Andrew Keen, in his book The Cult of the Amateur, presents a pessimistic vision of the Internet's impact on culture, focusing on the negative aspects of Web 2.0. In his view, the Internet is "destroying culture" by inundating us with low-quality content created by amateurs—essentially, by all of us. In the era of Web 3.0, this phenomenon, as we noted in our conversation, appears to intensify even further.

Meanwhile, as AI algorithms are capable of generating texts, images, and music on a massive scale, this problem takes on a new dimension. Are we not at risk of being overwhelmed by "mechanically generated mush," devoid of originality and value? Does the modern emphasis on speed and efficiency stifle the "spirit of inquiry"—the need to experiment and wander—which is an inseparable part of true creativity? Especially in a reality where culture becomes a commodity in the marketplace, with its values exploited to build the "new spirit of capitalism."

The democratization of creativity itself, largely driven by increased access to creative tools and the growth of social media, is often perceived as a positive phenomenon. It allows every user to become not just a consumer of culture, but also its participant and co-creator. However, I am not referring to democratization alone, but to the standardization that accompanies it. I mean the homogenization of patterns on which today’s culture is based. While I might sound repetitive, we observe a peculiar phenomenon: in an era of unprecedented access to design tools and other possibilities, the systematic degradation of visual language is underway. Perhaps it is a bold thesis in the context of the strong stimuli we experience today, but nonetheless, creativity—or rather the produced context—seems to revolve cyclically around specific trends and themes. Yet, this is not the point.

Generative artificial intelligence is not just another tool in the designer’s arsenal—it fundamentally questions the very essence of the creative process. The increasing accessibility of these tools also redefines the act of creation, whether we speak of art or functional design. Many researchers describing AI’s functioning speak not of creation but of processing and synthesizing patterns. However, this seems like a secondary conflict, as these tools undergo massive transformations, and the status quo regarding their "thinking" remains highly fluid.

Personally, I see a trap here. The automation of the design process deprives us of something fundamental: space for error, for experimentation, for what László Moholy-Nagy called "designing for life." Contemporary tools eliminate uncertainty from the creative process, and with it—the potential to discover new forms of expression. Consequently, even the concept of authenticity in design comes 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 witnessing a fundamental reevaluation of the concept of originality. In this new paradigm, deliberate breaking of conventions is replaced by random deviations from templates.

Can we then speak of post-creativity, post-craft, post-design? Such theses almost write themselves. The question is whether, within this new canon, there is room for a new concept of creative action. Contemporary experiments with imperfection, the conscious use of AI errors, or the return to analog techniques combined with digital tools are attempts to find a new visual language suited to current realities. Contrary to Keen’s pessimistic vision, perhaps we are not facing the death of design but its radical transformation—a completely new challenge. Maybe in a world dominated by algorithms and predefined templates, the very ability to consciously deviate from norms, to engage in controlled error, becomes an act of creation.

I want to believe that the key lies in redefining not only the tools but, above all, the creative process itself. By no means do I advocate a fight against the democratization of access to creativity or automation. What I propose, however, is to find new spaces for authentic expression in a world dominated by mechanical reproduction. The future of design does not lie in blind resistance to the opening of possibilities to many, nor in uncritical acceptance of automation. The essence lies in the conscious use of the tension between these poles—in creatively balancing the constraints and opportunities offered by the new technological reality. It is precisely in this tension, in the space between human intention and mechanical reproduction, that a new visual language of the post-digital era may emerge. This is not about destruction but about actively seeking cracks in machine logic—places where human intervention can still hold meaning. In experiments with generative AI, instead of passively accepting generated outputs, designers intervene in the learning process, correct errors, and discover unforeseen possibilities.

Isn’t it ironic that in today’s visual culture, where everyone can be a designer, true design is becoming increasingly difficult?