As we all get the inevitable push notices from algorithms buried in various shopping or search engine sites you have to admit, it does get a bit annoying. Being asked every week by a software programme to allow an update to it. Being cajoled by software on LinkedIn…you have so many people who have moved jobs. You have so many who want to link up. I was asked the other day if I knew my wife. It didn’t say it in those terms because it used her first and surname.

The programmes and the search engines do stupefy the brain and somewhat constrain creativity. There will always, of course, be somebody like David Hockney who throws that idea of technology not aiding creativity. Adobe has made a multi-billion dollar out of selling subscription suites of programmes to facilitate commercial artistry.

So, having said that ‘digital is a bit AI…a bit inhuman I think we can see that industrializing art has always been in the background of anything with a process. Lithographic prints or limited edition lithographs signed by the artist are like Chagall say or Miro makes the art accessible and also turn over a handy bit of coin. Technology which is linked to mass production like 3D printing or special limited edition digital prints is important.
You can see say a well-known pop singer like Mick Jagger trying his hand at some art and hey presto the limited edition lithographic of 250 are being packaged and sold for £5000 each. Of course, the syndicated distribution allows the masterpiece to be displayed in many parts of the world.

I was listening to a programme called the $1 billion art theft. In it they suggest that one particular artist was always being stolen. All the works stolen were unique, but the Vermeer painting was $400mn of the $1billion. The man at the FBI who was handling the potential reward said that they would pay $10mn for the return and they would grant immunity from prosecution for the men who had stolen the pictures. The uniqueness of the items meant that exceptionally the thieves had them over a barrel.

In other words, when push came to shove the more unique/individual the piece the more it was worth.

Of course, valuing everything by monetary means isn’t always best either.


I do believe that a more handmade human/tailormade/bespoke solution does stand out today in a world assailed with TEAMS/SKYPE.

Facebook, Twitter, Google have recently been put in front of the congressional watchdog on censorship. These large organisations exist on some platform of FREE SPEECH. Yet they also allow sometimes racist, terrorist, abusive, illegal sexual materials. The very volume they handle means the tens of thousands that work within these organisations are given certain guidance. Humans make mistakes. Humans are clever because by removing one letter in a word they retain the meaning but bypass the machine stopping the words.

Corporatism can encourage a certain ‘greyness’. It can also mean that much copying goes on and you have a ‘follow my leader’ sort of mentality. The need for digital content can remove the need for thinking. Then again even the tabloid papers of old had certain ‘winning stories’ which kept being rolled out. Anything from lurid crime to royal babies etc.

In business the ‘CONTENT’ and the writing and the explanation of what you hope to convey are critical. Grabbing the audience with something that looks well thought out and isn’t just the same ‘digital footprint’ is important. To get this going and accepted in an organisation you need to look at the culture of CREATIVITY and FREE SPEECH within the bounds of social reason. The blurring today of HOMELIFE with WORK-LIFE is more in focus.

So I leave you people who read this with a dilemma.
‘How do we capitalise on technology and still keep human identity and individuality and thereby get the best of both worlds?

David Jackson
Group Creative Director