A glance at her eclectic mix of projects is a map through place and time, transporting you to Mad Men-era America, to a roaring 20s ballroom, and then back to a modern day European experimental hip-hop concert. Range like that gets one noticed, and in 2008, The Art Director’s Club awarded her the prestigious Young Guns Award.
25 comments:
Like the Marta, the interviewee of this article, I am very indecisive in my decisions regarding my occupation. Though I am a computer science major, I have four minors in a variety of fields, including Drama. I am also working for multiple startups and looking at innovation and marketing. In other words, I find it hard to sit still, and Marta’s belief that her “consistency is inconsistency” rings very true with my life. My sister is also similar, but in a different way. She is very steadily set on her future career (software engineering), but she is all over the place during her vacations, travelling from India to Japan to Antarctica. And, the two of us also worked for banks in the past, just like Marta. The two of us are very fidgety, and it warms me to know that there are others who feel the same way and have found similar successes. Today I was told that it is better to have one to two “specialty” skills than a multitude of decent skills. Though I agree, I love being able to explore everything while I can, and I wonder if I will slow down as I grow up the way Marta did.
I think the title of this article, “Is It Better To “Stay Your Lane” or Branch out Creatively?” is a little misleading. It implies a broader investigation of these two paths than this article offers. It clearly focuses on the path that suited one particular artist, who herself acknowledges that these choices represent different approaches. She has found that the eclectic, “nomadic” approach works best for her.
Having said that, as someone who isn’t particularly artistic but works closely with artists, I always enjoy hearing about the artistic process and I find Cerdá’s ideas about different approaches and the tourist metaphor she uses to describe them interesting. I’m also fascinated by people who have made the leap into freelancing and found they have the constitution to sustain that life (with all of its continued difficulties including, as Cerdá mentions, not getting paid for 3 months.) I don’t have that constitution and have always admired the courage and tenacity of those who make it work.
I really like Marta Cerdá. I think she is a great artist and has created some very interesting graphic work. The biggest thing that caught my attention about this article was the question of how she stops her work from "falling into the same style." I think this is an interesting concept because there are designers that (if you look closely enough) have the exact same elements in all of their sets. I think one of the biggest ways to work on getting away from this is to work on shows that don't allow it. For instance, if you were to work on a production that was a devised work and then work on a very strict period piece, there would be very distinct stylistic differences you would need to utilize. But then again, I suppose that, technically, if you wanted to, you could use the same stylistic elements if that was what you were going for--but I think this makes the point.
Something that struck me about this interview overall was that fact that Marta explained that there are different styles of designers and that being stuck in one kind of style isn't necessarily a bad thing. I love the metaphor she used about a tour guide who knows everything about what they do and still finds it as exciting as the first time. When I first started reading this article I couldn't quite see the appeal of staying in one style if you had the ability to change and grow but that metaphor did a great job at putting it in perspective for me. I also really liked what she said about how some designers begin a project already knowing how it will end. There are many times when I see people try to jump directly to the end of a project or even I try to think what my end product will be before I even think about what I want to get out of it, and while this seems like the obvious thing to do, I think it is interesting to see what happens if you went in blind and took the journey without thinking about your destination! Another aspect of this article that I found really interesting was the different mindsets she discovered between the US and Europe. I have always been the person to say that a positive attitude can make the biggest difference and its cool to hear about a real life example of where that is evident.
I do think there is something to be said for being an artist that has a very distinct style. So consistent and distinct that someone can identify your art just by looking at it. At the same time, I think there is something to be said for being really versatile and able to adopt a lot of different styles. I don’t really think one is better than the other, they are just two different ways of working. When it comes to graphic design, I think there is a lot to be said for having a very flexible style, and the same is true of theater. For graphic design and theater, the design should be about the project/ show, not about the individual designer's personal aesthetic. That doesn’t mean graphic designers/ theater designers can’t have an aesthetic they are known for, but I think there is a lot of value in being eclectic.
Something I really took away from this article is her constant dissatisfaction with her work, despite her success as a designer. To me, that shows the key to continuing to be an innovative and creative artist--by constantly wanting to improve as an artist and wanting to be better and more creative. I think this attitude really shows in her art--the constant variation in style shows that she really cares about innovation in her art and her life as a whole. I also liked her style of getting inspired--by being nomadic, constantly moving and getting inspired by different parts of the world and different types of art. Overall, to me this was a really interesting and inspiring look into this one designer's life.
In order to be creative you can’t be stuck in one place doing the same thing forever. If you do not have new experiences then there is no way your art can grow and change. I think it is really interesting how she compared some artists to tourists because they only focus on the same big attractions and they never really go deep into the actual culture of a place. Tourists only see a front that a country is putting up but when you go to the small towns where the native people live, you see how they actually live and what their lives are really like. Artists should not just stick with the front of a topic, they should dive deeper to see what their art is really like. I also liked how she did not stay at a place if she was not learning anything. That is a really important lesson that most people ignore and then never improve or go anywhere with their careers. You do not want to be in a job where you feel like a machine and do the same things all the time like a robot. It is important to be challenged and learn new things to be more creative.
I like this comparision of a creative person being like a tourist and how sometimes they don’t go beneath the surface. They see everything else that others see. It is a good analogy to break myself out of the norm and see things in different places that people don’t normally see. I want to find the back corner to a store or a tiny restaurant that only the locals know. I want to sit down and think about my work in a new light. I want to find a different way to be creative with my paperwork. This was a good reminder that there is so much out there to see and learn that I can’t just stay in one place but keep moving. I want to travel and see the world and even though it will be hard I want to find the obscure moments that people rarely ever see.
I certainly identify with the nomadic artistic approach. I often find that I am throwing myself right into a new project on a level that I never really thought possible. Every time I have a new experience it feels like I’m opening new doors not only in my career but in my ability to create meaningful things. Often times at the end of a project like this I need something completely different. I just can’t see myself doing one kind of thing for more than 3-4 years professionally without being bored and I think the skillset I am getting here is going to let me have the varied career I actually want. It certainly comes with some risks and there isn’t really any argument that it is going to be a lot of work as opposed to staying at one job but I really can’t wait to see how it all goes and where it takes me.
I enjoy her sentiment that "the first people you work for are the people that shape you." That statement really resonated with me. That is something that I think schooling does as well. Even though we are not technically employed by CMU, we are shaped by our teachers and mentors. It is important to take this education and be shaped by it. It is also important, maybe even more so, to recognized that you are being shaped by an institution. It is important to take away what you agree with, and learn from what you don't. I think she is expresses that sentiment. It was reassuring to hear that she oftentimes feels insecure with her choices. As a young director who is trying to find her style, while also resisting consistency, it is great to her of this designer's inconsistencies.
I can definitely identify with what Cerdá said about having to jump into the world of books and other things she encounters in her life. Whenever I read a new book (or reread and old one for that matter) or see a movie I always want to explore that world further afterwards. It doesn’t always end up making a lasting impression on my design style but bits and pieces of the different worlds definitely stick around. Despite this I don’t think I’m anywhere near as nomadic in my art style/design choices and she seems to be. I like experimenting with new things just fine but I also know what I like doing and I always seem to end up gravitating back towards that. I’m not opposed to that changing, it may well be a good thing if it does, but I don’t see a change like that happening any time soon for me.
Stay in your lane or branch out creatively? If you swap the word creatively for intellectually, I ask myself that question all the time. I don’t know what I want to do yet, but I think I can agree that I want to be somewhere and doing something that challenges me. I have some friends that do things just because they are hard, some because they are physically hard, some because they are mentally hard, and more and more I feel that I want to do things that really cause me to have to be mentally limber at all time, I want to be confused and work to remedy that confusion. We all worry that we are not good enough at doing what we love doing, and those of us that actually know what it is they love doing are the lucky ones. I love problem solving, I love math, I love engineering, I like creating real answers to real problems. I don’t feel this is any less stimulating or worthwhile than an artistic pursuit. I sometimes feel that it is less acceptable to be unsure of the kind of work you want to do in a STEM field than it is in the humanities. Maybe that’s why people are so much happier in the STEM fields.
Reading this article was truly time well spent. I relate with Cerdá so much. I actually think artists similar to her in spirit and nomadism are rather rare, at least to my awareness. I also really like how she compared finding her inspiration to traveling. I was also extremely interested to read about the different types of minds at work! The tour guides or the tourists. It’s a fun new light to put on things. I think this is the type of exploration we need to find ourselves and potentially our own style if that is our form of art.
I like how she depicted tourism, how you go just to see something. My parents are divorced and have separate vacations. One family likes group photos in front of road signs and the other pulls over at an abandoned gas station so we can climb into an old boat dumped in a field. One family goes somewhere to see something and the other goes somewhere to experience something. I'm not hating on the more tradition form of vacation but on a personal level going somewhere for the experience is always better. Instead of an activity you travel to do, usually something you, traveling to explore is a different experience. It risks having a dull vacation for the chance of an amazing one. I feel like that translates into any good artist. You can have a design and make it. Or you can turn an experience into a design. Something I think Marta Cerdá would agree with.
Reading this article, one quote in particular stood out to me. Cerda, while talking about overall design discipline, drops this pearl of wisdom:
"Creativity is like a journey..."(she lists different approaches to a design journey) "...then there’s more of a nomadic approach. It’s more of a trial and error thing, where you never stay in the same place. I always hoped I’d be more of a nomad and not stay in the same place."
To me, being a creative nomad is one of the most frightening, yet seductive ideas out there. To have the freedom to leapfrog across styles and inspirations like a well-traveled businessman traverses transfer hubs, has always been a goal for me, but has also been a cause for some anxiety as I contemplate what my future holds. I've always equated this nomadic behavior with a lack of association, not having a solid brand, no direct style connotation connected to your name. It terrifies me to think of having such a varied and perhaps experimental portfolio, but the notion of becoming bored of my own work is even more frightening. Perhaps I'll be able to strike a balance, but only time will tell.
I think, ideally, a strong artist is going to employ a combination of staying in your lane and branching out creatively. There is one option, where you only ever do what you know and never bother to dabble outside of it, and this I think is where a lot of artists (and people) really start to hinder themselves. Art is really relative to the world around us and the world of artwork and different mediums. To really call yourself an artist, I'm not sure you can only be a painter. I also think, just as a person, you should always take risks and try new things so you can find what you're really good at and what makes you happy. I showed one of my supervisors a list of my dream jobs over the summer, and he said, "Well, all of these are some type of manager." and I said, "Yes, well, that's what I'm good at." and he told me, "Hm. Well I can guarantee you, the position you find the most happiness in will not be any type of manager at all." And while this isn't necessarily true, he had a good point. How should I know, as young as I am, what will make me the happiest? After all, I haven't tried that much. I think the other extreme of the question, only ever branching out creatively, is equally as dangerous. You should be able to specialize in something, master it and call it your own. If you only know a little bit about everything, it's going to be difficult to focus your creative energy on something.
This flitting from style to style is really appealing to me and is basically how I did art before coming to CMU. Cerda says that to live your creative life like she does, to be a nomad and wander from inspiration to inspiration, you must have “a perfect balance of being cautious and being completely mad.” And I think that applies to any profession in the arts. We have to be more cautious than most about our career choices because there is so much professional uncertainty in our line of work. But we wouldn’t make any progress professionally or creatively if we are not willing to take those seemingly crazy chances. I like the idea of how she works, moving from style to style, but I also think she might be missing something. To settle into one method doesn’t always have to a stagnate experience. You can dig deep and really get to the Why? Of what you are doing. The way Cerda works there is a danger that she will only ever master the surface level of the method or style she is currently learning before she moves on.
This article presents a fairly interesting argument because there are several ways to look at it. If you continue to work in one field- let’s take rockwork for example- You would continue to get better and better at replicating the details of rockwork and the texture that it’s supposed to have. You’ll be better at recognizing different types of rockwork and where you’ll be able to find those different kinds around the world. The benefit to this is that you would be able to be a master of your field and be able to create extremely hyper realistic products that are believable to their world. However, would staying in that field limit you creatively? My answer would be- not if you don’t let it. If you keep a nice separation between your home and work life than you can easily step away from what you do at work and do different things that test your creative mind once you get home.
My family has always traveled, taking vacations internationally and domestically, never for the tourist sights, but for the experiences you get when you go past those ,mainstream views. My parents always impressed upon me the importance of experiencing all life had to offer, and traveling as much as i could. I have taken this to heart, and am constantly looking for new places to go, both physically and artistically. I can say with confidence that this has deeply influenced my work in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future.
I think that this article has a really good metaphor for weighing the question it poses. As an artist, are you a tourist or a nomad? There are a lot of artists who hop styles from project to project in a way that seems incredibly superficial, or extremely underdeveloped in that style, or untrue to the art that the artist has made in the past, and those to me are extremely off putting. You have to have a certain amount of consistency in the work you create, but that consistency doesn’t have to be wholly stylistic. If we didn’t branch out at least a little, we’d never grow upon our skills and ideas in a way that made us better artists, but if we branch out too much, our ideas can seem contrived and stereotypical. A healthy attitude towards artistic growth in my mind lies somewhere in between those two extremes.
I enjoyed reading this interview and actually see eye to eye with a a lot of what Marta said. Out of everything she said I think the most important phrase was, "Creativity is like a journey." She is so correct. And like she mentioned, this creative journey is unique to every individual. Our experiences, talents, and strengths shape ego we are as artists in different ways. I think it's important to realize that the question of whether or not one should branch out or stick to what they do best creatively has no concrete answer. In my opinion, an artist is stifling themself if they don't at the very least expose themself to new things. Whether or not those things stick doesn't matter. It's perfectly fine to be an artist who knows and is good at a specific thing. Some of the best artists can be identified just based on their style and genre specifications. But at the same time, that speciality is something that must be discovered. You'll never know what possibilities exist if you never even try to find them.
I always feel that branching out creatively is a necessity, at some point in one's creative life. Only after one has truly seen what is out there, and experienced a variety of options does it make sense - in my opinion - to pick a course and stick to it.I very much cherish a sense of "do not knock it until you have tried it", but I also understand the desire to refine one style, or one thing.
I think the point Cerda makes about recognizability and diving deep into one area of design to develop a recognizable person brand is important. One can see this across many art and design forms, in Sarah Ruhl's plays, in Es Devlin's designs. But at a certain point one has to wonder is the artist recognizable because their form is so desired, are are they so desired because their form is recognizable, because a work will have their "signature" on it?
This is something I think about a lot, and this article definitely offers valuable insight. Something that really helped me when I'm working on a design project and unsure if I should go with an idea because it's not really "me" is just to think about if it's the best way to express that idea or not. I think there's a big difference between being a one trick pony and actually having your personal aesthetic/style. The latter is something we can start to develop/gravitate towards, but it's not something students like us who are still learning can master yet. If anything, this is when we should be exploring different styles and forms. This isn't just limited to visual artists, it can also be regarding someone's style of working with others, how they break down and approach a project, etc. Something I took away from classes this year is that the form should always serve the content, not the other way around. Even if you do have a very distinct style and aesthetic, it should be flexible enough to adapt to the specific purpose of a project.
I agree with one of the previous comments that the title is misleading in that it contains judgement in providing two options. In Marta's interview, I also sensed a bit criticism when she compared the artists who ride out a style to tourists who don't "get under the skin of things", which makes me frown a little. There's nothing wrong to have developed a style that makes one comfortable and relaxed, and for some people, creativity flows violently when they have a consistency in their style. There's also nothing wrong to not have a constant style, to always explore, change, and transform, because for some artists, that's how their creativity thrives.
Title aside, I really think Marta is inspirational to me because I don't have a style at all in any kind of work I do. My consistency is my devotion and perfectionism to all the work. I love how she stops doubting and just tell herself, my consistency is my inconsistency. This is how my brain works. It is amazing when one finds peace with oneself and when you accept yourself as a whole, there will be an inner sense of security that keeps you from falling apart. I found myself relating to this so much.
Well, even though I missed the boat on the comment frenzy pertaining to this article, I still feel as if I have input. I feel like to understand the whole point of this article, it's important to consider what being creative means, and how staying in your lane pertains to that. Anyone can be a jack of all trades, but when you're a jack of all trades, are you a master of none? It's also odd to be confronted with people working in the field who seem to be successful creatively that are still stifled because, as freelancers, they can go months without work, and how do the two concepts interface? Between the amount of work and the type of work, and the various extensions of that. I'm with Sophie in that focusing on personal identity is also a detrimental idea in the realm of design, as there is value in having an identity all yours, but sometimes that identity can cloud your actual intention just for the sake of attaching your distinct style to your design. Overall, creativity is a two way street, which I think is part of what the author is trying to get out, and on two way streets, there are two lanes. even though they lead different directions, they both take you someplace, and that's what creativity needs to be. An adventure, never a simple ride through the town.
Post a Comment