NOAH SILVER
NOAH SILVER

HUMAN GENERATED DISSERTATION

AI GENERATED DISSERTATION

A critical analysis of digital technologies affect on the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers. 

Question?

Introduction
 
“A Robot Is After Your Job” (Shaiken, H. 1980) and “Robots will destroy our jobs” (Shewan, D. 2017) are two newspaper headlines that alarm the public of the imminent automation of their professions. The headlines, however, were published almost forty years apart, this brings into question whether there are currently valid reasons to fear automation, and what has changed between the 1980’s and present day. Technology has been changing the role of the worker since the first tools used by humans, and fears about automation date back to as early as the 19th century (Frey and Osborne, 2017, p.7). This dissertation will explore the past, present and future of digital technologies affect on the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers. By reflecting on the past, this dissertation aims to provide a clear understanding of the current position of graphic design to better predict the future of the profession and its relationship with technology. In addition to digital technology, there are a multitude of social, political and economic factors that affect the process, outcomes and role of the graphic designer in diverse and mutually influencing ways (Hill Collins, 2016, p.11). This dissertation acknowledges this truth but in order to create an in-depth argument, focuses solely on technological factors affecting graphic designers.
 
There are many different definitions of a graphic designer, and some would argue the definition is constantly shifting, nevertheless this dissertation will use the definition from ‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’. The book states that though tools and technology evolve, the quintessential imperative of graphic design remains unchanged, “…to give order to information and form to ideas and expression” (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.621). There are many other valid definitions, but Meggs’ manages to be concise, yet broad enough to encompass the many roles of graphic designers that this dissertation will include, such as type, layout, web and interactive design. The scope of research in this dissertation will only extend to western graphic design practices and predominantly look at 1984 onwards.
 
‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’ and ‘Graphic design history: a critical guide’ are two well-respected authorities in graphic design history that have been invaluable sources of contextual information. Another key text is ‘digital design theory: readings from the field’ which provides a great overview of important figures who have written about digital technologies and graphic design from the 1960s up until the present. To further understand the topic of this dissertation primary research was conducted such as using Googles’ Deep Dream Generator to produce designs. The research further extended to attending exhibitions, talks and discussions relating to technology and artificial intelligence concerning graphic design. 
 
The first chapter of this dissertation focuses on graphic design from 1984 until the 2000s. In this time, technology transformed graphic design through the digitisation of process, creation of new mindsets and possibilities, along with new forms of conformity. The second chapter follows from this and looks at the 2000s, until the present. This time period saw graphic designers take control of their tools, extend their digital abilities while amputating physical craft and become a truly democratised profession. The third chapter will focus on the present and future of graphic design in relation to AI technology; as a design collaborator, a replacement of the human designer, and the effects of automating graphic design.
 
Chapter 1: 1984-2000
 
Automating professions into digital tools
Before the digital era of graphic design began in the 1980s, designing and creating graphic communications would involve a team of skilled specialists (Graphic Means, 2018). This team would include graphic designers, typesetters, production artists, camera operators, art and photograph strippers, platemakers and press operators (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.571). This all changed in 1984, when the Apple Macintosh computer was released, along with the only three pieces of image and text editing software that came on it: MacDraw, MacWrite and MacPaint (Graphic Means, 2018). These allowed one person operating a desktop computer to control most—or even all of the functions involved in creating printed graphic communications (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.571). The roles which were once performed by a team of skilled specialists were replaced by digital tools, which could be used by a singular professional graphic designer. This broadened the toolset of graphic designers, whilst also expanding the role to include what were previously the jobs of separated professions. The initial reaction to this was split, many designers resisted change and saw the macintosh as “a potential assault on the fine craft of graphic design”(Miller, 2019). In an interview with eye magazine, April Greimann, a graphic designer and early adopter of digital technology, refers to the mid-1980s when she began to pioneer the possibilities of using a macintosh. She recalls the older designers reckoning digital technology and more specifically the macintosh as “the end of everything” (Miller, 2019). History has however proven the sceptics wrong, as the use of the macintosh has only grown from its first release to become the integral tool for many graphic designers that it is today. 
Figure 1 was created by April Greimann in 1986 as a commission for the long-running journal Design Quarterly. The poster replaced the usual 32-page magazine with a 61cm by 183cm, double-sided fold-out poster (Walkerart.org, 2019). Greimann utilised the newly available capabilities of the Macintosh, which was released two years prior, to create the poster. Figure 1 exemplifies the singular graphic designer using digital tools to create work that previously would not have been possible without a team of professionals. Not only are the tools and working process of this poster radical for the time, but the aesthetics too, which are manifestations of the digital tools newly available to Greimann. The entire poster was composed using only MacDraw software, which is apparent through the seamless composition and large format of the print. The overlaid visuals of pixelated fonts and bitmapped photography defied many conventions of the time. Moreover, the elements on the poster have no clear orientation or grid, which broke free from the traditional strict rules of the typographic international style. This style is based on a mathematically constructed grid and was widely accepted and used by designers at the time (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.397). Figure 1 exhibits the revolutionary possibilities of digital technology by contradicting the status quo and indulging in freedom from grids and orientation.
The content of the poster is a “visual timeline of creativity and creation, starting with the big bang and ending with the designer herself” (Miller, 2019). Displaying this information chronologically guides the viewer from past to present and onto the future of design. Greimann is the epitome of digital technology shifting the role of designing and creating graphic matter, from many professionals to an individual graphic designer.
 
Technologies effect on graphic designers’ mindset
The digitisation of process shifted the role of graphic designers, but according to Drucker (2013, p.314), the more vital change was “…conceptual and involved understanding that images and texts were actually information stored as code.” Figure 1 is a prime example of this point as the poster is not purely a symptom of the newly available digital tools of the time but is likewise the result of Greimanns’ creative vision spurred on by the new way of thinking. As processes which were once physical became digital, creativity became code, changing the mindset of many graphic designers and merging the practice with elements of computer science. A key figure who helped merge the fields of art and computer science is John Maeda (Ted.com, 2019), who supports the case that technology changed the mindset of graphic designers. Maeda believes “computation is a unique medium akin to pure thought” (Lusch, 2017, p.14). Therefore, by connecting graphic design with the medium of coding, designers were enabled to expand their imagination and manifest their new ideas digitally, which would not have been possible previously. Not all graphic designers implemented code into their practice, but the possibilities of the new medium broadened the role to include a wider range of processes and outcomes.
 
Website design provided a platform for innovation and the new creative mindset to manifest itself. Web and interactive design were different from the previous outputs of graphic designers because they allowed content to be published instantly, non-linearly and also allowed user interaction (Meggs and Purvis 2016, p.397). Prior to the invention of digital mediums, graphic designers would finalise an outcome, send it to be printed, and later, users would be able to view the creation. This left a disconnect between designer and user, which web and interactive design bridged, allowing designers to create content that could be viewed instantly and updated constantly. As well as making design more instant, websites and other digital platforms also allowed content to be interactive, creating a two way narrative between designer and user. This expanded the responsibilities of graphic designers and thus their thought processes. Websites also store information non-linearly, unlike printed material which can only be navigated from beginning to end, websites allow users to create their narrative. This created a multitude of new design issues, which meant graphic designers had to adapt their thought processes to find solutions. The thought processes changed due to the technological innovations of the 1980s, this created new mental problems and possibilities, fundamentally changing the process, outcomes and the role of graphic designers who chose to utilise digital technology.
 
Software defaults and conformity
At the same time that digital technologies were creating new possibilities and mediums for expression, they were also homogenising graphic designers outcomes and encouraging conformity. Drucker (2013) writes that “Software created opportunities but also structured and restricted options. Designers had to work within the choices offered by a menu or palette”. This is unlike physical methods where a blank page is truly a blank page, and every element is a design decision. By using digital software, graphic designers no longer began with a blank page, when first opening a document, decisions had already been made about the default size, typestyle, layout and more (Graphic Means, 2018). Furthermore, as digital image and text editing software became more ubiquitous, it meant more and more graphic designers were using the same software and the same defaults, producing even more conformity. John Maeda recognises the conformity of software and writes that “Existing interfaces and tools reinforce current paradigms of digital media design” (Maeda, 2001, p.21).
 
The software defaults removed certain creative choices from the design process and shifted the role closer to simply inputting information into a framework. This came at a time which Meggs and Purvis (2016, p.579) describe as the information age, that was being launched by personal computers and the internet. These two technologies were also creating a mass of information and therefore a need to structure it all. Defaults became useful in organising and displaying this information because they could streamline the process and meant graphic designers did not need to consider and design every element themselves. The effect of this was that the design process became streamlined, the outcomes more homogenous and the role, less skilled.
 
These findings are however technologically deterministic as there were also many social and political factors affecting graphic design at the time. A social factor that influenced the default settings of design software was the fact that two main companies were creating almost all the design tools in the 1980s and 1990s, Adobe and Apple (Graphic Means, 2018). These are the companies that decided what ‘default’ settings were and still do to this day. Additionally, because these companies are both American, the defaults of their design software are based on American standards and biases. This created a self-fulfilling prophecy, as design standards shifted closer to what the software defaults looked like, designers work conformed to become more American-centric, affirming the original biases. American defaults did not remove designers freedom of expression, or urge to innovate, but it did imply the existence of neutral design, and any choice that altered the ‘default’ was one more step away from the centre of the design universe.
 
Chapter Summary
From the first release of the macintosh in 1984 to the 2000s, the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers all drastically changed and became reliant on technology. Graphic designers’ process became digitally automated and more singular. Coding and interactive design shifted the mindset of designers and by creating new possibilities for outputs. At the same time, the growing use of design software and defaults streamlined the design process and homogenised outputs.
 
Chapter 2: 2000-Present
 
Coding, as a tool to seize the means of production
Some graphic designers realised the constraints of using tools created by others and utilised the democratising power of code to create their own tools. Figure 2 is a creation by design duo Erik van Blokland and Just van Rossum, who crafted a bespoke software engine that generates fonts with a random element integrated into the design (Crow, D. 2008). Figure 2 showcases the Beowolf font, the image features overlapping shapes which represent several different possible variations of each glyph. 
Beowolf illustrates Van Blokland and Van Rossum’s belief that “Creative power comes from … deciding how it works, not from using it” (Crow, D. 2008). The Beowolf creators would argue that conformity enforced by software defaults can be overcome when designers create their own tools and empower individuals. Another design duo that would agree with this statement and who similarly utilised code to create tools are Ben Fry and Casey Reas, the co-creators of Processing. Processing is a coding library created in 2001 for the context of the visual arts that allows designers to take control of their tools (Reas and Fry, 2007, p.23). Processing simplifies the coding process, to encourage visual artists and designers to use the medium of coding to create interactive designs and powerful tools (Reas, 2007,p.2). Reas and Fry were both students of John Maeda, a believer in the democratising power of code. The processing creators furthered Maeda’s beliefs by spreading the ability to design tools using code, for free, to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. The act of redistributing control of graphic design tools from the software giants Adobe and Apple, to individual designers is inherently political and exemplifies an egalitarian philosophy. 
 
Marxism is an egalitarian school of thought that critiques capitalism for the exploitative relationship between the working class (proletariat) and the ruling class (bourgeoisie) (D’Amore and Ishiyama, 2011, p.651). Marxists believe that the tools or ‘means of production’ have been centralised by the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels, 1967, p.4). Therefore, Processing is an act of resistance against ruling power structures and Marxist in nature as it succeeds in redistributing control of the means of production from Apple and Adobe to individual designers. Graphic designers being able to create their own tools is socially significant, as evidenced by the industrial revolution. During which, the arts and crafts movement denounced factories in favour of individual tools and human craft. However, the wave of advancements in technology swept aside the arts and crafts movement, making it largely obsolete (Crow, D. 2008). This also shifted control of the means of production from the proletariat, who were the local communities of workers, into the hands of the bourgeoisie, who were the factory owners. The arts and crafts movement was unsuccessful in maintaining power because it rejected technology and thus lost control of the means of production. Processing, on the other hand, was successful in rebelling against the bourgeoisie and maintaining power because it embraced technology. Therefore, the power of coding not only liberated designers from conformity but also allowed them to maintain control of their means of production. It is significant that graphic designers maintain control of their tools and empower individuals because of the crucial position the profession holds, controlling the visual language of society.
 
Extensions and amputations of craft
Throughout the history of graphic design, the practice has been interconnected with making and craftsmanship, but the digital revolution changed this. From the 2000s onwards, using digital software, hardware and the internet became truly ubiquitous for graphic designers. The process had changed completely from the pre-digital era to make physical craft almost obsolete (Crow, D. 2008). There are many definitions of craft, but David Crow’s 2008 essay ‘Magic box: craft and the computer’ features an appropriately modern perspective. The essay, which focused on digital technologies and craft in graphic design, states that “…definitions of craft generally refer to ‘weaving, carving or pottery’, folk-art activities that involve doing or making things with your hands…” (Crow, D. 2008). This used to apply to graphic design in the pre-digital era when creating a layout involved cutting and pasting by hand (Graphic Means, 2018). However, digital technologies provided a more appealing alternative to physical processes, removing the need for physical craft in graphic design. However, Crow does not believe that the digital revolution made craft obsolete, because he does not connect craft with physical processes. The essay defines craft as “work bearing the mark of its maker” (Crow, D. 2008) and according to Crow, craft cannot be constrained to a medium. Crow uses the example of Beowolf in Figure 2. and writes that “the combinations they craft and the choices they make represent … the artisan’s metaphorical thumbprint.” (Crow, D. 2008). Therefore, the digital revolution did not make craft in graphic design obsolete but simply extended the processes of designers to include new methods of craft.
 
Media theorist and philosopher Marshall McLuhan writes about extensions of the human body and its senses. According to McLuhan, every advance in automation is a new extension, but also creates an amputation (McLuhan, 2013, p.37). For example, pre-digital designers used rulers and pens to measure and draw layouts by hand, Adobe InDesign is the extension of this as it automates these processes to measure and draw layouts digitally. Digital extensions streamlined the design process but also amputated physical crafts, which were previously the entirety of the graphic design process. During the digitisation of the graphic design process, opinions were split as to whether the extension of digital tools was worth the amputation of physical skills (Graphic Means, 2018). Many designers were grateful that digital technology removed the need to do menial tasks, whereas others saw these same tools as automating the physical craft which made the process of graphic design creative and human (Graphic Means, 2018).
 
David M. Berry is a professor of digital humanities, who warns about the consequences of extending human cognitive processes. Berry uses the term exosomatisation to describe the phenomenon of humans outsourcing internal processes to exterior sources (David M. Berry, 2017). Through this lens, designers extending or outsourcing their mental processes to digital systems would lower the human designers level of skill and knowledge of craft. This made the human designer less necessary and more easily automatable because much of the knowledge and craft became stored in digital systems. Therefore, extending designers’ mental capabilities streamlined but also de-skilled the role of graphic designers and increased the likelihood of automation. In opposition to that argument is Erik van Blokland, who co-created the Beowolf typeface in Figure 2. He believes that computers do not erode craft skills but instead are essential repositories of this kind of knowledge (Frieze, 1995). In this case, outsourcing is favourable for the practice, as it allows knowledge and craft to live on. Overall, digital technology has drastically changed the role of craft in graphic design. Both by creating new extensions for digital craft and the potential to store vital information and skills. These factors allowed craft in graphic design to continue existing in digital formats.
 
Technology democratised design through accessibility
Digital technologies created new extensions of craft skills and stores of information, and as a consequence of this, the production process became simplified. Ambrose (2019, p.30) argues that the simplification of the production process was a key factor in democratising graphic design. As well as the digitisation of craft, another way the production process was simplified was through the replacement of computers’ terminal displays with simple, graphical user interfaces (Reas and Fry, 2007,p.2). Terminal displays were difficult to use as they displayed lines of code and required users to enter abstract, textual commands. Whereas graphical user interfaces, such as the Macintosh’s in figure 3, eased users into operating a computer and digital design, through the use of metaphorical folders and documents on a desktop (Desktop Metaphor, 2001).
The software defaults mentioned in the first chapter meant that software required less skill and was thus more accessible to untrained users, which was another factor in the simplification of the production process.  The simplicity of production tools meant anyone could be a graphic designer (Drucker, J., 2013, p.314). This, on the one hand, opened up digital design for millions of people while simultaneously undercutting professionals (Drucker, J., 2013, p.314). This should have presumably caused the overall standards of designs to drop, but they did not. This is due to Ambrose’s second factor of accessibility, which is “extending access to the tools used to generate designs” (Ambrose, 2019, p.30). Access was extended through the lowering price of computers in combination with the boom of the internet that occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p. 592). Furthermore, the internet was an “egalitarian, open-source environment where entire programming communities pooled resources and knowledge that were then made available to all” (Drumm, P. 2016). The internets’ open-source access to information allowed for the free-spread of knowledge and skills, which ensured graphic design standards did not drop. The extended access to graphic design tools meant the public gained the means to design, but more importantly the knowledge. 
Designer Bernard Stein points out that the democratisation of design is no different from that of writing (Graphic Means, 2018). He asserts that hundreds of years ago most people could not write, nowadays almost everybody can and it means there is a lot of low-quality content written, but a lot of high quality writing too (Graphic Means, 2018). The democratisation of graphic design followed this pattern, with growing accessibility, the amount of unskilled design increased, but the amount of quality design remained (Graphic Means, 2018). Digital design software and the introduction of user interfaces brought about greater accessibility through the simplification of design processes. Simultaneously, growing internet use and lowering hardware costs helped to extend the accessibility of graphic design tools. These two factors together resulted in more low-quality design outputs by amateurs, but high-quality outputs by professionals still remained.
 
Chapter summary:
From the 2000s onwards, the role of graphic designers were empowered by designers taking control of the tools used to create through the likes of processing. Physical craft skills and knowledge became amputated as designers skills were extended digitally. This digitisation of craft made the design process simplified, which along with increased access, democratised graphic design.
 
Chapter 3: Present & Future
 
Human and AI in creative collaboration
From the 1980s onwards, digital technology influenced graphic design as a tool that designers could use. Currently, the advent of machine learning and artificial intelligence now allow digital technology to become more than a tool, but a collaborator. One example is Deep Dream Generator (DDG) which is an AI tool created by Google that uses artificial neural networks and visual classification technology to scan images and recognise shapes and patterns (Rayner, A. 2016). If the DDG recognises a bird in an image it will enhance this, which in turn makes the neural network recognise the bird even more strongly with each generation, until a highly detailed bird is visible to the viewer (Rayner, A. 2016).
Figure 4 is the original image of clouds that was uploaded and put through the DDG process to create the outcome, Figure 5. There is a clear resemblance between figure 4 and 5 but what emerges from the latter are complex morphed shapes, which can be interpreted in any number of ways. The DDG website describes what it provides as “Human, AI collaboration” (Deep Dream Generator, no date). However, the collaboration appears one-sided and separated, as the user provides the input and the DDG generates the output. As well as the collaboration involved in the design process of creating Figure 5, another form of collaboration happens in the mental process of viewing the output. Googles’ DDG “creates just enough of a sparrow’s head in a cloud, so that our brains find the rest” (Rayner, A. 2016). In this instance, both the human and AI attempt to find meaning in the abstract shapes, “perfectly mirroring each other” (Rayner, A. 2016); the intersect happens when both minds see the same object. It is this mental collaboration of human and AI minds finding the same meaning in abstract shapes, that truly creates everything the viewer sees in Figure 5.
 
Technology changing from tool to collaborator is a shift in the core role of the graphic designer. According to ‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’ the role is defined as “…to give order to information and form to ideas and expression.” (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.621). The ideas and expressions which Meggs writes about are reflections of the designers’ personalities, intentions and choices (Goti, K. 2018, p.115). Technology and in particular AI expanding from passive tool to active collaborator adds another participant to the design process, with its own intentions, choices and ideas. Therefore, the introduction of AI into the design process creates dual decision-makers, structurally changing the process and thus the role of the human graphic designer. This is demonstrated in Figure 5, which was generated, based on the AI’s thought process. This type of collaboration is yet to effect graphic designers process, outcomes and role. Due to Google’s DDG currently being in the early stages of development, explaining why it has minimal usage, similar to most AI design tools in existence.
 
Despite the current lack of AI usage, there is potential for collaboration in graphic design. “…The synergy between human intuition and computational power” could lead to a “two-way, cyber-physical learning process (that) promises an enhancement of human creativity.” (Goti, K. 2018, p.115). The DDG gives us a glimpse of this, creating work that would have previously been impossible, similar to earlier digital technologies that enhanced humans creative capabilities. However, what Goti writes about, using AI to create a two-way learning process that enhances human creativity, is not possible with current AI technology. Despite Goti’s speculative look at creativity, the thinking falls short as it does not consider the potential for post-human creativity. Haakon Faste writes that people need to “…transcend the limitations of human-centred design…” (Lusch, P. 2017, p.136) and see a potential for design which does not rely on the limited creative thinking capabilities of humans. The possibilities and accessibility of human-AI collaboration are relatively basic at the moment, but will only improve with time as technology advances. Perhaps collaboration in the near future will improve human creativity, but imaginably, basing a framework for AI collaboration on human designers may be detrimental to the AI, due to the limited creative abilities of humans.
 
The potential for graphic design automation
One step further than collaboration is automation, and if AI can currently collaborate in the design process then it is feasible that AI could soon be able to automate graphic designers roles. The 2017 study by Frey and Osborne on the future of automation on employment in America created a lot of headlines when it estimated that 47% of the US workforce was at risk of automation in the next 10 to 20 years (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.1). The study used data from 702 occupations and calculated the estimated probability of computerisation in the near future (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.1). The study writes that technology could previously only automate routine manual tasks, but due to AI and machine learning, technology has become able to automate non-routine cognitive tasks (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.16). Graphic design is a non-routine cognitive task, but according to the study, it was estimated as having less than a 1% chance of being automated (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.60). This is because graphic design combines a number of different tasks; perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence. Promisingly for graphic designers, all these tasks were counted as unsusceptible to automation in the study (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.24). Furthermore, Frey and Osborne hypothesise that it seems unlikely occupations requiring a “…high degree of creative intelligence will be automated in the next decades.” (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.26). This appears favourable for graphic designers fearing automation, however, the Frey and Osborne paper cannot be taken as a perfect prediction. This is due to the subjective nature of the hand-labelling used to estimate whether occupations are fully automatable (Coelli, M.B. and Borland, J., 2019, p .23). Moreover, the current speed at which technology advances makes predictions about automation difficult, according to Moore’s Law, computing power doubles every two years (Moore, G.E., 1965. p.1). This trend has been proven correct thus far, meaning that computing power and AI will increase its abilities exponentially. Therefore the ability to automate graphic design could arise sooner than Frey and Osborne predicted.
 
Another issue with Frey and Osborne’s paper is that “it puts too much emphasis on the extent to which technology on its own determines the development of our political and social realities.” (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). There are many factors affecting job automation and the role of graphic designer which are not technological, that this study overlooks. The future of the graphic design profession is unclear, Frey and Osborne’s study view graphic design as not at risk of computerisation, however, the speed of the growth of technology contradicts this claim.
 
The effects of AI automating design
The idea that a graphic designer does not need to be human is already being tested. An example is GAUDII, which is an “Intelligent Automated Graphic Design Generator” (Morcillo et al. 2010). GAUDII is an Artificial Intelligence that is able to detect elements and create single page layouts based on template inputs. Figure 5 showcases GAUDII’s capabilities, in the most left image the coloured lines represent the detected alignment groups. The centre image shows what sections GAUDII has indicated are of higher importance and on the right-hand image, the lines show the segmentation of the design into text and graphic regions (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.5).  
Figure 6 shows how GAUDII breaks down the design process into computable steps, something that also happened in the 1980s, when creativity became code, laying the foundations for the design process to be automated by AI’s such as GAUDII. Automating the creative process supports a computationalist ideology, which David Golumbia defines as “The idea that the entirety of “human and social experience can be explained via computational processes” (Golumbia, 2009, p.8). John Maeda would resist this ideology as he believes that “design is intuition, not intelligence”(Maeda, 2001, p.13), therefore creativity is something human and cannot ever be recreated in by AI. Furthermore, the computationalist perspective is highly reductive of human thought and creativity, which is problematic, especially if this viewpoint is held by large corporations who control AI technology and thereby influence society. This ideology which ignores individuality and dehumanises the population is a symptom of capitalism (Zhang, 2004, p.43). Zhang argues that it is in the interests of capitalism to ignore individuality and see populations as homogenous (Zhang, 2004, p.43). The notion of an AI attempting to replicate human creativity transmits these computationalist values, which will only become amplified as AI grows in use and effectiveness in the graphic design field.
 
One such company which supports the computationalist view is The Grid, which provides an AI designed website building service. The Grid personifies its AI web designer, ‘Molly’ who they describe as young and learning, but who has “…already designed hundreds of thousands of web pages” (Kaiser, 2019). The personification of an Artificial Intelligence suggests The Grid is aware that many people are mistrustful of AI and automation, therefore, in order to quell these fears, the AI designer is veiled behind a human name. The Grid describes Molly further, by writing that “She’s quirky, but will never ghost you, never charge more, never miss a deadline, never cower to your demands for a bigger logo.”(Kaiser, 2019). The description of Molly characterises ‘her’ as a flawless designer, who has a human personality and creative abilities. Yet, is void of all the unproductive traits of human designers, which have instead been replaced with subservience and machine-like accuracy and efficiency. The Grids’ description of Molly suggests that Artificial Intelligence is comparable to human creativity and intelligence. Also that Molly’s abilities are equal or better than that of a professional website designer (Kaiser, 2019). Putting human and AI designers on an equal syntactical level has insidious connotations for the future automation of professional graphic designers. AI designers however are not better than professional designers, as GAUDII demonstrates with Figure 7, in which designs are generated in a variety of styles based on the parameters which are learned from example layouts (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.9). Figure 7 shows that GAUDII is only able to automate the design process at a low-skilled level.
The layouts in Figure 7 break many basic design rules, such as the non-sensical use of different alignments, the use of more than three different fonts and weights and the rejection of the top left to bottom right, reading direction. The layouts do follow a basic visual hierarchy and achieve the bare minimum of being understandable but are far from being effective pieces of communication, or visually interesting. The results produced in Figure 6 are as good as those produced by the average human in the GAUDII researchers crowdsourced study, though not at the level of a professional designer (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.1). At this moment in time, neither GAUDII nor any AI designer can automate the role of a professional graphic designer, only the average human. But simply by attempting to recreate human creativity, these AI’s express the computationalist ideology.
 
Chapter summary:
Artificial intelligence presents new challenges and opportunities for graphic design, even though it’s impact has not been felt yet. The potential for collaboration or automation, could either enhance human creativity or make the professional designer obsolete.
Conclusion:
 
The profession of graphic design is almost unrecognisable today, compared to its pre-digital state: the process, outcomes and role have all transformed completely due to digital technology. This dissertation began by exploring the dawn of the digital revolution, from 1984 until the 2000s. In this time period, designers such as April Greimann utilised the new capabilities of the Macintosh and digital design software to automate certain professions and create new aesthetic outcomes. The introduction of coding and the potential of interactive design expanded graphic designers’ mental processes and digital outcomes. At the same time, the dawn of the information age created a need for a simplified design process, which software defaults helped to achieve. Technology continued to influence graphic designers from the 2000s onwards, firstly by graphic designers utilising code to take control of their means of production with tools such as Processing. Technology also extended and outsourced physical and mental crafts to digital sources. This outsourcing, as well as increased accessibility, helped to democratise graphic design. More recently, advancements in technology such as Googles’ DDG have meant that humans can collaborate with AI in the design process. On a macro scale, Frey and Osborne’s study puts graphic design at low risk of being automated. However, AI’s such as GAUDII can currently automate the role of graphic designer at a low-skilled level.
 
Speculation
Understanding the past and present position of graphic design in relation to technology provides the groundwork to speculate on the potential future. Graphic design is intrinsically linked with consumerism and capitalism and ever since the release of the Macintosh, digital technology has automated more of the process and become an intrinsic part of the practice. Free-market capitalism has undoubtedly created competition within the practice and thus encouraged technological progress and more automated processes. This has allowed graphic designers outcomes to be further reaching and the process easier and faster. However, these technological advances lead one to question, after all this progress, are graphic designers better off? The answer is no. This is because capitalism promotes growth and efficiency as paramount over everything else, but overlooks the human price of automation and growth (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). History remembers the industrial revolution as a time of great growth, which is true if growth is measured by efficiency or capital (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). Although, according to Freidrich Engels, a developer of Marxist theories, the wages and living conditions of the working classes dropped during this period of upheaval (Engels, F., 1993., p.33). This decline in working class living conditions is comparable to the present, as the fourth industrial revolution has already started according to some experts (Schwab, K, 2016). The increasing inequality and lowering of wages and life quality will only happen on a larger scale now, as the world is much more interconnected and technologically dependant (Yadron, D. 2016). Frey and Osborne argue that “The balance between job conservation and technological progress… reflects the balance of power in society” (Frey and Osborne, 2017, p.6). This means that as long as there is inequality, which is a key component of capitalism, technological progress will be valued more than job conservation. Also, as automation increases, inequality will follow. The profession of graphic design is not exempt from the consequences of automation or inequality, even though Frey and Osborne’s study put them at low risk of automation. Instead, graphic designers stand in a position similar to the arts and crafts movement during the industrial revolution. This movement attempted to fight technological progress and the systems of power by rejecting technology but was ineffective. Processing, however, exemplifies how technology must be utilised to fight systems of power, and remain autonomous. A robot is after our jobs, reacting with technology and designing the future is the only way to deal with it. Graphic designers must reposition themselves at the forefront of digital technology, in order to control their means of production. Graphic designers must also innovate and demonstrate why human creativity cannot be commodified or automated and celebrate what is invaluable, humanity. 
 
A critical analysis of digital technologies affect on the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers. 
 
Introduction
 
“A Robot Is After Your Job” (Shaiken, H. 1980) and “Robots will destroy our jobs” (Shewan, D. 2017) are two newspaper headlines that alarm the public of the imminent automation of their professions. The headlines, however, were published almost forty years apart, this brings into question whether there are currently valid reasons to fear automation, and what has changed between the 1980’s and present day. Technology has been changing the role of the worker since the first tools used by humans, and fears about automation date back to as early as the 19th century (Frey and Osborne, 2017, p.7). This dissertation will explore the past, present and future of digital technologies affect on the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers. By reflecting on the past, this dissertation aims to provide a clear understanding of the current position of graphic design to better predict the future of the profession and its relationship with technology. In addition to digital technology, there are a multitude of social, political and economic factors that affect the process, outcomes and role of the graphic designer in diverse and mutually influencing ways (Hill Collins, 2016, p.11). This dissertation acknowledges this truth but in order to create an in-depth argument, focuses solely on technological factors affecting graphic designers.
 
There are many different definitions of a graphic designer, and some would argue the definition is constantly shifting, nevertheless this dissertation will use the definition from ‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’. The book states that though tools and technology evolve, the quintessential imperative of graphic design remains unchanged, “…to give order to information and form to ideas and expression” (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.621). There are many other valid definitions, but Meggs’ manages to be concise, yet broad enough to encompass the many roles of graphic designers that this dissertation will include, such as type, layout, web and interactive design. The scope of research in this dissertation will only extend to western graphic design practices and predominantly look at 1984 onwards.
 
‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’ and ‘Graphic design history: a critical guide’ are two well-respected authorities in graphic design history that have been invaluable sources of contextual information. Another key text is ‘digital design theory: readings from the field’ which provides a great overview of important figures who have written about digital technologies and graphic design from the 1960s up until the present. To further understand the topic of this dissertation primary research was conducted such as using Googles’ Deep Dream Generator to produce designs. The research further extended to attending exhibitions, talks and discussions relating to technology and artificial intelligence concerning graphic design. 
 
The first chapter of this dissertation focuses on graphic design from 1984 until the 2000s. In this time, technology transformed graphic design through the digitisation of process, creation of new mindsets and possibilities, along with new forms of conformity. The second chapter follows from this and looks at the 2000s, until the present. This time period saw graphic designers take control of their tools, extend their digital abilities while amputating physical craft and become a truly democratised profession. The third chapter will focus on the present and future of graphic design in relation to AI technology; as a design collaborator, a replacement of the human designer, and the effects of automating graphic design.
 
Chapter 1: 1984-2000
 
Automating professions into digital tools
Before the digital era of graphic design began in the 1980s, designing and creating graphic communications would involve a team of skilled specialists (Graphic Means, 2018). This team would include graphic designers, typesetters, production artists, camera operators, art and photograph strippers, platemakers and press operators (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.571). This all changed in 1984, when the Apple Macintosh computer was released, along with the only three pieces of image and text editing software that came on it: MacDraw, MacWrite and MacPaint (Graphic Means, 2018). These allowed one person operating a desktop computer to control most—or even all of the functions involved in creating printed graphic communications (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.571). The roles which were once performed by a team of skilled specialists were replaced by digital tools, which could be used by a singular professional graphic designer. This broadened the toolset of graphic designers, whilst also expanding the role to include what were previously the jobs of separated professions. The initial reaction to this was split, many designers resisted change and saw the macintosh as “a potential assault on the fine craft of graphic design”(Miller, 2019). In an interview with eye magazine, April Greimann, a graphic designer and early adopter of digital technology, refers to the mid-1980s when she began to pioneer the possibilities of using a macintosh. She recalls the older designers reckoning digital technology and more specifically the macintosh as “the end of everything” (Miller, 2019). History has however proven the sceptics wrong, as the use of the macintosh has only grown from its first release to become the integral tool for many graphic designers that it is today. 
Figure 1 was created by April Greimann in 1986 as a commission for the long-running journal Design Quarterly. The poster replaced the usual 32-page magazine with a 61cm by 183cm, double-sided fold-out poster (Walkerart.org, 2019). Greimann utilised the newly available capabilities of the Macintosh, which was released two years prior, to create the poster. Figure 1 exemplifies the singular graphic designer using digital tools to create work that previously would not have been possible without a team of professionals. Not only are the tools and working process of this poster radical for the time, but the aesthetics too, which are manifestations of the digital tools newly available to Greimann. The entire poster was composed using only MacDraw software, which is apparent through the seamless composition and large format of the print. The overlaid visuals of pixelated fonts and bitmapped photography defied many conventions of the time. Moreover, the elements on the poster have no clear orientation or grid, which broke free from the traditional strict rules of the typographic international style. This style is based on a mathematically constructed grid and was widely accepted and used by designers at the time (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.397). Figure 1 exhibits the revolutionary possibilities of digital technology by contradicting the status quo and indulging in freedom from grids and orientation.
The content of the poster is a “visual timeline of creativity and creation, starting with the big bang and ending with the designer herself” (Miller, 2019). Displaying this information chronologically guides the viewer from past to present and onto the future of design. Greimann is the epitome of digital technology shifting the role of designing and creating graphic matter, from many professionals to an individual graphic designer.
 
Technologies effect on graphic designers’ mindset
The digitisation of process shifted the role of graphic designers, but according to Drucker (2013, p.314), the more vital change was “…conceptual and involved understanding that images and texts were actually information stored as code.” Figure 1 is a prime example of this point as the poster is not purely a symptom of the newly available digital tools of the time but is likewise the result of Greimanns’ creative vision spurred on by the new way of thinking. As processes which were once physical became digital, creativity became code, changing the mindset of many graphic designers and merging the practice with elements of computer science. A key figure who helped merge the fields of art and computer science is John Maeda (Ted.com, 2019), who supports the case that technology changed the mindset of graphic designers. Maeda believes “computation is a unique medium akin to pure thought” (Lusch, 2017, p.14). Therefore, by connecting graphic design with the medium of coding, designers were enabled to expand their imagination and manifest their new ideas digitally, which would not have been possible previously. Not all graphic designers implemented code into their practice, but the possibilities of the new medium broadened the role to include a wider range of processes and outcomes.
 
Website design provided a platform for innovation and the new creative mindset to manifest itself. Web and interactive design were different from the previous outputs of graphic designers because they allowed content to be published instantly, non-linearly and also allowed user interaction (Meggs and Purvis 2016, p.397). Prior to the invention of digital mediums, graphic designers would finalise an outcome, send it to be printed, and later, users would be able to view the creation. This left a disconnect between designer and user, which web and interactive design bridged, allowing designers to create content that could be viewed instantly and updated constantly. As well as making design more instant, websites and other digital platforms also allowed content to be interactive, creating a two way narrative between designer and user. This expanded the responsibilities of graphic designers and thus their thought processes. Websites also store information non-linearly, unlike printed material which can only be navigated from beginning to end, websites allow users to create their narrative. This created a multitude of new design issues, which meant graphic designers had to adapt their thought processes to find solutions. The thought processes changed due to the technological innovations of the 1980s, this created new mental problems and possibilities, fundamentally changing the process, outcomes and the role of graphic designers who chose to utilise digital technology.
 
Software defaults and conformity
At the same time that digital technologies were creating new possibilities and mediums for expression, they were also homogenising graphic designers outcomes and encouraging conformity. Drucker (2013) writes that “Software created opportunities but also structured and restricted options. Designers had to work within the choices offered by a menu or palette”. This is unlike physical methods where a blank page is truly a blank page, and every element is a design decision. By using digital software, graphic designers no longer began with a blank page, when first opening a document, decisions had already been made about the default size, typestyle, layout and more (Graphic Means, 2018). Furthermore, as digital image and text editing software became more ubiquitous, it meant more and more graphic designers were using the same software and the same defaults, producing even more conformity. John Maeda recognises the conformity of software and writes that “Existing interfaces and tools reinforce current paradigms of digital media design” (Maeda, 2001, p.21).
 
The software defaults removed certain creative choices from the design process and shifted the role closer to simply inputting information into a framework. This came at a time which Meggs and Purvis (2016, p.579) describe as the information age, that was being launched by personal computers and the internet. These two technologies were also creating a mass of information and therefore a need to structure it all. Defaults became useful in organising and displaying this information because they could streamline the process and meant graphic designers did not need to consider and design every element themselves. The effect of this was that the design process became streamlined, the outcomes more homogenous and the role, less skilled.
 
These findings are however technologically deterministic as there were also many social and political factors affecting graphic design at the time. A social factor that influenced the default settings of design software was the fact that two main companies were creating almost all the design tools in the 1980s and 1990s, Adobe and Apple (Graphic Means, 2018). These are the companies that decided what ‘default’ settings were and still do to this day. Additionally, because these companies are both American, the defaults of their design software are based on American standards and biases. This created a self-fulfilling prophecy, as design standards shifted closer to what the software defaults looked like, designers work conformed to become more American-centric, affirming the original biases. American defaults did not remove designers freedom of expression, or urge to innovate, but it did imply the existence of neutral design, and any choice that altered the ‘default’ was one more step away from the centre of the design universe.
 
Chapter Summary
From the first release of the macintosh in 1984 to the 2000s, the process, outcomes and role of graphic designers all drastically changed and became reliant on technology. Graphic designers’ process became digitally automated and more singular. Coding and interactive design shifted the mindset of designers and by creating new possibilities for outputs. At the same time, the growing use of design software and defaults streamlined the design process and homogenised outputs.
 
Chapter 2: 2000-Present
 
Coding, as a tool to seize the means of production
Some graphic designers realised the constraints of using tools created by others and utilised the democratising power of code to create their own tools. Figure 2 is a creation by design duo Erik van Blokland and Just van Rossum, who crafted a bespoke software engine that generates fonts with a random element integrated into the design (Crow, D. 2008). Figure 2 showcases the Beowolf font, the image features overlapping shapes which represent several different possible variations of each glyph. 
Beowolf illustrates Van Blokland and Van Rossum’s belief that “Creative power comes from … deciding how it works, not from using it” (Crow, D. 2008). The Beowolf creators would argue that conformity enforced by software defaults can be overcome when designers create their own tools and empower individuals. Another design duo that would agree with this statement and who similarly utilised code to create tools are Ben Fry and Casey Reas, the co-creators of Processing. Processing is a coding library created in 2001 for the context of the visual arts that allows designers to take control of their tools (Reas and Fry, 2007, p.23). Processing simplifies the coding process, to encourage visual artists and designers to use the medium of coding to create interactive designs and powerful tools (Reas, 2007,p.2). Reas and Fry were both students of John Maeda, a believer in the democratising power of code. The processing creators furthered Maeda’s beliefs by spreading the ability to design tools using code, for free, to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. The act of redistributing control of graphic design tools from the software giants Adobe and Apple, to individual designers is inherently political and exemplifies an egalitarian philosophy. 
 
Marxism is an egalitarian school of thought that critiques capitalism for the exploitative relationship between the working class (proletariat) and the ruling class (bourgeoisie) (D’Amore and Ishiyama, 2011, p.651). Marxists believe that the tools or ‘means of production’ have been centralised by the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels, 1967, p.4). Therefore, Processing is an act of resistance against ruling power structures and Marxist in nature as it succeeds in redistributing control of the means of production from Apple and Adobe to individual designers. Graphic designers being able to create their own tools is socially significant, as evidenced by the industrial revolution. During which, the arts and crafts movement denounced factories in favour of individual tools and human craft. However, the wave of advancements in technology swept aside the arts and crafts movement, making it largely obsolete (Crow, D. 2008). This also shifted control of the means of production from the proletariat, who were the local communities of workers, into the hands of the bourgeoisie, who were the factory owners. The arts and crafts movement was unsuccessful in maintaining power because it rejected technology and thus lost control of the means of production. Processing, on the other hand, was successful in rebelling against the bourgeoisie and maintaining power because it embraced technology. Therefore, the power of coding not only liberated designers from conformity but also allowed them to maintain control of their means of production. It is significant that graphic designers maintain control of their tools and empower individuals because of the crucial position the profession holds, controlling the visual language of society.
 
Extensions and amputations of craft
Throughout the history of graphic design, the practice has been interconnected with making and craftsmanship, but the digital revolution changed this. From the 2000s onwards, using digital software, hardware and the internet became truly ubiquitous for graphic designers. The process had changed completely from the pre-digital era to make physical craft almost obsolete (Crow, D. 2008). There are many definitions of craft, but David Crow’s 2008 essay ‘Magic box: craft and the computer’ features an appropriately modern perspective. The essay, which focused on digital technologies and craft in graphic design, states that “…definitions of craft generally refer to ‘weaving, carving or pottery’, folk-art activities that involve doing or making things with your hands…” (Crow, D. 2008). This used to apply to graphic design in the pre-digital era when creating a layout involved cutting and pasting by hand (Graphic Means, 2018). However, digital technologies provided a more appealing alternative to physical processes, removing the need for physical craft in graphic design. However, Crow does not believe that the digital revolution made craft obsolete, because he does not connect craft with physical processes. The essay defines craft as “work bearing the mark of its maker” (Crow, D. 2008) and according to Crow, craft cannot be constrained to a medium. Crow uses the example of Beowolf in Figure 2. and writes that “the combinations they craft and the choices they make represent … the artisan’s metaphorical thumbprint.” (Crow, D. 2008). Therefore, the digital revolution did not make craft in graphic design obsolete but simply extended the processes of designers to include new methods of craft.
 
Media theorist and philosopher Marshall McLuhan writes about extensions of the human body and its senses. According to McLuhan, every advance in automation is a new extension, but also creates an amputation (McLuhan, 2013, p.37). For example, pre-digital designers used rulers and pens to measure and draw layouts by hand, Adobe InDesign is the extension of this as it automates these processes to measure and draw layouts digitally. Digital extensions streamlined the design process but also amputated physical crafts, which were previously the entirety of the graphic design process. During the digitisation of the graphic design process, opinions were split as to whether the extension of digital tools was worth the amputation of physical skills (Graphic Means, 2018). Many designers were grateful that digital technology removed the need to do menial tasks, whereas others saw these same tools as automating the physical craft which made the process of graphic design creative and human (Graphic Means, 2018).
 
David M. Berry is a professor of digital humanities, who warns about the consequences of extending human cognitive processes. Berry uses the term exosomatisation to describe the phenomenon of humans outsourcing internal processes to exterior sources (David M. Berry, 2017). Through this lens, designers extending or outsourcing their mental processes to digital systems would lower the human designers level of skill and knowledge of craft. This made the human designer less necessary and more easily automatable because much of the knowledge and craft became stored in digital systems. Therefore, extending designers’ mental capabilities streamlined but also de-skilled the role of graphic designers and increased the likelihood of automation. In opposition to that argument is Erik van Blokland, who co-created the Beowolf typeface in Figure 2. He believes that computers do not erode craft skills but instead are essential repositories of this kind of knowledge (Frieze, 1995). In this case, outsourcing is favourable for the practice, as it allows knowledge and craft to live on. Overall, digital technology has drastically changed the role of craft in graphic design. Both by creating new extensions for digital craft and the potential to store vital information and skills. These factors allowed craft in graphic design to continue existing in digital formats.
 
Technology democratised design through accessibility
Digital technologies created new extensions of craft skills and stores of information, and as a consequence of this, the production process became simplified. Ambrose (2019, p.30) argues that the simplification of the production process was a key factor in democratising graphic design. As well as the digitisation of craft, another way the production process was simplified was through the replacement of computers’ terminal displays with simple, graphical user interfaces (Reas and Fry, 2007,p.2). Terminal displays were difficult to use as they displayed lines of code and required users to enter abstract, textual commands. Whereas graphical user interfaces, such as the Macintosh’s in figure 3, eased users into operating a computer and digital design, through the use of metaphorical folders and documents on a desktop (Desktop Metaphor, 2001).
The software defaults mentioned in the first chapter meant that software required less skill and was thus more accessible to untrained users, which was another factor in the simplification of the production process.  The simplicity of production tools meant anyone could be a graphic designer (Drucker, J., 2013, p.314). This, on the one hand, opened up digital design for millions of people while simultaneously undercutting professionals (Drucker, J., 2013, p.314). This should have presumably caused the overall standards of designs to drop, but they did not. This is due to Ambrose’s second factor of accessibility, which is “extending access to the tools used to generate designs” (Ambrose, 2019, p.30). Access was extended through the lowering price of computers in combination with the boom of the internet that occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p. 592). Furthermore, the internet was an “egalitarian, open-source environment where entire programming communities pooled resources and knowledge that were then made available to all” (Drumm, P. 2016). The internets’ open-source access to information allowed for the free-spread of knowledge and skills, which ensured graphic design standards did not drop. The extended access to graphic design tools meant the public gained the means to design, but more importantly the knowledge. 
Designer Bernard Stein points out that the democratisation of design is no different from that of writing (Graphic Means, 2018). He asserts that hundreds of years ago most people could not write, nowadays almost everybody can and it means there is a lot of low-quality content written, but a lot of high quality writing too (Graphic Means, 2018). The democratisation of graphic design followed this pattern, with growing accessibility, the amount of unskilled design increased, but the amount of quality design remained (Graphic Means, 2018). Digital design software and the introduction of user interfaces brought about greater accessibility through the simplification of design processes. Simultaneously, growing internet use and lowering hardware costs helped to extend the accessibility of graphic design tools. These two factors together resulted in more low-quality design outputs by amateurs, but high-quality outputs by professionals still remained.
 
Chapter summary:
From the 2000s onwards, the role of graphic designers were empowered by designers taking control of the tools used to create through the likes of processing. Physical craft skills and knowledge became amputated as designers skills were extended digitally. This digitisation of craft made the design process simplified, which along with increased access, democratised graphic design.
 
Chapter 3: Present & Future
 
Human and AI in creative collaboration
From the 1980s onwards, digital technology influenced graphic design as a tool that designers could use. Currently, the advent of machine learning and artificial intelligence now allow digital technology to become more than a tool, but a collaborator. One example is Deep Dream Generator (DDG) which is an AI tool created by Google that uses artificial neural networks and visual classification technology to scan images and recognise shapes and patterns (Rayner, A. 2016). If the DDG recognises a bird in an image it will enhance this, which in turn makes the neural network recognise the bird even more strongly with each generation, until a highly detailed bird is visible to the viewer (Rayner, A. 2016).
Figure 4 is the original image of clouds that was uploaded and put through the DDG process to create the outcome, Figure 5. There is a clear resemblance between figure 4 and 5 but what emerges from the latter are complex morphed shapes, which can be interpreted in any number of ways. The DDG website describes what it provides as “Human, AI collaboration” (Deep Dream Generator, no date). However, the collaboration appears one-sided and separated, as the user provides the input and the DDG generates the output. As well as the collaboration involved in the design process of creating Figure 5, another form of collaboration happens in the mental process of viewing the output. Googles’ DDG “creates just enough of a sparrow’s head in a cloud, so that our brains find the rest” (Rayner, A. 2016). In this instance, both the human and AI attempt to find meaning in the abstract shapes, “perfectly mirroring each other” (Rayner, A. 2016); the intersect happens when both minds see the same object. It is this mental collaboration of human and AI minds finding the same meaning in abstract shapes, that truly creates everything the viewer sees in Figure 5.
 
Technology changing from tool to collaborator is a shift in the core role of the graphic designer. According to ‘Meggs’ History of Graphic Design’ the role is defined as “…to give order to information and form to ideas and expression.” (Meggs and Purvis, 2016, p.621). The ideas and expressions which Meggs writes about are reflections of the designers’ personalities, intentions and choices (Goti, K. 2018, p.115). Technology and in particular AI expanding from passive tool to active collaborator adds another participant to the design process, with its own intentions, choices and ideas. Therefore, the introduction of AI into the design process creates dual decision-makers, structurally changing the process and thus the role of the human graphic designer. This is demonstrated in Figure 5, which was generated, based on the AI’s thought process. This type of collaboration is yet to effect graphic designers process, outcomes and role. Due to Google’s DDG currently being in the early stages of development, explaining why it has minimal usage, similar to most AI design tools in existence.
 
Despite the current lack of AI usage, there is potential for collaboration in graphic design. “…The synergy between human intuition and computational power” could lead to a “two-way, cyber-physical learning process (that) promises an enhancement of human creativity.” (Goti, K. 2018, p.115). The DDG gives us a glimpse of this, creating work that would have previously been impossible, similar to earlier digital technologies that enhanced humans creative capabilities. However, what Goti writes about, using AI to create a two-way learning process that enhances human creativity, is not possible with current AI technology. Despite Goti’s speculative look at creativity, the thinking falls short as it does not consider the potential for post-human creativity. Haakon Faste writes that people need to “…transcend the limitations of human-centred design…” (Lusch, P. 2017, p.136) and see a potential for design which does not rely on the limited creative thinking capabilities of humans. The possibilities and accessibility of human-AI collaboration are relatively basic at the moment, but will only improve with time as technology advances. Perhaps collaboration in the near future will improve human creativity, but imaginably, basing a framework for AI collaboration on human designers may be detrimental to the AI, due to the limited creative abilities of humans.
 
The potential for graphic design automation
One step further than collaboration is automation, and if AI can currently collaborate in the design process then it is feasible that AI could soon be able to automate graphic designers roles. The 2017 study by Frey and Osborne on the future of automation on employment in America created a lot of headlines when it estimated that 47% of the US workforce was at risk of automation in the next 10 to 20 years (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.1). The study used data from 702 occupations and calculated the estimated probability of computerisation in the near future (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.1). The study writes that technology could previously only automate routine manual tasks, but due to AI and machine learning, technology has become able to automate non-routine cognitive tasks (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.16). Graphic design is a non-routine cognitive task, but according to the study, it was estimated as having less than a 1% chance of being automated (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.60). This is because graphic design combines a number of different tasks; perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence. Promisingly for graphic designers, all these tasks were counted as unsusceptible to automation in the study (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.24). Furthermore, Frey and Osborne hypothesise that it seems unlikely occupations requiring a “…high degree of creative intelligence will be automated in the next decades.” (Frey, C. and Osborne, M. 2017, p.26). This appears favourable for graphic designers fearing automation, however, the Frey and Osborne paper cannot be taken as a perfect prediction. This is due to the subjective nature of the hand-labelling used to estimate whether occupations are fully automatable (Coelli, M.B. and Borland, J., 2019, p .23). Moreover, the current speed at which technology advances makes predictions about automation difficult, according to Moore’s Law, computing power doubles every two years (Moore, G.E., 1965. p.1). This trend has been proven correct thus far, meaning that computing power and AI will increase its abilities exponentially. Therefore the ability to automate graphic design could arise sooner than Frey and Osborne predicted.
 
Another issue with Frey and Osborne’s paper is that “it puts too much emphasis on the extent to which technology on its own determines the development of our political and social realities.” (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). There are many factors affecting job automation and the role of graphic designer which are not technological, that this study overlooks. The future of the graphic design profession is unclear, Frey and Osborne’s study view graphic design as not at risk of computerisation, however, the speed of the growth of technology contradicts this claim.
 
The effects of AI automating design
The idea that a graphic designer does not need to be human is already being tested. An example is GAUDII, which is an “Intelligent Automated Graphic Design Generator” (Morcillo et al. 2010). GAUDII is an Artificial Intelligence that is able to detect elements and create single page layouts based on template inputs. Figure 5 showcases GAUDII’s capabilities, in the most left image the coloured lines represent the detected alignment groups. The centre image shows what sections GAUDII has indicated are of higher importance and on the right-hand image, the lines show the segmentation of the design into text and graphic regions (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.5).  
Figure 6 shows how GAUDII breaks down the design process into computable steps, something that also happened in the 1980s, when creativity became code, laying the foundations for the design process to be automated by AI’s such as GAUDII. Automating the creative process supports a computationalist ideology, which David Golumbia defines as “The idea that the entirety of “human and social experience can be explained via computational processes” (Golumbia, 2009, p.8). John Maeda would resist this ideology as he believes that “design is intuition, not intelligence”(Maeda, 2001, p.13), therefore creativity is something human and cannot ever be recreated in by AI. Furthermore, the computationalist perspective is highly reductive of human thought and creativity, which is problematic, especially if this viewpoint is held by large corporations who control AI technology and thereby influence society. This ideology which ignores individuality and dehumanises the population is a symptom of capitalism (Zhang, 2004, p.43). Zhang argues that it is in the interests of capitalism to ignore individuality and see populations as homogenous (Zhang, 2004, p.43). The notion of an AI attempting to replicate human creativity transmits these computationalist values, which will only become amplified as AI grows in use and effectiveness in the graphic design field.
 
One such company which supports the computationalist view is The Grid, which provides an AI designed website building service. The Grid personifies its AI web designer, ‘Molly’ who they describe as young and learning, but who has “…already designed hundreds of thousands of web pages” (Kaiser, 2019). The personification of an Artificial Intelligence suggests The Grid is aware that many people are mistrustful of AI and automation, therefore, in order to quell these fears, the AI designer is veiled behind a human name. The Grid describes Molly further, by writing that “She’s quirky, but will never ghost you, never charge more, never miss a deadline, never cower to your demands for a bigger logo.”(Kaiser, 2019). The description of Molly characterises ‘her’ as a flawless designer, who has a human personality and creative abilities. Yet, is void of all the unproductive traits of human designers, which have instead been replaced with subservience and machine-like accuracy and efficiency. The Grids’ description of Molly suggests that Artificial Intelligence is comparable to human creativity and intelligence. Also that Molly’s abilities are equal or better than that of a professional website designer (Kaiser, 2019). Putting human and AI designers on an equal syntactical level has insidious connotations for the future automation of professional graphic designers. AI designers however are not better than professional designers, as GAUDII demonstrates with Figure 7, in which designs are generated in a variety of styles based on the parameters which are learned from example layouts (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.9). Figure 7 shows that GAUDII is only able to automate the design process at a low-skilled level.
The layouts in Figure 7 break many basic design rules, such as the non-sensical use of different alignments, the use of more than three different fonts and weights and the rejection of the top left to bottom right, reading direction. The layouts do follow a basic visual hierarchy and achieve the bare minimum of being understandable but are far from being effective pieces of communication, or visually interesting. The results produced in Figure 6 are as good as those produced by the average human in the GAUDII researchers crowdsourced study, though not at the level of a professional designer (O’Donovan et al. 2014, p.1). At this moment in time, neither GAUDII nor any AI designer can automate the role of a professional graphic designer, only the average human. But simply by attempting to recreate human creativity, these AI’s express the computationalist ideology.
 
Chapter summary:
Artificial intelligence presents new challenges and opportunities for graphic design, even though it’s impact has not been felt yet. The potential for collaboration or automation, could either enhance human creativity or make the professional designer obsolete.
Conclusion:
 
The profession of graphic design is almost unrecognisable today, compared to its pre-digital state: the process, outcomes and role have all transformed completely due to digital technology. This dissertation began by exploring the dawn of the digital revolution, from 1984 until the 2000s. In this time period, designers such as April Greimann utilised the new capabilities of the Macintosh and digital design software to automate certain professions and create new aesthetic outcomes. The introduction of coding and the potential of interactive design expanded graphic designers’ mental processes and digital outcomes. At the same time, the dawn of the information age created a need for a simplified design process, which software defaults helped to achieve. Technology continued to influence graphic designers from the 2000s onwards, firstly by graphic designers utilising code to take control of their means of production with tools such as Processing. Technology also extended and outsourced physical and mental crafts to digital sources. This outsourcing, as well as increased accessibility, helped to democratise graphic design. More recently, advancements in technology such as Googles’ DDG have meant that humans can collaborate with AI in the design process. On a macro scale, Frey and Osborne’s study puts graphic design at low risk of being automated. However, AI’s such as GAUDII can currently automate the role of graphic designer at a low-skilled level.
 
Speculation
Understanding the past and present position of graphic design in relation to technology provides the groundwork to speculate on the potential future. Graphic design is intrinsically linked with consumerism and capitalism and ever since the release of the Macintosh, digital technology has automated more of the process and become an intrinsic part of the practice. Free-market capitalism has undoubtedly created competition within the practice and thus encouraged technological progress and more automated processes. This has allowed graphic designers outcomes to be further reaching and the process easier and faster. However, these technological advances lead one to question, after all this progress, are graphic designers better off? The answer is no. This is because capitalism promotes growth and efficiency as paramount over everything else, but overlooks the human price of automation and growth (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). History remembers the industrial revolution as a time of great growth, which is true if growth is measured by efficiency or capital (Schwartz, 2019, p.67). Although, according to Freidrich Engels, a developer of Marxist theories, the wages and living conditions of the working classes dropped during this period of upheaval (Engels, F., 1993., p.33). This decline in working class living conditions is comparable to the present, as the fourth industrial revolution has already started according to some experts (Schwab, K, 2016). The increasing inequality and lowering of wages and life quality will only happen on a larger scale now, as the world is much more interconnected and technologically dependant (Yadron, D. 2016). Frey and Osborne argue that “The balance between job conservation and technological progress… reflects the balance of power in society” (Frey and Osborne, 2017, p.6). This means that as long as there is inequality, which is a key component of capitalism, technological progress will be valued more than job conservation. Also, as automation increases, inequality will follow. The profession of graphic design is not exempt from the consequences of automation or inequality, even though Frey and Osborne’s study put them at low risk of automation. Instead, graphic designers stand in a position similar to the arts and crafts movement during the industrial revolution. This movement attempted to fight technological progress and the systems of power by rejecting technology but was ineffective. Processing, however, exemplifies how technology must be utilised to fight systems of power, and remain autonomous. A robot is after our jobs, reacting with technology and designing the future is the only way to deal with it. Graphic designers must reposition themselves at the forefront of digital technology, in order to control their means of production. Graphic designers must also innovate and demonstrate why human creativity cannot be commodified or automated and celebrate what is invaluable, humanity. 
 

There are many other valid reasons to be grateful that technology has been able to extend human creativity and human creativity, but Ludwig van Beethovens essay Human and AI features an appropriately modern perspective. The essay, which focused on technological innovations and the role of humans in creating new forms of social and political power, states that …definitions of technology and automation generally refer to weaving, carving or pottery, folk-art activities that involve doing or making things with your hands… (Lusch, P. 2017, p.136). This is unlike physical methods where a tool is truly a tool, and every element is a design decision (Lusch, P. 2017, p.136). Therefore, the essay is not purely an indictment of digital technology but is also a reminder that human creativity and human intelligence are fundamentally different from each other. The essay manages to be optimistic, because it believes that technology canationably predict and empower individuals

I am a freelance graphic and motion designer based in Berlin.
I enjoy creating visual worlds, and telling a story through design.
I want to use design for good :)
If you would like to work together then please get in touch!

@noahsilver.work

nsilverdesign@gmail.com

Noah Silver

NOAH SILVER

I am a freelance graphic and motion designer based in Berlin.
I enjoy creating visual worlds, and telling a story through design.
I want to use design for good :)
If you would like to work together then please get in touch!

@noahsilver.work

nsilverdesign@gmail.com

Noah Silver

NOAH SILVER