Rediscovering the heart, humanity, and intuition behind how great design was done and how could we claim that back.
I know, yet another take on all the takes already floating around (I’m talking about the conversation that started with that Fast Company article and the posts about “the death of design” — links at the end). There is even a website just to collect all of those hot takes. But I gotta throw in my two cents anyway.
I wrote this text for my personal newsletter, it got a bit longer than what I usually write, so if I had to boil it all down, it would be this: A designer’s true superpower is visualizing abstract ideas and concepts as tangible artifacts, ready to be tested and launched into the world with tastefully done visuals and functional experiences. And on that note, check out this amazing article by Francesco Bertelli on AI. His piece is deeply tied to our power as visual thinkers.
So why all the “UX is dead,” “Design doesn’t matter anymore” noise? In my view, it’s mostly clickbait. The real issue lies with the people pushing these ideas. Ironically, they are often the ones responsible for the so-called “crisis.” And we can break them into two groups:
First, you have the content creators on LinkedIn, podcasts, etc… people who rode the wave of “everyone is a designer” or “visuals don’t matter” for years. Or the folks who love selling strategy packed with a load of theory in slide decks that would make any real designer cringe. Let’s not forget the gurus — folks with mediocre portfolios but smooth talkers on podcasts and videos, who managed to build careers out of thin air. These creator-leaders unknowingly shaped a whole generation of designers who don’t understand what it actually means to be a designer. You’ve got the “design exec” with a broken website and no clue about layout basics, yet still out here selling design courses and mentorships. Look, in today’s world, anyone can sell something, and that’s fine. But these products confuse people. At best, they might be teaching research or information architecture — but certainly not strategic design. It’s the filter problem, I wrote about these in my newsletter too.Second, there are design leaders who landed leadership roles during the UX boom but also don’t really understand design. This crowd cultivated a whole generation of designers stuck in the “I don’t know what I’m doing” loop, endlessly preaching the same messages. Process over craft. Frameworks over creativity. Scalability over intuition. They prioritized mechanical execution and efficiency while forgetting the soul of design. As they climbed the ladder, they passed on a step-by-step approach that taught designers to follow rules, not challenge them. It led to a cycle of mediocrity — safe work over bold ideas. Decisions became about pleasing everyone instead of making strong creative choices. Leadership that should have lifted design ended up diluting it.
Widening the lens
In the past decade, design has gone from being an intuition-driven, artistic, visionary practice to a field dominated by frameworks, methodologies, and data-based decisions. It’s clear that UX/UI now prioritizes processes and metrics over creative instinct. But is this evolution really making design better? Or just more efficient? Or neither?
Photo: Daniella Zalcman for the Wall Street Journal
If legends like Massimo Vignelli, Milton Glaser, Paula Scher, David Carson, Oswaldo Miranda, Alexandre Wollner were working in UX today, they’d probably be questioning the industry’s obsession with process. They’d champion a return to human intuition, art, and boldness as the real forces behind strategic design.
When design wasn’t a checklist
Those masters built their careers on strong beliefs in aesthetics, storytelling, and communication. Vignelli stood for timeless typography. Scher embraced spontaneity and boldness. Carson broke (brakes) every rule in the book to create innovative editorial experiences. Their work came from vision— from a deep understanding of design as an emotional, intellectual, and business discipline.
But when every design decision has to be backed by data or user feedback, where does that leave room for intuition? For creative leaps that don’t fit neatly into a metrics dashboard? Sure, these processes ensure usability and accessibility, but they can suck the life out of design — the ability to surprise, challenge, and provoke.
Design’s strategic role gets lost when all we do is measure and compare. Benchmarking? A/B testing? Research? Give that to your PM. Go design! Use the tools they hand you — you don’t need to cross the line. Your value lies in the core of the design craft. If you get this, your professional life will be both easier and more fulfilling.
Cybertruck? Hideous — but bold and provocative. Humane Pin? Makes no sense — but an interesting exploration. That’s Design.
Sure, businesses hate risk. And design often suffers from the “copy what works” syndrome. I’m not exempt — I also had to play the product game and not rock the boat. But I always look for cracks where I can do something unique. And if not at work, I do it as a personal project. I try to pass this mindset to every designer I mentor or manage.
But today’s message is more spiritual than tactical, so I’m sticking with the poetry. 
The danger of design-by-committee
Those recent posts say that UX has become “headless.” Overloaded with process. Design teams are losing their strategic power and are reduced to execution machines.
REALLY??
But who do you think helped create this mess? The same folks who, in their mission to teach companies that design should be strategic, shoved the Double Diamond process down everyone’s throat. Now they’re surprised it backfired? They became known as the annoying design theory people. Check out their websites — they’re clearly information architects, not designers. That’s why I believe we should separate the disciplines.
The collaborative nature of modern UX isn’t all bad. But it often results in watered-down, consensus-driven mediocrity. Every decision goes through layers of approvals, testing, stakeholder feedback… and the result? Safe, bland, uninspiring work. Been there. The design legends thrived on autonomy and conviction. Two things that are rare in today’s UX world.
Restoring balance
Process has its place. The best work comes when structure and creativity coexist. But the industry needs to understand that frameworks should support design — not control it.
Less rigidity, more creative risk.Fewer approval layers, stronger leadership.Use data as a reference, not a rule.Let emotion, intuition, and artistic conviction guide your work.Give designers solo time to explore. Ditch the endless committees.
Design as a human effort
Great design has always been more than best practices. It’s an art form, a statement, a different way of seeing the world. The greats knew this. And if they were around now, they’d push back hard on a system that favors efficiency over originality.
If design is to remain strategic, it needs to reclaim its human core. Intuition, storytelling, and artistry are what make design transformative. Without them, we risk turning it into just another assembly line of soulless deliverables.
I was about to hit publish on this when I saw this article — a quick “interview” with Linear’s founder. Really interesting stuff. It totally ties in with what I’ve been saying here:
10 rules for crafting products that stand out
And finally, the links related to what I wrote above:
Post by Peter MerholzText by Pavel Samsonov
Where design finds (and loses) its soul was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
