On a recent trip overseas, I had an interesting meeting with the Head of Design (HoD) of an international theatre school. I wanted to discuss digital illustration for costume designers, but the HoD, who was charming and direct, said they didn’t encourage their students to use computers for anything much more than email and word processing. They didn’t like the aesthetic. While I admired their belief in the values they were trying to transfer to their students, I did wonder: What is the digital aesthetic?The revolution that digital technology has caused in other design industries is old news. But sometimes it seems costume design missed the digital boat, leaving designers at the dock comforting themselves with the mantra: hand rendered good, digital bad. So what happened? Why the distrust?
I think one of the best things about costume design is the incredible level of hand crafting. I find it a perfect antidote to an increasingly automated and mechanised world, and derive a lot of pleasure in embellishing my garments with details that can only be done by hand. The feeling of poring over a dress dummy sewing on beading or labouring over a set of complex flat patterns is very clear to me. The “touch of the artist’s hand” is a crucial part of those processes. When you link these hand-processes to the slow evolution of technology within costume design (ie: the silhouette and construction techniques in men’s tailoring), it is no wonder most costume designers are skeptical of new processes where the touch of the artist’s hand is not apparent. I’ve started wanting to clarify in my own mind, is there such a thing as the digital artist’s hand?To do this, I’ve had to take a sideways step and listen to music. Perhaps it is a clichéd response, but most of my older friends “don’t get” contemporary electro music like Bjork, M.I.A or even Massive Attack.
The music simply isn’t to their taste because they find it cold, machined and “a computer did it”. When I listen, I hear the creative decision making process, the warmth, humour and cleverness in how the music and sound has been manipulated. I love turning Bjork’s speaker distorting electro base lines up to full because it says something to me about our relationship to technology, what we think is beautiful and moving, and how our culture has evolved. Although the tools have changed, it is apparent there is someone behind the computer (hand) crafting bold creative choices. I think the same is for design and illustration.If we put notions of taste aside, I wonder if the HoD was actually seeing work done digitally, or whether the response was simply a sweeping “no” because it allowed them to not actually understand or see the work, because there are so many aesthetics that incorporate digital technology in some stage of their process. I realise now how lucky I was in my education to have teachers that fully supported digital knowledge. Because of this, I think I have greater choice as a design communicator. I have more tools to chose from to communicate my ideas.
So what’s my personal digital aesthetic? Well, I don't draw all my ideas on computer. Each thing I design has its own creative journey which just as often includes carefully executed photo realistic illustrations as it does an inky scribble done on a serviette while on a train. The cool thing is I have greater power to find the right medium to develop, present and share my ideas. So if nothing else, my aesthetic is based on a high level of choice in how I communicate, the power to manipulate context and meaning within my illustrations, and the ability to create micro environments in which I tell the story of my designs... regardless of whether it is hand rendered or digital.
