functional design. Many people describe this process not as creation but as processing and synthesizing patterns. Yet, this seems like a superficial conflict, as these tools are evolving rapidly, and the status quo remains fluid regarding the “thinking” of these tools.

What, to me, feels like a trap is that with the automation of the creative process, we lose something fundamental: the space for error, for experimentation, for what László Moholy-Nagy called “designing for life.” Modern tools eliminate uncertainty from the creative process, and with it, the potential to discover new forms of expression. Ultimately, even the concept of authenticity in design is called into question. Keen foresaw this crisis, though he couldn’t predict its scale. It’s no longer just about the amateurization of culture—we are dealing with a fundamental revaluation of the concept of originality. In this new paradigm, the conscious breaking of conventions has been replaced by accidental deviations from the template.

So can we speak of post-creativity, post-artistry, post-craft? Such questions practically force themselves upon us. Is there, in this context, in this new canon, room for a new concept of creative action? Modern experiments with imperfection, the intentional use of AI-generated errors, the return to analog techniques combined with digital tools—these are attempts to find a new visual language that suits today’s realities. Contrary to Keen’s deeply pessimistic vision, perhaps we are not facing the death of design, but rather its radical transformation. A completely new challenge. Maybe in a world dominated by algorithms and predefined templates, the ability to consciously deviate from the norm, to make controlled errors, becomes a creative act in itself. I’d like to think it’s a matter of perspective that calls for a redefinition not only of the tools (which, in fact, is already happening) but above all of the creative process itself.

In no way do I mean fighting against the democratization of creativity or automation here. What I’d like to propose is the discovery of new spaces for authentic expression in a world dominated by mechanical reproduction. The future of design lies neither in blind resistance to the opening of new possibilities nor in uncritical acceptance of automation. I believe the essence is in consciously harnessing the tension between these poles, creatively using the limitations and possibilities that this new technological reality offers. It is precisely within this tension, in the space between human intention and mechanical reproduction, that a new visual language of the post-digital age might be born. Not in destruction, but in actively seeking cracks in the machine’s logic, places where human intervention can still make a difference. Similarly, in experiments with generative AI—rather than uncritically accepting generated images, designers intervene in the learning process, correct errors, and uncover unexpected possibilities.

And who knows if the most ironic aspect of modern visual culture is that in a world where anyone can be a designer, true design is becoming ever more challenging.