Interview
Winnie Wu – ‘I Don’t Like Playing Games of Subjectivity’

What sets Singaporean design apart from the rest of the world?

Singapore is in the heart of Asia, but it doesn’t really have a strong Asian aesthetic in graphic design as it is mostly filtered through a Western modernist lens. However, you can find a little bit of every culture here. Like a melting pot, you can mix and match what you like to call it Singaporean style as long as it fits the brief.

In a broader sense, it is the “solarpunk” veneer of contemporary architecture like Gardens by the Bay and Changi Jewel Airport that has made more of a cultural impact globally in recent times.

Singapore has transformed dramatically since its founding. How has the role of design evolved alongside it?

Singapore has shifted its brand image and urban infrastructure strategy from a “Garden City” (1960s–1990s) to a “City in a Garden” (2000s–2010s), and now to a “City in Nature”. Strict urban planning due to space limitations means roads and buildings are neat and zoning is predictable.

Other than our food culture, friends from abroad tend to talk about prominent Singaporean architecture they’ve seen such as the Supertrees in Gardens by the Bay, remarking how the park connectors were a great and unique feature and they wished they had that. That’s when you realise that design is integral in the nation’s image in more ways than you thought. Growing up in an environment like this, it contributes to the benchmark expectations of what clients perceive as good quality.

Do you find that clients have become more willing to make bold design choices over the years? How do you encourage them to embrace innovative design?

If we’re really looking at the most progressive work being done in the world, Singaporean clients are still conservative. Efficiency has grown to become a cornerstone of design, infrastructure, and way of working in Singapore. These attitudes can get in the way of innovative design, because if the job is done well enough and is easy to implement, clients tend to think there is no need to push boundaries, and we can all knock off earlier. The floor is however quite high such that it has been increasingly easy to create work that looks polished and professional, and everyone still loves a great concept.

Many still see design as merely a formality with a fixation on the static logo — a brand image that is “good enough” can also be a reflection on societal attitudes of conforming to the status quo and not wanting to stick out in case it offends anyone, but that defeats the purpose of branding because it should help companies and organisations stand out amongst the crowd. In other mediums such as interactive installations that are less ubiquitous, clients can be more open just because they are much less likely to have preconceived ideas around visual identity and logos.

Many still see design as merely a formality with a fixation on the static logo — a brand image that is “good enough” can also be a reflection on societal attitudes of conforming to the status quo and not wanting to stick out in case it offends anyone, but that defeats the purpose of branding because it should help companies and organisations stand out amongst the crowd.

People can only meet you where they are, but we actively look for ways to open our clients’ minds from the very first meeting before we start any execution work. Trying to take someone coming from a basic perception of design to a progressive point is a great leap, and we can only do so incrementally in small steps, so as to build trust before pushing boundaries.

We would also encourage clients to be more forward-thinking by showing and explaining to them what the best brands in the world are doing. This sets us up for greater success when we propose design directions. Regardless of how bold or innovative the design is, it should always tie back to the brand strategy or have a strong concept to make it an easier sell, and then we have to devise bespoke methods to lead the client into understanding that the innovative idea is the best choice amongst the various stones we have turned.

studioKALEIDO describes itself as working “at the intersection of Design, Art & Commerce.” Can you talk more about that, and how it shapes your creative approach?

This was a positioning we naturally fell into in our early years as our very first studio was based in Goodman Arts Centre, an arts residency enclave. Most of our clients and projects come from the cultural sector, especially in the beginning, and globally, that’s the space where innovative graphic design work is done as clients do tend to be more open to experimentation. To make a greater impact, we are mindful that we must bring those ideas from a small, sophisticated crowd to other sectors and challenge the prevailing notions in commerce and mainstream audiences.

Most of our clients and projects come from the cultural sector, especially in the beginning, and globally, that’s the space where innovative graphic design work is done as clients do tend to be more open to experimentation.

People outside of the cultural sector quickly saw us as an emerging studio that was doing interesting work for a younger crowd and wanted some of that vibe. Corporations that tend to engage us are looking to modernise their brand or want to appear a bit more progressive than the pack. On top of traditional branding projects, we do interactive art installations too.

This tension between the niche artistic sector and a public understanding of creativity has been a good space for us to operate in and allows us to actively shape culture instead of merely responding to market needs.

When approaching a project, do you prefer the clarity of a set brief or the flexibility of creative freedom? What makes that balance important for you?

Both are fine, but if having a set brief means we can propose design solutions off a robust brand strategy, that is going to be a much smoother process that will likely lead to more impactful work. In general, I don’t like playing games of subjectivity, as the process can be a never-ending permutation of design options going by the whims between clients and designers.

We’ve always liked to approach creativity from a place of resourcefulness over extravagance.

When given the flexibility of creative freedom, it still needs to be anchored by a strong concept and the audience we’re designing for. What matters most is that the work is of strategic value for the client, resulting in trust built over the long term. We want our clients to feel that we are invested in their success before scratching our own creative itch and that’s really what keeps businesses like ours going.

Even with lots of freedom, it could mean that the production budget is not great and we have to work around it in creative ways as a means of survival in a country where producing things and events can get very expensive. We’ve always liked to approach creativity from a place of resourcefulness over extravagance.

AI is a growing part of the conversation in design. How do you see its role in the industry, and how has it shaped your own workflow?

First of all, I’ll have to caveat it by saying that it’s all moving so fast, by the time this gets published, my views on AI might not even be the same anymore. I have seen some tasteful, high-quality AI output generated by creatives but it’s very rare and usually embedded as part of a larger workflow. Whilst this could mean that the technology has a lot of space for improvement, it could also mean that it is only good for a narrow set of contexts.

We are not currently using it for any final output as it does not meet our standards at this point of time. However, it has been of good use in certain areas such as mockups for presentations, creating browser-based digital tools, figuring out what’s wrong with our code and other technical issues.

We should use it to do more in terms of elevating quality instead of measuring its value in terms of merely increasing output quantity.

Additionally, for brand design work, we have always conducted research on categoric cliches and looking at what AI churns out readily is a great way to toss out obvious ideas. Furthermore, to be protected by copyright law, the output needs to be created by a human or needs to be substantially altered even if it was generated by AI in the first place. The waters that run beneath these legislative frameworks are muddy and at the end of the day, clients still want someone to be liable for the work done.

I’ll talk about an unexpected but great use case of the technology. Recently, we were engaged to rebrand a beloved elder care facility and a children’s organisation. In both cases, we had difficulty procuring good images for the rebrand exercise as confidentiality and dignity guidelines did not allow us to use photos of residents or minors for publicity materials. In the past, they made do with stock imagery or blurred out faces which are obviously not ideal, but now they can be replaced with AI generated personas within the context of their own environments.

For our industry, I see the proliferation of AI as an invitation for everyone to move up the value chain or to pivot to more complex work and become more cross-disciplinary. We should use it to do more in terms of elevating quality instead of measuring its value in terms of merely increasing output quantity. Before, clients might also be skeptical about smaller outfits but are now more open to the possibility that lean studios can deliver greater value.