The Frankenstein of creativity: when too much feedback distorts the original design
Share
All of us who dedicate ourselves to something related to creativity have, had or will have a Frankenstein. But what am I referring to? What is a Frankenstein in creativity? Let’s see if this story rings a bell…
You have your finished design, call it X: website, creativity, banner, etc. You have spent hours pixel-perfect to finish and perfect your creation. And you are happy. Satisfied.
It is then that your “baby” is ready to go out into the outside world, to pass the long chain of internal validations before seeing the light of day. You present your work and submit it to collective feedback. And that’s when you start juggling to fit in all those opinions, which you don’t share, but must integrate.
Some of this feedback is valuable and necessary, and more importantly, easy to align with the rest of the creative variables without diluting the essence of the project. But there are other alterations that, either by themselves or juxtaposed with the rest of the suggestions made by other people, end up modifying the general meaning of the work, distorting it and detracting from its unity. Opinions that translate into nuances that make your creation not your creation. And even less so, a coherent product.
You don’t really know what happened. Your design is a patchwork of opinions that you are no longer able to recognize and even less able to defend. Any resemblance to the original is purely coincidental. You don’t understand how it could have happened, but your e-commerce is like that plaster cast that everyone signs when a friend breaks their arm. You won’t be able to work out why, but your website, which looked immaculate in phase 1, now has the cleanliness of a slot machine interface because nobody wanted to understand the simple rule that when you try to make everything stand out, nothing really stands out.
The worst thing of all is the lack of coherence. One day they ask you the reason for this or that related thing and you don’t know what to say. You have limited yourself to fitting in as best you could the unconnected opinions of those who were entitled to give an opinion, readjusting your work countless times so that it would not lose its meaning, but now very far from your original creative idea. With a weak voice you become the spokesperson for all the opinion leaders whose suggestions crystallized in your work but you are not capable of bringing that debate to a successful conclusion because you are not them, nor were you so convinced of integrating that opinion. What you really want to say is: I don’t know, I didn’t agree with that either, ask Alberto, it’s his thing.
Once again, when feedback is applied correctly, it is a powerful tool that provides the necessary perspective and objectivity in any communication project and seamlessly integrates valuable inputs from different areas of knowledge. But to prevent it from becoming an executioner, it is advisable to follow some rules; restricting technical feedback to experts, ensuring the unity of the work or embracing hierarchy as a compass to filter content while accepting the space limitations of the design are just a few of them.
Thus, Frankenstein is evidence of how necessary a robust and centralized creative direction is in any artistic field in order to produce coherent and unified pieces. Frankenstein is an example of how dangerous it is to forcibly integrate heterogeneous visions from around the world into the same creative piece, resulting in a project that is a melting pot of opinions without identity, unity or meaning.
