"First, isn't this argument at least as old as "desktop publishing"? If people can print their own _____________ then graphic designers and printers are out of work. Yes, it has changed the industry, but I don't think that has played out as people initially feared. Second, isn't it on Karim and other designers to prove the value of their work to the client? This goes to the ideas of Blair Enns (Win Without Pitching) and others. If you want to do commodity work, you have to deal with the consequences of that marketplace. If you want to get beyond commodity work, then, one way at least, is to pivot towards selling expertise. Or find ways to reduce risk for your client. Or do a number of other things to add value to your work as compared to your competition.Third, I haven't seen any clients deciding to pay more just because designers asked for it. There will always be cheaper options, which could be anywhere in the world, competing on price. I don't know about anyone else, but if I am shopping for two comparable items and price is the only difference, I'll be choosing the cheaper option."

"Attend the show. Then read a few books and/or essays by Wendell Berry. It would be interesting to see a debate between the two opposing views.From a recent interview in the New Yorker:"We are always faced with a choice between solving our problems by communing with one another and with our places in the world—that is, paying respectful attention and responding respectfully—or solving them by applications of raw industrial power: more machines, more explosives, more poison. So far we have been choosing raw power, whether we're dealing with international "competitors," or with the land, water, and air of our country. We seem to regard forms of violence as "efficient" substitutes for the respectful, patient back-and-forth that real solutions require. By real solutions what I mean are solutions that are not destructive, that are kind to the world and our fellow creatures, including our fellow humans.""

"Below are a couple of articles that are relevant to the conversation. Duo Dickinson makes the case that there shouldn't be antagonism between Modernism and Traditional architecture. "If Modernism or Traditional architecture were evil, none of us would completely break when they walked along the Vietnam Veterans wall and ascend the nearby steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. The tragedy of war and death is deeply embedded in both." https://commonedge.org/the-insanity-of-a-state-sanctioned-style-for-architecture/ And a few days before the Executive Order came out, Michael Mehaffy & Nikos Salingaros published an article in ArchDaily criticizing a recommendation in the EU that "when new parts/elements are necessary, a project shall use contemporary design adding new value and/or use while respecting the existing ones." The US government isn't the only one takings sides when it comes to aesthetics. https://www.archdaily.com/932797/colonialist-modernism-strikes-again?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds "

"Below are a couple of other examples from around 2012 that are more restrained in the use of "line" and look a little less jarring. The Candy Room in Melbourne Gift Shop in Odessa, Ukraine"