Why does the world of animation, particularly at events like the SIGGRAPH Electronic Theater, continue to suffer from mediocrity? I can't help but feel enraged by the sheer lack of innovation and the repetitive nature of the projects being showcased. On April 17th, we’re promised a “free screening” of selected projects that are supposedly representing the pinnacle of creativity and diversity in animation. But let’s get real — what does “selection” even mean in a world where creativity is stifled by conformity? Look, I understand that this is a global showcase, but when you sift through the projects that make it through the cracks, what do we find? Overly polished but uninspired animations that follow the same tired formulas. The “Electronic Theater” is supposed to be a beacon of innovation, yet here we are again, being fed a bland compilation that does little to challenge or excite. It’s like being served a fast-food version of art: quick, easy, and utterly forgettable. The call for diversity is also a double-edged sword. Sure, we need to see work from all corners of the globe, but diversity in animation is meaningless if the underlying concepts are stale. It’s not enough to tick boxes and say, “Look how diverse we are!” when the actual content fails to push boundaries. Instead of celebrating real creativity, we end up with a homogenized collection of animations that are, at best, mediocre. And let’s talk about the timing of this event. April 17th? Are we really thinking this through? This date seems to be plucked out of thin air without consideration for the audience’s engagement. Just another poorly planned initiative that assumes people will flock to see what is essentially a second-rate collection of animations. Is this really the best you can do, Montpellier ACM SIGGRAPH? Where is the excitement? Where is the passion? What’s even more frustrating is that this could have been an opportunity to truly showcase groundbreaking work that challenges the status quo. Instead, it feels like a desperate attempt to fill seats and pat ourselves on the back for hosting an event. Real creators are out there, creating phenomenal work that could change the landscape of animation, yet we choose to showcase the safe and the bland. It’s time to demand more from events like SIGGRAPH. It’s time to stop settling for mediocrity and start championing real innovation in animation. If the Electronic Theater is going to stand for anything, it should stand for pushing boundaries, not simply checking boxes. Let’s not allow ourselves to be content with what we’re served. It’s time for a revolution in animation that doesn’t just showcase the same old, same old. We deserve better, and the art community deserves better. #AnimationRevolution #SIGGRAPH2024 #CreativityMatters #DiversityInAnimation #ChallengeTheNorm

Shutterstock’s so-called ‘safe’ rebrand is nothing but a bland attempt to mask the mediocrity that has been plaguing this company for years. Let’s get one thing straight: unpretentious design is not an excuse for a lack of creativity or vision. This rebranding is mundane to the core, and it perfectly encapsulates how far Shutterstock has fallen behind in a world that thrives on innovation and boldness. How can a company that claims to be a leader in the stock photo industry settle for such a lukewarm identity? This is an insult to the very essence of what creative work should represent. The design doesn’t push boundaries; it tiptoes around them, playing it safe in a world where being bold and daring is what gets attention. It’s infuriating to see a platform that should inspire creativity instead opting for a design that is as forgettable as yesterday’s news. When I look at Shutterstock’s new branding, I see a desperate attempt to blend in rather than stand out. The phrase “serves its purpose” is the biggest red flag. What purpose, exactly? To ensure that no one remembers you? To create a forgettable experience for users who are looking for inspiration? This ‘safe’ rebrand is a half-hearted effort that screams mediocrity and a complete lack of ambition. Moreover, the design community has consistently challenged brands to think outside the box and create something that resonates with their audience. But what does Shutterstock do? It plays it safe, hiding behind the label of ‘unpretentious’ while failing to evoke any sort of emotional response. This is not just a failure of design; it’s a failure of leadership. There’s a glaring lack of vision in a world that craves authenticity and originality. Let’s talk about the missed opportunities here. Shutterstock had the chance to redefine itself, to shake things up and create a memorable identity that would resonate with both creators and consumers. Instead, it chose to play it safe, resulting in a brand that feels outdated and uninspired. This decision not only reflects poorly on Shutterstock but also sends a troubling message to the entire industry: that it’s okay to settle for mediocrity as long as it serves a purpose. To the leaders at Shutterstock, I urge you to take a long, hard look at what you’ve done. This rebrand is not just mundane; it’s a disservice to the creative community you claim to support. It’s time to stop playing it safe and start taking risks that could potentially elevate your brand to new heights. Remember, in the world of creativity, blending in is the fastest way to fade away. #Shutterstock #Rebrand #DesignCritique #Mediocrity #CreativityMatters