Earlier today, a friend of mine retweeted a blog article written by Nate Williams about illustrators and style. Linked here, the article investigates the idea of style and how it contributes to an illustrator's success. At its core, this article illustrates a larger issue that I've been contemplating as a designer for some time, the difference between visual style and conceptual agility. Towards the end of the article, the author cites several polls that indicate an overwhelming correlation between style and success (at least in the public mind), even favoring style over "good concepts". He makes a case for both examples, though reality and the depth of work shown would imply a specific bias.
As a designer, I don't believe it's my place to have an identifiable visual style for client work. I believe that each job brings with it certain requirements. My responsibility as a designer is to come to understand the project as much as possible and to put in to place a series of solutions. As a result, the work often comes out looking drastically different. This is a good and natural thing, to be able to work within different styles and executions can only further your work as a designer. In fact, I see it as self-serving and egotistical to have all projects in a portfolio speak to one aesthetic. To me it says that the designer has cared more about making sure that everyone can see his or her hand in the project than staying true to the client and the process.
This leads us to two different types of designers (with infinite shades of grey in between). One that focuses on process, research, and thought to arrive at execution, and others that attempt to shoehorn their own aesthetic preferences into client work. Ultimately these different archetypes play out in different ways. In the first example clients come to the designer for what they can bring to the table in thinking and direction. In the other, clients come to a designer knowing to some extent what they are going to get visually. Depending on the scenario I could see both of these being benefits or liabilities. The latter certainly lets a client feel like they are taking less of a risk. A client who seeks out the services of No Pattern for instance can be virtually guaranteed some level of light streaks and color channel adjustment layers.
In the case of an illustrator, it would make sense to pursue a personal style and bring clients to your side. However, there are risks to doing so in that your style can quickly become ubiquitous and copied by the thousands of kids coming out of art schools across the world. While a style can definitely progress, I think that certain illustrators run the risk of playing themselves right out of a job. Same goes for designers. In fact, it goes double for designers. In the era of inspiration blogs, tumblr, dribbble, and ffffound, the lifecycle of a trend or style is shorter than ever. Add into that the growing number of "designer / illustrators" popping up these days, and you have a recipe for a soup of sameness.
On the other end of the spectrum, designers who cannot own their output run the risk of being perceived as a chameleon. While the thought and the direction for a project might be spot on, an execution that relies too heavily on certain points of inspiration only serves to cheapen the entire project. Ultimately these designers come off as glorified ripoff artists that seemingly float from trend to trend to capture what's now. Not only is this morally grey, but it leaves the designer and client perpetually one step behind. When what they create is no longer contemporary, the cracks in the thought behind the project gets revealed as the short-sited rationale for a pre-determined solution that it is.
At various points in my career, I've seen (and been a part of) both ends of this spectrum. While working for certain agencies, I've been a part of a team that in one way or another leaned far too close to a certain artist. I've also been told (without being told) "we tried to hire this person, but they didn't want to work with us. The client loves their style though, so can you make it look like…" As a young designer under the wing of a questionable art director, I had no choice but to go for it and pray that it never saw the light of day (Sorry, Cody Hudson). On the other end, after recently doing a few infographic illustrations for GOOD, my inbox flooded with companies wanting me to make their information more friendly and approachable. One of these basically asking me to greenwash their power company to look more sustainable when almost 80% of their power supply was from coal.
I could probably spend the rest of my life making little textured illustrations of trees and factories, and no doubt I would get a lot of likes on Dribbble, and would probably make a very good living doing so. Our culture is so quick these days that repetition in an artists portfolio creates recognition. It's much easier for me to remember who you are as a designer if you have a simple name and I can pinpoint your style by saying "he's that guy who does cutesy posters for Wilco".
Ultimately this post shouldn't really sway your opinion one way or the other. My wish for my fellow creatives in this industry is for you to be happy and wealthy doing what you love. If that happens to be one specific thing, that's fine, and may you never grow tired of it. If it happens to be a lifetime of exploring and experimenting, that's cool too, and may your travels be informative. I know some artists with definitive viewpoints on their position, and some that just want to create.
As for me, a friend of mine at MCAD told me something once that has guided my career in one way or another: "Cool will come and go, smart will always be".