Is "Newer" Always "Better"?

Several months ago I had the pleasure of having dinner with Chip Kidd, the celebrated book cover designer. Also there were my wife, several art students from the University of Michigan and a rather intoxicated Canadian gentleman. At one point, the conversation turned - as it inevitably does with designers - to which software was used to produce the work. The canuck was disheartened to hear that Kidd used Quark XPress instead of Adobe's InDesign to create the book covers.

"You really should use InDesign. It's got all these amazing features," said the Canadian, staring muzzily in Kidd's direction. Politely, Kidd explained that Quark was what his employer had and that it worked well for him. His position was remarkably similar to mine: I have something that works; it's effective and allows me the creativity to give the client exactly what they're looking for.

I consider myself an oddity in the design world. While I use and understand the technology, I'd prefer not to use it. I love the look and feel of type-set lettering; computer-set type always looks too sterile. I also believe that technology results in advertising losing individuality; everything has a slick homogeneous look to it. Years ago you could tell who designed the ad based on the look (type treatment; art style). Now, you need to study the ad to differentiate the milk ad from an ad for the GAP.

Yes, technology has allowed graphic designers to produce work faster and more efficiently, but it has come at a cost. There's no stylistic individuality in the work; everything has a sterile mass-produced feel. Very few designers have integrated the technological world of design while retaining the ability to creatively merge image and type.

Efficiently using the technological tools at your disposal is paramount in the field, but why should this come at the cost of individual creativity?