Therefore, less sweeping generalisations and more specific analysis would be useful. For example, I have have a bit of a problem with the use of the author’s.

Therefore, less sweeping generalisations and more specific analysis would be useful. For example, I have have a bit of a problem with the use of the author’s. ’we’ «Instead of deep processes of discovery, we make minimalistic versions of movie posters» Well, i don’t do that. I can’t identify with this image of the designer, even if I know it works for some people as I see these blogs too. Look at http://www.manystuff.org/ http://www.manystuff.org/ and http://dribbble.com/ http://dribbble.com/ Both sites targeted to designers, but obviously not to the same people. «I am worried that designers as a group are starting to have the wrong conversations with form.» Designers as a group don‘t exist. So which kind designers are having what kind of relationship with form? That we are surrounded by images made by other people shouldn’t necessary be a problem: we learn through imitation. So what is different this time around?