Are Raffles Jakarta Alumni Changing Design
- Raffles Jakarta
- 28 minutes ago
- 11 min read
The inquiry prompts an untroubled response yet warrants a challenging one. No single graduate redefines a field.
The principles of design theory are not undergoing redefinition in a Jakarta studio. However, the field is presently experiencing greater instability than it has since the advent of desktop publishing, and those who are entering it now are largely the ones shaping the emerging standard. That assertion is less substantial than altering the design and is more justifiable.
Are Raffles Jakarta alumni changing design
Alumni of Raffles Jakarta are engaging in three transformations that are redefining design, rather than solely creating those transformations.
The initial change is the transition from creation to curation, propelled by generative artificial intelligence, with studies indicating that novice designers are adapting more rapidly and establishing standards that seasoned professionals oppose.
The second aspect is the expansion of authorship in design, exemplified by a student from Jakarta emerging as Southeast Asia's sole finalist in a Milan competition.
The third aspect broadens the definition of quality work, incorporating sustainability, cultural relevance, and commercial validation into criteria that were once solely esthetic.
Graduates impact all three by engaging with them as they establish the conventions.
The discipline is genuinely unsettled
This study does not constitute a marketing analysis. It is recorded throughout the design research corpus. A scoping review adhering to PRISMA standards analyzed 57 articles released from 2022 to 2025 in the fields of visual arts and design, literature, performing arts, and spatial design.
It recognized global patterns such as a transition from creation to curation and meta-creation, the rise of new literacies like prompt engineering and assessment of machine outputs, and a restructuring of expertise hierarchies (AI and Society, 2025).
The final statement is the crucial one. The structure of expertise hierarchies is undergoing transformation, indicating a weakening correlation between experience duration and authority within a studio.
A mixed-methods investigation involving 233 designers identified five unique attitudinal profiles regarding generative tools, which span from Hesitant Beginners and Cautious Explorers to Motivated Adopters, Enthusiastic Advocates, and Resistant Experts, influenced by extensive professional experience (Taylor and Francis, 2026).
The occupation is not advancing as a unified entity. It is dividing.
The prevalence of adoption across the broader creative spectrum is already substantial.
A worldwide study involving 16,000 creators revealed that 86 percent utilize generative artificial intelligence, with 76 percent asserting it positively influences the creator economy by enabling them to access new audiences and expand their work (Adobe, 2025).
Why early career designers matter most in this shift
Here is the discovery that directly addresses the inquiry. Studies consistently highlight career stage as the pivotal factor influencing designers' responses. Entry-level professionals demonstrate enthusiasm and view these tools as a natural extension of digital practice, while more established practitioners express greater ambivalence (AI and Society, 2025).
A research project employing artifact-based interviews with 28 individuals categorized into three cohorts highlighted the distinction: junior students who commenced design education post the advent of generative tools, senior students who encountered these tools during their studies, and professionals who were active prior to these innovations.
A widening divide in value systems was identified, with seasoned professionals apprehensive about the decline of conventional creativity and essential skills, whereas novice designers exhibited a significantly greater openness (CHI, 2025).
When the norms of a discipline are challenged and the latest participants possess divergent assumptions from the established members, the newcomers typically prevail through attrition. Contemporary graduates will continue their professional practice in three decades.
The conventions they regard as self-evident are the ones that establish the norm. This approach represents the genuine understanding of how recent graduates transform design.
This transformation occurs not through a manifesto, but rather through the influence of demographic significance during a period of turmoil.
The risk sitting inside that advantage
Balance requires naming what could go wrong, and the research is unusually direct about it. A research investigation into architectural conceptual design tasks involving 36 participants revealed that generative tools markedly enhanced design efficacy for inexperienced designers, which appears unequivocally favorable.
However, the general creative self-efficacy diminished among students utilizing the tools, and there was no discernible performance benefit across all participants (Jiang et al., 2026).
That is a significant discovery. A device that enhances your productivity while diminishing your self-confidence is an unfavorable long-term investment, especially for an individual still developing their professional identity.
Previous research indicates that the advantages of human-machine collaboration vary with experience: novices primarily gain from idea generation, whereas seasoned designers benefit from quality enhancement (Frontiers in Computer Science, 2025). The suggestion is that deliberation, cultivated gradually, is what transforms produced alternatives into quality output.
This serves as the exact rationale for a studio education centered on critique instead of production. A learner who has undergone consistent corrections by experienced practitioners cultivates the discernment necessary to assess the quality of produced content.
Design education has historically been recognized as a distinctive pedagogical approach, shaping the evaluative capabilities of its practitioners (Shulman, 2005), functioning through what Donald Schön referred to as reflection in action (Schön, 1983). Neither becomes less essential when production becomes inexpensive. Both increase in that regard.
What becomes more valuable when generation gets cheap
An unexpected outcome of this situation merits discussion, as it influences what a student ought to prioritize. When generating credible visual alternatives is swift and cost-effective, the limited resource shifts from the options themselves to the capacity to select among them.
Individuals can now produce forty distinct variations of a silhouette, a design, or an interior space. Only a limited number of individuals can assert with confidence which option will endure in fabric, maintain legibility at reduced dimensions, withstand manufacturing variances, or retain its esthetic appeal after three years.
That capability originates from a particular source. It originates from the experience of creating tangible objects, receiving feedback on them, and observing failures that a screen does not disclose. An image that appears to have a resolved pattern exhibits different behavior when sliced. A color scheme that is effective on a backlit screen may not be suitable for pigments.
A joint that appears convincing may not be economically feasible to produce.
This study presents a case in favor of material and craft training instead of opposing it.
The research indicates that generative tools enhanced the performance of novices while diminishing their creative self-efficacy, suggesting that output improved but capability did not (Jiang et al., 2026). The interval between the two is bridged by the deliberate, methodical, and rectified practice that constitutes a studio curriculum, wherein students engage in practical tasks, real-world case analyzes, and consultancy-oriented projects under the guidance of experienced practitioners. The probable result is an expanding divide between designers who can merely compile and those who can also evaluate.
A graduate who has engaged in a program that produces work of professional caliber and defends it in critiques finds themselves on the advantageous side of that distinction.
The second shift: Who gets to author
The landscape of design authorship is undergoing a subtle yet potentially lasting transformation. Throughout the majority of contemporary fashion and design history, authorship has been centralized in a select few cities in Europe and North America, with talent from other regions anticipated to gravitate toward these hubs. That presumption is diminishing, and the students of Raffles Jakarta serve as a testament.
Christabell Bellini emerged as the sole finalist from Southeast Asia at the 2025 Mittelmoda Fashion Award held in Milan.
Angelique Keizia received the identical accolade.
Geralda Almira Pribadi secured the Harper's Bazaar Asia NewGen Fashion Award and advanced to the Mittelmoda finals. The contest currently attracts submissions from numerous nations and a multitude of organizations, evaluated in part on their global perspective (Linificio, 2025; Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana, 2022).
Every such outcome marginally modifies the industry's anticipation of where intriguing work will emerge. When reiterated sufficiently, that modification becomes structural instead of merely anecdotal.
The third shift: what counts as good
The standards for evaluating design have significantly expanded within just one generation. Contests currently evaluate technical proficiency and global perspective in addition to creativity (Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana, 2022).
The discourse has shifted to commercial performance, as a study of 300 publicly traded firms revealed that leading design achievers experienced revenue and shareholder return growth at approximately double the pace of their counterparts (Sheppard et al., 2018).
The environmental impact has also emerged, with the industry contributing between 2 and 8 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and producing around 92 million tons of textile waste each year (UNEP, 2025).
A designer solely educated in visual resolution is currently inadequately prepared. A designer who is educated to evaluate material origin, production feasibility, expense, cultural comprehensibility, and user requirements is adhering to the broadened definition.
Raffles Education prioritizes social responsibility as its foremost value, in conjunction with professional excellence for employability, analytical reasoning, creativity, and entrepreneurship, indicating an expansion rather than a rejection of these principles.
Where the school sits in all this
Two structural characteristics pertain to a discipline evolving in these ways.
The initial aspect is atypical: Artificial Intelligence is instructed as a course in conjunction with Fashion Design, Visual Communication Design, Digital Media Design, Interior Design, Fashion Marketing and Management, Business Administration, Tourism and Hospitality Management, and Psychology.
The majority of design institutions regard artificial intelligence as an external tool.
A smaller number of students are examining its construction within the same institution as those learning its application. Considering that emerging literacies like prompt engineering and the assessment of machine-generated output are recognized transformations (AI and Society, 2025), closeness among these groups is beneficial.
The second point is that practicing professionals, rather than solely academics, provide the instruction. During an era where practice evolves more swiftly than curricula can be amended, the individuals present serve as the updating mechanism.
The honest answer
Are graduates of Raffles Jakarta changing design? They are engaged in its transformation, with substantiation.
Driving that transformation on a global scale has not yet occurred, and any organization asserting otherwise based on a mere handful of graduates would be exaggerating. This is what can be justified.
The field is currently experiencing a truly tumultuous phase. Studies indicate that the latest participants are rapidly embracing innovative tools and possess divergent assumptions compared to seasoned professionals.
The realm of design authorship is expanding, with Jakarta students emerging in the finals in Milan. What is deemed beneficial includes the integration of commercial, environmental, and cultural aspects that a design and business institution jointly teaches.
A graduate emerging from a structure on Jalan M.H. Thamrin possesses greater sway over the trajectory of the discipline than a graduate did two decades prior, when norms were entrenched and power resided with individuals who had maintained it for many years.
This presents a genuine opportunity, accompanied by the responsibility to cultivate discernment that merits application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the design profession actually changing right now? Yes, substantially. A scoping review of 57 studies published between 2022 and 2025 identified a shift from creation to curation, the emergence of new literacies including prompt engineering and evaluation of machine outputs, and a reconfiguration of expertise hierarchies. A study of 233 designers found five distinct attitudinal profiles toward generative tools, indicating the profession is dividing rather than moving together.
Why do early career designers have unusual influence in this period? Research consistently finds that career stage is the critical variable in adoption. Entry-level professionals show enthusiasm and treat generative tools as a natural extension of digital practice, while experienced practitioners express concern about the erosion of foundational skills. When newcomers hold different assumptions during a period of instability, those assumptions tend to become the eventual standard.
Does using generative tools help or harm developing designers? Both, according to the evidence. One experimental study found generative tools significantly improved design performance for novice designers, but general creative self-efficacy declined among students using them. Other work found novices gain mainly in idea generation while experienced designers gain in refinement, suggesting judgment developed through practice remains essential.
Is design authorship still concentrated in Europe and North America? Less than it was. International competitions now draw entries from dozens of countries and hundreds of institutions and assess international outlook explicitly. Raffles Jakarta students have won the Mittelmoda Fashion Award in Milan and reached its finals as Southeast Asia's only representative, which shifts expectations about where notable work originates.
How has the definition of good design changed? It has widened beyond visual resolution. Competitions assess technical execution and international outlook alongside creativity; commercial research links design performance to revenue and shareholder returns; and environmental consequences now matter, given that the sector generates around 92 million tonnes of textile waste annually and 2 to 8 percent of global emissions.
What does Raffles Jakarta do about these shifts? It teaches artificial intelligence as a program alongside its design, business, and psychology disciplines, so students working with these tools sit near students learning how they are built. Teaching is delivered by practicing professionals rather than academics alone, which means classroom practice updates at the speed of industry rather than curriculum revision cycles.
Marketing Manager
References
Adobe. (2025). Inaugural Adobe Creators' Toolkit Report: 86 percent of global creators use creative generative AI. https://news.adobe.com/news/2025/10/adobe-max-2025-creators-survey
AI and Society. (2025). Perceptions and integration of generative artificial intelligence in creative practices and industries: A scoping review and conceptual model. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02667-2
Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana. (2022). International Lab of Mittelmoda, The Fashion Award. https://www.cameramoda.it/en/associazione/news/1641/
CHI. (2025). Catalyst for creativity or a hollow trend? A cross level perspective on the role of generative AI in design. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3713233
Frontiers in Computer Science. (2025). Exploring creativity in human and AI co creation: A comparative study across design experience. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computer-science/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1672735/full
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. (2026). A comparative analysis of generative AI adoption among design professionals in China and the United Kingdom. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-026-06796-x
Jiang, H., Xiao, Y., Hurley, R., & Liu, S. (2026). The impact of generative AI on architectural conceptual design: Performance, creative self efficacy and cognitive load. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.10696
Linificio. (2025). Mittelmoda, The Fashion Award, a journey through creativity and innovation. https://www.linificio.it/en/news/mittelmoda-the-fashion-award-a-journey-through-creativity-and-innovation/
Mittelmoda. (n.d.). Winners of the 29th edition of the fashion award. https://mittelmoda.com/news/winners-29th-edition-fashion-award
Raffles Education. (n.d.). Raffles Institute of Higher Education Jakarta. https://raffles-iao.com/our_campus/raffles_institute_of_higher_education_jakarta/
Raffles Jakarta. (n.d.a). Alumni success stories. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/alumni-success-story
Raffles Jakarta. (n.d.b). Our promise. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/our-promise
Raffles Jakarta. (n.d.c). Programs offered. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/programmes
Raffles Jakarta. (n.d.d). International academic team. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/international-creative-practitioners
Raffles Jakarta. (n.d.e). Fashion design. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/fashiondesign
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315237473/reflective-practitioner-donald-sch%C3%B6n
Sheppard, B., Kouyoumjian, G., Sarrazin, H., & Dore, F. (2018). The business value of design. McKinsey and Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/the-business-value-of-design
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52 to 59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998
Taylor and Francis. (2026). Beyond one size fits all: Profiling designers' adoption of generative artificial intelligence in professional design practice. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2658255
UNEP. (2025). Unsustainable fashion and textiles in focus for International Day of Zero Waste 2025. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/unsustainable-fashion-and-textiles-focus-international-day-zero
