I don't agree with others here. Imogen is very sophisticated in her thinking. I was very impressed with how she dealt with the complex topic of the creative process and was able to draw out comments from these experienced designers about how they think and respond to design problems. What works or doesn't work and why. Its rare to get such a grounded discussion like this. Their connection to physical expression in the design process was really interesting particularly in the context of AI design. She makes it look easy but it really isn't. As an artist I found it very valuable but she made a discussion that almost anyone could get something out of.
Hey car designers! In the US, we need: 1. A small, basic, reliable, affordable, EV pickup! Make it a half ton that can carry 4x8 wallboard or plywood! 2. Next, design us a small, basic, reliable, affordable, hatchback. Give both of these vehicles a $25,000 price tag and a 250 mile range.
Why don't you guys like Vans? Single cab so much more room for storage, with enclosed large storage area. Pickups don't seem to make sense to Europeans.
2. The Chevy Equinox EV is a small hatchback SUV with a 300 mile range and is $25,000 or less after incentives in most USA states and is $27,000 even with the Federal incentive only and no local incentives
Cars are designed and built for new car buyers, not for the general public. 'Affordable' equates to 'unprofitable' to manufacturers. New car buyers, i.e. those people that actually buy new cars rather than those who just dream about it, don't want 'a small, basic, reliable, affordable, hatchback' or 'a small, basic, reliable, affordable, pickup'. When manufacturers do bring out 'small, basic, reliable, affordable' anything they don't sell well and don't make any profit, because they are poor quality, poor value and poor performance. It makes much more sense for these customers to buy vehicles a few years old, even though they haven't been specifically designed to meet their needs.
@@Lewis_Standing I LOVE a minivan, but most American men (and women) associate them with "soccer moms" and refuse to buy them. So now the soccer moms all drive gigantic impractical SUVs and crew cab trucks. It's ridiculous.
Imogen is exposing herself in lieu of the questioner:.. who takes having a decisive taste for all it takes to create something original. I consider it a basic journalistc technique. But I thank her for going all in without any vain self-regard in this case, in favour of this journalistic techniques full potential.
@@LarryRPark Admittedly her image prompts could have been less strikingly illustrative for the shortcomings of AI "design" but they serve the purpose of working them out very well, I think, since this is not directed to viewers who are experienced with creative processes first hand. Or were they not "strikingly illustrative" enough for anyone, you think ?
Ian's last comment appears to hit the nail on the head for me. Bosses saying yeah that's good enough. With other goals in management, cars put forward might not have the character and quality of design that Ian's history demonstrates. Id be interested to hear from him more why a car's 'design' doesn't work for him. I do see plenty of 'new' cars with hints that they are a conglomerate of other cars rather than a new design. I have this issue with how Ineos's offroader looks from different angles.
This is like battle of opposites; Imogen is eloquent in her speech and not so strong visually, or she may just be trying to wind up the designers to get answers. The designers aren't explaining their dislike of the renderings in a deep sense orally but are able to produce good visual results despite this.
Ian Callum is without doubt one of the worlds best car designers. I would love to see him critique some of history’s more controversial car designs, such as the Bristol Fighter or the Jenson SV8. And even to review more mundane vehicles such as the Austin Maestro and tell us what he thinks is intrinsically wrong with the design, or how it could have been improved. Book please Ian.
Great job Imogen, well done on getting those answers out of Ian and Alec. Not easy. I'm in the US at the moment and saw one of your designs on the road, or more accurately, a design where someone said, that'll do. The last model Nissan NV, which looks more like a duckbilled platypus.😮
Those two guys were really struggling to be diplomatic about those three images; suppressing their instincts to say, 'Yuk! No! Go away!'. It was hilarious to watch and hear. Thanks for the discussion, Imogen, Ian and Alec. AI has no thinking ability, in the human sense; it has no emotion. It's essentially a collection of computers, or parts of a supercomputer, making extended use of whatever was programmed into it. An algorithm, or synthetic neural network, doesn't have that essential spirit which can create something of beauty which stirs people in positive ways. And it never will have those emotional and spiritual qualities, for as long as it is a human creation. To put it another way; no computer or organism has the capacity to understand itself. It has been said that, if a scientist could spend all of their life studying it, they might just be able to understand the brain of a frog. But he or she doesn't really know what causes life itself. So people can understand how to make computers and to put them together in such ways that we have the machines of today and the near future, but we can never create an entity which is greater than us.
Awesome interview, great to hear from one of the best automotive designers out there Ian Callum . I can see AI as a help for quick concepts but then we still need human touch to make cars that people love
AI can only copy or imitate: it is just reorganizing the past. It cannot innovate or create. What creative people connect to is human experience--what you call soul. The deception of IA is it creates an image of a higher quality that unskilled people can make, creating the illusion of skill and originality. I want to live in a world where skill and creativity is recognized as something that is valuable because it is rare and takes effort to nurture.
Thanks for the analysis! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
@6:30 they both thought immediately of the Z3 Coupe, aka the Clown Shoe BMW. That universally panned car suffered from afterthought design, having engineers graft on a flying brake design well after the Z3 was finished and on the market. Thus the shoe comment, and Ian saying that has happened before IRL.
It is somewhat of a problem to have live interviews with product designers. During the interview we don't get to see un-inspiring products they started with and see how they made them better thru design techniques. We don't get to see a portfolio of great designs they have done. We see, instead, a couple of guys complaining about some drawing and saying "they don't work", and making extremely vague comments about their process. The overall effect is un-satisfying.
I think you'd be interested in the famous car designer Frank Stephesons' UA-cam channel, where he talks through design changes he would make to a handful of recent cars and rendering them.
Very brave to broach the subject of AI with car designers - I think Imogen did a great job to keep them in the room 😂 Whatever anyone thinks of AI, or this interview, there's nothing wrong with having a conversation and doing something different on the channel.
I enjoyed that, that was a very interesting, thought provoking and well considered episode. I may be a little biased however coming from a design background myself. I chuckled when Imogen said “gentle brutality” to describe the criticism she received. The criticism of Imogen’s designs was interesting as I saw it both from the extremely relevant and skilled background of the designers, but also from her more free thinking perspective, unencumbered by the constraints of traditional design training. Whilst her designs clearly needed refinement in order to be properly critiqued, I thought it interesting how they were shot down (politely), when you have some pretty awful cars on the road such as the Fiat Multipla and the Citroën Xsara Picasso as a couple of examples. Neither of which have much appeal or design flair.
Very interesting. Let’s hope AI is kept as a tool but like Aleck I worry about younger generations using it too much as they seem to find easier to use shortcuts than putting the actual work.
SOUL . . . something AI will never but NEVER intrinsically have on board - it is pure one's and zero's devoid of emotion. We on the other hand CAN respond to emotion. I love the way Ian Callum and Alek Jones showed such polite restraint in their reactions to the dog breakfasts presented to them at the beginning of the video. As Mister Callum who created masterpieces at Aston Martin and the I-Pace at Jaguar so rightly points out, AI is simply a tool just as paint brushes are. But to USE brushes in artful, creative and useful ways takes deep talent. AI can help in the details and calculations needed in design but it can't create beauty on its own. Never will.
This conversation seems to miss the core tension between form and function in combination with design intention and inspiration, the latter of which is well covered. This within the context of generative AI based on new complex additive manufacturing and related engineering that open completely new design doors. A huge aspect of modern design and design iteration was completely missed in this conversation imho.
Completely incorrect. People do care, and even you care, even if you are not aware of it. The myth of completely functional design is just that... a myth. The reality is that having public transportation have elements of beauty to them absolutely has a direct impact on people's enjoyment of it, appreciation for it, and willingness to use it. And visa versa, we hear all the time about trad, depressing, or sterile public spaces like hospitals, subways, public buildings, schools, cafeterias, etc. These negative qualities have a direct impact on public perception of these public facing services, and thier experiences when they have to use them.
The real question is why do EVs still bother with a bonnet / hood? ICE vehicles had to have a big protrusion at the front, as you needed somewhere to put that big bulky engine. But many EVs now do things like placing the electric motors at the wheels - and if you open the bonnet / hood, it's just a "frunk" (front trunk) underneath. There's nothing there. Yet this ICE design language still remains with EVs that don't actually need it. They could all look like the front of a VW camper van or a big lorry and just have no "forward protrusion" at all (in the case of those vehicles, the engine is underneath, rather than out in front).
Fascinating episode , well done Imogen! There is no doubt in my mind that EV’s are in danger of being just batteries and software on wheels where the tech defines the product instead of a balance between form, emotion and useful tech. I think that car design in general is becoming more functional and therefore , dare I say boring. The Jaguar I Pace would be my go to EV, which is now becoming affordable for me and hopefully gives a better explanation of what I am trying to say. In my opinion Jaguar had the perfect design to work with to improve its efficiency and extend range maybe with AI tools . It would be fascinating to see how that would be interpreted now by Ian Callum and his team .
Tiresomely irrelevant. Most car journeys are short or very short. And in cities, aero less relevant than practicality. The need to reduce energy demand is becoming more and more pressing. Cities are becoming redesigned for liveable density and efficiency, where cars are being squeezed out in favour of cleaner quieter spaces. So cars will become smaller and more functional, as well as autonomous, or a shared resource where it makes no sense to own, maintain and store an expensive personal vehicle. For longer trips or with more than two passengers, form will still follow function but only the wealthy will still keep their own vehicle rather than rent by the hour or mile. Just my humble opinion, happy to be corrected.
I feel bad for Imogen, her Photoshop skills aside, she always took the most contrary products and tried to stitch them together...❤❤ And for that the results are quite ok. I like that approach, but it's clearly not how these guys work😮😅😊
This interview kinda exposes why legacy auto, even at the high luxury level, is so disconnected from the public and completely unable to communicate their vision or design values and mission. Very sad indeed to see the state of manufacturing in the west!
Imogen, this video clearly reached the wrong audience. I've just started watching, but watching them point out the issues with AI renders was validating for a non artist outsider who isn't in love with AI "art" (I hate it). Even your odd Photoshop "concept" had more soul than the first AI try. It also gave them more to bite into and explain. Finally, it seems what you actually want is a Porsche Cayenne.
Even the original DS lost a lot of its excellent design/styling when it was bodged into the the more practical DS Safari. Again afterthought engineering fails the design. Not sure when Imogen thought that car design was about marrying your favorite disparate design elements. Perhaps it's because she's using engineering process (combine prior art) to mimic actual design. This is why geeks are excited about AI art and everyone else is horrified by it.
Honestly, I don’t understand the point of what you did here. Basically “hello Mr. Professional car designer, what you think of this steaming pile of frankenstinian crap I put together” “well, that’s pretty bad” “oh ok” wtf
"....mmmmmm not the best interview.....creatively boring!!......what does it have to do with the Fully Charged Show!!.....stick to what the channel ideas were originally....sorry!!
It's certainly not Imogen's fault! She created some challenging art prompts that *should* have yielded some interesting discussion on what makes a good design, or ideas on how to make the designs better. Instead, they sat back and pompously declared that "it doesn't work".
Very interesting. Let’s hope AI is kept as a tool but like Aleck I worry about younger generations using it too much as they seem to find easier to use shortcuts than putting the actual work.
I don't agree with others here. Imogen is very sophisticated in her thinking. I was very impressed with how she dealt with the complex topic of the creative process and was able to draw out comments from these experienced designers about how they think and respond to design problems. What works or doesn't work and why. Its rare to get such a grounded discussion like this. Their connection to physical expression in the design process was really interesting particularly in the context of AI design. She makes it look easy but it really isn't. As an artist I found it very valuable but she made a discussion that almost anyone could get something out of.
Hey car designers! In the US, we need:
1. A small, basic, reliable, affordable, EV pickup! Make it a half ton that can carry 4x8 wallboard or plywood!
2. Next, design us a small, basic, reliable, affordable, hatchback.
Give both of these vehicles a $25,000 price tag and a 250 mile range.
Why don't you guys like Vans? Single cab so much more room for storage, with enclosed large storage area.
Pickups don't seem to make sense to Europeans.
2. The Chevy Equinox EV is a small hatchback SUV with a 300 mile range and is $25,000 or less after incentives in most USA states and is $27,000 even with the Federal incentive only and no local incentives
Cars are designed and built for new car buyers, not for the general public. 'Affordable' equates to 'unprofitable' to manufacturers. New car buyers, i.e. those people that actually buy new cars rather than those who just dream about it, don't want 'a small, basic, reliable, affordable, hatchback' or 'a small, basic, reliable, affordable, pickup'.
When manufacturers do bring out 'small, basic, reliable, affordable' anything they don't sell well and don't make any profit, because they are poor quality, poor value and poor performance. It makes much more sense for these customers to buy vehicles a few years old, even though they haven't been specifically designed to meet their needs.
@@Lewis_Standing I LOVE a minivan, but most American men (and women) associate them with "soccer moms" and refuse to buy them. So now the soccer moms all drive gigantic impractical SUVs and crew cab trucks. It's ridiculous.
@@fatma-zohrazahaf126 Only in the US market would someone call a 6 foot tall vehicle small. 🤣
Nothing wrong with going off piste at the end of the year ..good fun good answers..
I stopped what I was doing and sat to watch and really listened to this. It was a thoughtful discussion on AI - great job Imogen.
Their politeness, tact and forbearance borders on the majestic 😎
Even AI wouldn't have come up with a design as the new Ford Capri, AI would have at least tried to take some elements from the old model to the new.
Imogen is exposing herself in lieu of the questioner:.. who takes having a decisive taste for all it takes to create something original.
I consider it a basic journalistc technique. But I thank her for going all in without any vain self-regard in this case, in favour of this journalistic techniques full potential.
If only the guests had matched her effort and actually addressed the image prompts...
@@LarryRPark Admittedly her image prompts could have been less strikingly illustrative for the shortcomings of AI "design" but they serve the purpose of working them out very well, I think, since this is not directed to viewers who are experienced with creative processes first hand. Or were they not "strikingly illustrative" enough for anyone, you think ?
Human creativity is inspiring.
Ian's last comment appears to hit the nail on the head for me. Bosses saying yeah that's good enough. With other goals in management, cars put forward might not have the character and quality of design that Ian's history demonstrates.
Id be interested to hear from him more why a car's 'design' doesn't work for him. I do see plenty of 'new' cars with hints that they are a conglomerate of other cars rather than a new design. I have this issue with how Ineos's offroader looks from different angles.
This is like battle of opposites;
Imogen is eloquent in her speech and not so strong visually, or she may just be trying to wind up the designers to get answers.
The designers aren't explaining their dislike of the renderings in a deep sense orally but are able to produce good visual results despite this.
Ian Callum is without doubt one of the worlds best car designers. I would love to see him critique some of history’s more controversial car designs, such as the Bristol Fighter or the Jenson SV8. And even to review more mundane vehicles such as the Austin Maestro and tell us what he thinks is intrinsically wrong with the design, or how it could have been improved. Book please Ian.
Photography and AI share the appeal of a tool that pretends to render a seriously original creative effort unnecessary.
Outstanding stuff. Thank you for this, such an interesting topic and such an interesting discussion.
Great job Imogen, well done on getting those answers out of Ian and Alec. Not easy.
I'm in the US at the moment and saw one of your designs on the road, or more accurately, a design where someone said, that'll do.
The last model Nissan NV, which looks more like a duckbilled platypus.😮
I have been enjoyed, again, so thank you for sharing.
2:53 to 3:30 - I have no idea about what you are saying here, and I guess the your interviewees were also in the dark about it. 🤷♂
Those two guys were really struggling to be diplomatic about those three images; suppressing their instincts to say, 'Yuk! No! Go away!'. It was hilarious to watch and hear. Thanks for the discussion, Imogen, Ian and Alec. AI has no thinking ability, in the human sense; it has no emotion. It's essentially a collection of computers, or parts of a supercomputer, making extended use of whatever was programmed into it. An algorithm, or synthetic neural network, doesn't have that essential spirit which can create something of beauty which stirs people in positive ways. And it never will have those emotional and spiritual qualities, for as long as it is a human creation.
To put it another way; no computer or organism has the capacity to understand itself. It has been said that, if a scientist could spend all of their life studying it, they might just be able to understand the brain of a frog. But he or she doesn't really know what causes life itself. So people can understand how to make computers and to put them together in such ways that we have the machines of today and the near future, but we can never create an entity which is greater than us.
I'm curious about the pictures that didn't get shown....
Awesome interview, great to hear from one of the best automotive designers out there Ian Callum .
I can see AI as a help for quick concepts but then we still need human touch to make cars that people love
I like your first design.
Maybe one of these guys can tell Ford what a Ford Capri should look like?
AI can only copy or imitate: it is just reorganizing the past. It cannot innovate or create. What creative people connect to is human experience--what you call soul. The deception of IA is it creates an image of a higher quality that unskilled people can make, creating the illusion of skill and originality. I want to live in a world where skill and creativity is recognized as something that is valuable because it is rare and takes effort to nurture.
Thanks for the analysis! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
There actually was a DS estate model, and the R5 hatch could have conceivably been blended into it
AI as it is constantly being called these days IS NOT true AI. It's simply machine learning.
@6:30 they both thought immediately of the Z3 Coupe, aka the Clown Shoe BMW. That universally panned car suffered from afterthought design, having engineers graft on a flying brake design well after the Z3 was finished and on the market. Thus the shoe comment, and Ian saying that has happened before IRL.
Thanks
It is somewhat of a problem to have live interviews with product designers. During the interview we don't get to see un-inspiring products they started with and see how they made them better thru design techniques. We don't get to see a portfolio of great designs they have done.
We see, instead, a couple of guys complaining about some drawing and saying "they don't work", and making extremely vague comments about their process. The overall effect is un-satisfying.
I think you'd be interested in the famous car designer Frank Stephesons' UA-cam channel, where he talks through design changes he would make to a handful of recent cars and rendering them.
An interesting set of designs that really got the conversation started and could bring in the idea of AI and design, well done!
Citroen DS and Ionic 6 melded together would have worked better
Very brave to broach the subject of AI with car designers - I think Imogen did a great job to keep them in the room 😂
Whatever anyone thinks of AI, or this interview, there's nothing wrong with having a conversation and doing something different on the channel.
I enjoyed that, that was a very interesting, thought provoking and well considered episode.
I may be a little biased however coming from a design background myself.
I chuckled when Imogen said “gentle brutality” to describe the criticism she received.
The criticism of Imogen’s designs was interesting as I saw it both from the extremely relevant and skilled background of the designers, but also from her more free thinking perspective, unencumbered by the constraints of traditional design training.
Whilst her designs clearly needed refinement in order to be properly critiqued, I thought it interesting how they were shot down (politely), when you have some pretty awful cars on the road such as the Fiat Multipla and the Citroën Xsara Picasso as a couple of examples. Neither of which have much appeal or design flair.
Might I suggestIan returns to jaGuar? I'd say his services are DESPERATELY needed!
I think Imogen must have worked on the Smart #1 design team. 😋
I think many of the Chinese cars look a bit...weird. It'd be great to hear a designer's opinion and suggestions on how to make them more palatable.
Very interesting. Let’s hope AI is kept as a tool but like Aleck I worry about younger generations using it too much as they seem to find easier to use shortcuts than putting the actual work.
SOUL . . . something AI will never but NEVER intrinsically have on board - it is pure one's and zero's devoid of emotion. We on the other hand CAN respond to emotion. I love the way Ian Callum and Alek Jones showed such polite restraint in their reactions to the dog breakfasts presented to them at the beginning of the video. As Mister Callum who created masterpieces at Aston Martin and the I-Pace at Jaguar so rightly points out, AI is simply a tool just as paint brushes are. But to USE brushes in artful, creative and useful ways takes deep talent. AI can help in the details and calculations needed in design but it can't create beauty on its own. Never will.
This conversation seems to miss the core tension between form and function in combination with design intention and inspiration, the latter of which is well covered. This within the context of generative AI based on new complex additive manufacturing and related engineering that open completely new design doors. A huge aspect of modern design and design iteration was completely missed in this conversation imho.
Nobody gives a damn what a taxi looks like. And autonomous transport will destroy over 80% of the car market in time.
🧂
Very true. Just a mode of transport not a fashion accessory.
Disagree, the London Taxi is iconic and is a shorthand for London itself
When will it arrive en masse though?
Not when Tesla/Musk says it will, would be my guess.
Completely incorrect. People do care, and even you care, even if you are not aware of it. The myth of completely functional design is just that... a myth. The reality is that having public transportation have elements of beauty to them absolutely has a direct impact on people's enjoyment of it, appreciation for it, and willingness to use it. And visa versa, we hear all the time about trad, depressing, or sterile public spaces like hospitals, subways, public buildings, schools, cafeterias, etc. These negative qualities have a direct impact on public perception of these public facing services, and thier experiences when they have to use them.
The real question is why do EVs still bother with a bonnet / hood?
ICE vehicles had to have a big protrusion at the front, as you needed somewhere to put that big bulky engine.
But many EVs now do things like placing the electric motors at the wheels - and if you open the bonnet / hood, it's just a "frunk" (front trunk) underneath. There's nothing there.
Yet this ICE design language still remains with EVs that don't actually need it.
They could all look like the front of a VW camper van or a big lorry and just have no "forward protrusion" at all (in the case of those vehicles, the engine is underneath, rather than out in front).
I suggest that you might have done better with your initial mash up sketches, a pencil, and a roll of tracing paper.... ?
If the senior designer would put all his knowledge into an AI programme would the younger designer use it?
Imogen's designs (in inverted commas!) remind me of the people who put Rolls Royce grills on beetles but I think at least they're trying to be funny!
I’m disappointed you didn’t ask his view of the Cybertruck and how that could have “escaped”. No form lines, no beauty or WOW factor.
Interesting but not sure how this relates to the channel
I love what Angela Collier (look her up), Ai doesn't exist
IT IS NOT Artificial intelligence
Fascinating episode , well done Imogen! There is no doubt in my mind that EV’s are in danger of being just batteries and software on wheels where the tech defines the product instead of a balance between form, emotion and useful tech. I think that car design in general is becoming more functional and therefore , dare I say boring. The Jaguar I Pace would be my go to EV, which is now becoming affordable for me and hopefully gives a better explanation of what I am trying to say. In my opinion Jaguar had the perfect design to work with to improve its efficiency and extend range maybe with AI tools . It would be fascinating to see how that would be interpreted now by Ian Callum and his team .
In the next episode car designers create a UA-cam influencer in AI with disastrous consequences.
Don’t forget that the combustion engine losses range over its life.
Ionic 6 is a real mis match, I'd like to know what ian Callum thinks of its design.
Tiresomely irrelevant. Most car journeys are short or very short. And in cities, aero less relevant than practicality. The need to reduce energy demand is becoming more and more pressing. Cities are becoming redesigned for liveable density and efficiency, where cars are being squeezed out in favour of cleaner quieter spaces. So cars will become smaller and more functional, as well as autonomous, or a shared resource where it makes no sense to own, maintain and store an expensive personal vehicle. For longer trips or with more than two passengers, form will still follow function but only the wealthy will still keep their own vehicle rather than rent by the hour or mile. Just my humble opinion, happy to be corrected.
I feel bad for Imogen, her Photoshop skills aside, she always took the most contrary products and tried to stitch them together...❤❤
And for that the results are quite ok.
I like that approach, but it's clearly not how these guys work😮😅😊
This interview kinda exposes why legacy auto, even at the high luxury level, is so disconnected from the public and completely unable to communicate their vision or design values and mission. Very sad indeed to see the state of manufacturing in the west!
Design is NOT subjective only objective. Fashion and style are ONLY subjective never objective.
Imogen, this video clearly reached the wrong audience. I've just started watching, but watching them point out the issues with AI renders was validating for a non artist outsider who isn't in love with AI "art" (I hate it). Even your odd Photoshop "concept" had more soul than the first AI try. It also gave them more to bite into and explain. Finally, it seems what you actually want is a Porsche Cayenne.
Why car reviewers shouldn't design cars and car designers not review cars (or people).
A for effort! I've seen worse real cars 🙂
Even the original DS lost a lot of its excellent design/styling when it was bodged into the the more practical DS Safari. Again afterthought engineering fails the design. Not sure when Imogen thought that car design was about marrying your favorite disparate design elements. Perhaps it's because she's using engineering process (combine prior art) to mimic actual design. This is why geeks are excited about AI art and everyone else is horrified by it.
Honestly, I don’t understand the point of what you did here. Basically “hello Mr. Professional car designer, what you think of this steaming pile of frankenstinian crap I put together” “well, that’s pretty bad” “oh ok” wtf
These men seem very staid, I guess i shouldnt be surprised they near bankrupted a company
Just dreadful LOL
nooooo they are not abominations, this was so cuteeee, its so nice that you try it hahaha
Design is NOT subjective, only objective. Fashion and style are ONLY subjective, never objective.
Not one of your best interviews.
Thanks for your input mate
"....mmmmmm not the best interview.....creatively boring!!......what does it have to do with the Fully Charged Show!!.....stick to what the channel ideas were originally....sorry!!
It's certainly not Imogen's fault! She created some challenging art prompts that *should* have yielded some interesting discussion on what makes a good design, or ideas on how to make the designs better. Instead, they sat back and pompously declared that "it doesn't work".
Personally I found this pretty boring.
We've seen this before
Very interesting. Let’s hope AI is kept as a tool but like Aleck I worry about younger generations using it too much as they seem to find easier to use shortcuts than putting the actual work.