ai goodies ✨
Posts
what is a Creative Technologist? / and why is everyone suddenly hiring one?

what is a Creative Technologist? / and why is everyone suddenly hiring one?

this esoteric, mysterious role keeps showing up in job boards, Linkedin bios, and "future of design" threads / here's what it actually is, told through the people living it, and whether we're all becoming one.

Ioana from AI Goodies
July 21, 2026

✋ Before we get started, I need your help. AI Goodies is still a small, independent effort, and it needs your help to grow 🌱

so if you enjoy this read + my vibe, please share the article on your platform of choice, send it to friends, recommend others to subscribe ✔️

also, OMFG, I just landed the best possible supporter for this newsletter 🥹👾 I’ve partnered with Paper, probably the next Figma 😎

and, bonus > there’s a fun story behind this:

In June, I was at Config and made a lot of new friends from the design world 🙋🏻‍♀️ Two of the coolest people I met happened to work at Paper > and I had already been seeing so many designers I respect and admire (like Ridd) recommend switching from Figma to Paper.

So when I met them, it felt like everything ✨ connected ✨

*they were also one of the amazing companies to sponsor our Config afterparty, Detach, so they’re awesome like that.

Very grateful to be working with the coolest tech companies out there.

me having fun with the Paper team 👾

so a very big YAY + let's get to it.

I keep hearing this title, and what’s even stranger is that I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE ONE 😅 it’s true, I recently started introducing myself with this title!

What makes me feel legitimate in owning this title is that earlier this year I got an offer for a Principal AI Technologist role at Adobe, so in a way, I could have ‘ofFiciaLLy” been titled this way, so it feels honest even if I decided to turn down that role.

Now back to the definition of a Creative Technologist > everyone references it like we all know what it means. But when I ask people to define it / genuinely define it, with specificity / most can't. 🤷🏻‍♀️

And it’s totally fair, the role is legitimately hard to pin down. It's been around for over a decade, mostly in advertising agencies and experiential studios. It's gone by approximately seventeen different names: UX engineer, design technologist, creative developer, UX prototyper, design engineer. The taxonomy is a mess. Even people who hold the title admit it “still sounds entirely made up”.

But the Creative Technologist is having a renaissance / being pulled from the artistic margins into the center of the machine 📟 and I think understanding this role, its origin story, and where it's heading tells us a lot about where all of our creative careers are going.

So let me try to actually disambiguate this.
And instead of definitions, let me start with a person.

Last week I was invited on a Google Flow creator / partner community call where they brought a very special guest for us: Tina Tarighian, a Senior Creative Technologist at Google Creative Lab in NYC. Her recent guest essay on Will Zimmerman's 3rd Space / literally titled WTF is a Creative Technologist? / is the best first-person account of this role I've ever read. If you read one thing from this issue, make it that.

Her path: number one competitive debater in the country in high school. Poli sci major who thought she'd be the next Hillary Clinton. A computer science degree that made her “actually study, sob, and then study some more”. A hedge fund internship in Tokyo that felt like wearing someone else's shoes. A psychic who literally pulled her off the street to tell her she was in the wrong career.

Then: a net artist in Greenpoint taught her JavaScript. She was broke enough to walk 45 minutes to his studio instead of taking the train. She started cold-pitching companies with creative tech ideas. Her first paid gig was a virtual try-on filter for a compression underwear brand. She got paid almost nothing and was “insufferably giddy for weeks”.

She cold-DMed a musician the day before he started a band, and ended up live-coding their visuals at their debut show. One project turned into ten: a New Museum residency, fashion show installations, gallery work, her own runway shows. When she missed her no-contact ex-girlfriend, she built an email lottery with a one-in-a-million chance of actually sending her note. Five million people saw it. It was used in over a hundred countries.

Now she's at Google Creative Lab > demoing tools she built in a weekend to arenas of thousands, launching a collaboration with Paris Hilton building ADHD-friendly apps with Gemini, taking the main stage at Google I/O. 👾

And here's how she describes the actual work: “We are writing the first draft of what a technology means, sitting with something new before the obvious use cases have had a chance to calcify, and trying to find something meaningful in it”.

That's the role: writing the first draft of what a technology means.

the two ends of the spectrum

Tina maps the field better than any formal taxonomy I've found. On one end: the commercial version, born in the dot-com boom, when companies needed people who could "talk to people and computers with the same suavity." Some lean hardware, some live in the browser, some build weird little physical toys that end up in ad campaigns. The through-line, in her words: "they're technical enough to build and perspicacious enough to know what's worth building".

On the other end: people using technology purely as an artistic medium. Think Refik Anadol turning data into large-scale immersive environments. Generative systems that feel genuinely alive. Code as emotional expression / like Tina's email lottery. "What we all have in common is that we are using technology as our primary medium to say something, not to ship products”.

Blair Neal / a veteran of the field who spent years at Fake Love, the experiential studio acquired by The New York Times / has been documenting this territory for over a decade. His Advice for Creative Technologists is canonical reading, and his explanation of the role is the one I'd give my parents: "I am an artist, and just like a painter's medium is the full range of paint types and canvases, my medium is technology itself".

He also built an entire Creative Technology Taxonomy > a giant map of everything a senior creative technologist should know something about, from projection mapping to sensors to game engines to machine learning. Don’t panic, not everything needs to be mastered, but this serves as the knowledge foundation on which to make informed choices about which technologies serve which experiences.

So when someone asks "what is a creative technologist" / the sincere answer is: someone whose medium is technology itself. Applied sometimes to commerce, sometimes to art, usually to some in-between space that doesn't have a clean name.

a brief history / 60 years of the same person with different names 🤿

So, the thing that gets lost in all the “hot new role” discourse: this archetype is not new. It has an origin story that goes back six decades. And tracing it tells you something important about where it's heading.

1966 / the founding moment. Bell Labs engineers Billy Klüver and Fred Waldhauer teamed up with artists Robert Rauschenberg and Robert Whitman to stage "9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering" at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York. Ten artists (including John Cage and Yvonne Rainer) worked with over thirty Bell Labs engineers for months. The performances used closed-circuit television on stage for the first time, infrared cameras capturing action in total darkness, Doppler sonar translating movement into sound. Out of it came E.A.T. / Experiments in Art and Technology — a nonprofit whose entire mission was to pair artists with engineers and encourage engineers to discover their creative side. This is the ur-text of creative technology. The name Anthropic gives its models, the residencies at tech companies, the artist-in-the-lab paradigm < it all descends from here. (And notice: Bell Labs. The same institution that gave us the transistor and information theory also incubated the idea that technology needs artists to discover what it means.)

1975 / the academy takes over. Muriel Cooper founds the Visible Language Workshop at MIT, exploring how computation could transform graphic design, typography, publication. Her lab becomes the seed of what would later be the MIT Media Lab. The question moves from “can artists use technology” to “is computation itself a design medium”.

1996–2001 / the medium gets its language. John Maeda takes over at the Media Lab with the Aesthetics + Computation Group, arguing that designers must understand the computer “as a medium, not just a tool”. His Design by Numbers project teaches programming to visual artists. Then two of his students (Casey Reas and Ben Fry) build something Maeda himself admits he almost stifled because he couldn't see the need: Processing. A digital sketchbook where designers and artists could code. It becomes the lingua franca of creative coding, a worldwide community of thousands. Meanwhile, in parallel, the dot-com boom creates the commercial variant. As Tina puts it: everyone needed a storefront on the internet, and “to forgo the engineering salary, they invented a new title, slapped it under the marketing umbrella, and started recruiting from the growing pool of mystics who could talk to people and computers with the same suavity”.

2005–2015 / the agency golden age. Arduino launches and hardware hacking democratizes. openFrameworks and Cinder give creative coders professional-grade tools. Flash makes the web a creative playground. Google Creative Lab is founded. Agencies like R/GA, Wieden+Kennedy, and studios like Fake Love (Blair Neal's home, later acquired by The New York Times) build the experiential marketing industry on the backs of creative technologists. The title formalizes. Interactive installations, projection mapping, sensor-driven brand activations > this is the era when "Creative Technologist" becomes a job you could actually apply for, even if nobody's parents understood it.

2015–2022 / fragmentation. The role splinters into variants as it gets absorbed into product companies. Amazon calls it Design Technologist. Google calls it UX Engineer. Startups call it Creative Developer. The product-focused branches drift toward what would eventually converge as “Design Engineer” in 2024. The artistic branch keeps doing its thing > Refik Anadol scales data sculpture into museum blockbusters, net art communities keep the experimental flame alive.

2022–now / the AI renaissance 🎨 And here we are. Every company suddenly holds technologies whose meaning hasn't been written yet. The exact skill E.A.T. was founded to cultivate in 1966 (sitting with a new technology before its use cases calcify and finding something meaningful in it) becomes the scarcest capability in the industry. Sixty years later, the role Bell Labs engineers and downtown artists invented together is being pulled into the center of the machine.

The pattern across all six decades is remarkably consistent: every time a genuinely new technology arrives (video, computation, the web, physical computing, AI) the people who figure out what it means are the ones who treat it as a medium rather than a tool. The names change, sure, maybe, but the disposition doesn't. 👾

how it maps against everything else

OK so where does this sit relative to the other roles I've been writing about?

Here's my attempt at an ontology:

Creative Technologist > the broadest and most experimental: technology + creativity + strategy. Spans hardware and software, installations and browsers, art and advertising. Comfortable with the question "what could this technology mean?" before anyone knows what to build. Google Creative Lab is the archetype / their JD describes "collaborating on the ideation and development of 'never been done before' digital experiences." Base salary at Google: $162K–$247K.

Design Technologist > the product-focused version. Amazon, eBay use this title. Heavy prototyping, design systems, UX engineering. More structured, less experimental.

Design Engineer > the narrowest and most production-oriented. I wrote a full issue on this. Design + front-end code + shipping UI. Vercel, Stripe, Cursor, Lovable. The title the industry converged on in 2024 for the product-shipping variant.

and, for further reference, the Principal AI Technologist role that I decided to turn down.

So the boundaries are porous, but the orientation differs: the Creative Technologist asks "what could this mean?", the Design Engineer asks "how do we ship this beautifully?". One writes the first draft of a technology's meaning, while the other makes sure the final draft is crafted.

And the salary data reflects the difference: Design Engineers at frontier product companies command $196K–$385K because the role is tightly scoped to shipping. Creative Technologists average around $104K industry-wide (Glassdoor), with the Google Creative Lab tier at $162K–$247K > because most of the market still doesn't know how to value "writing first drafts of meaning."

But I think that's about to change.

why this role is having a moment

Three things are converging.

First: AI needs first drafts. Every company suddenly has access to technologies whose obvious use cases haven't calcified yet. Models drop monthly. Capabilities shift weekly. And the question inside every organization is exactly the one Creative Technologists are trained to answer: what does this mean for us? Tina describes the actual brief at Google: a new model drops internally, and the ask is some version of “help people feel something other than dread about this”. That is the job now, at every company.

Second: AI democratized the technical layer. The old Creative Technologist needed Processing, openFrameworks, C++, custom shaders, hardware skills. The barrier was real and it kept the role niche. The new Creative Technologist can prototype with Claude Code, build with Cursor, generate with the model of the week. Intuit is hiring a "Generative Creative Technologist" right now and the JD literally asks for "vibe coding tools (e.g., Claude Code, Cursor, Codex)." Adobe just published an entire report calling Creative Technologists "the connective tissue across creative, engineering, marketing" and "a missing layer in most enterprises".

Third: the doing is being celebrated. Tina again: "My fellow CTs are being flown out to give talks, poached mid-job with huge pay bumps, and inundated with DMs from startups begging them to find a use for their product." The people who were building weird internet art for years are suddenly the most in-demand profile in tech. Product teams at Google. Design systems at Apple. Experimental storytelling at A24 in partnership with DeepMind.

The margins moved to the center.

so will we all become Creative Technologists?

Here's the question behind the question; and my current, sincere answer: not necessarily the title, but yes, the way of relating. 📟

Tina lands on the observation I can't stop thinking about: “Today, kids are building entire worlds in Roblox like it's a normal extension of playing. People are making little tools for their friends, their classrooms, or their own weird niche problems. No one waits for permission or funding or someone to translate their idea into code. Coding just feels like… a thing people do now”.

And her conclusion: "'Creative technologist' is on its way to becoming less of a mutant profession you have to explain, more of a way of relating to the most pervasive medium on earth”.

That's the real thesis. The Creative Technologist was never really a job title, it was an early name for a relationship to technology that's now becoming universal: technology not as an industry you work in, but as a medium you think with.

If you've been following this newsletter, you'll recognize the pattern. The vibe-coded portfolio issue: designers shipping real products as self-expression. The Design JD issue: companies asking designers to “stay close to the models” and “invent patterns that feel native to AI”. The Forward Deployed Designer issue: designers embedding with teams to write the first draft of a solution. All of these are the Creative Technologist archetype leaking into every creative role. 👾

Gartner found that 41% of employees already function as “business technologists”, creating with technology outside traditional IT. The trajectory is clear > the mutant profession is becoming the default disposition.

what this means for you

You don't need to change your title. You need to notice whether you're relating to technology as an industry or as a medium.

The industry relationship: you follow the tools, learn what you must, wait for the use cases to be defined, and then execute within them.

The medium relationship: you sit with new technology before its meaning has calcified. You build small things to understand it viscerally. You ask what it could mean, not just what it does. You use it to say something.

The second relationship is what Tina found through nightclubs and net art. It's what Blair Neal describes as choosing technologies “in thoughtful ways that honor the person experiencing something”. It's what I keep trying to practice with every experiment I run and every “unsolicited” prototype I build. 📟

And it's learnable! It took Tina “a finance internship, a street psychic, a TikTok career, and several hundred dollars worth of nightclub cover charges to figure it out”, but it doesn't have to take you that. It can start with one small project this weekend where you use technology to say something / not to ship something.

That's the whole practice. 👍🏼
*and the title is optional. I said No to wearing it formally 😉

🔥 let's collaborate 🤝 get featured in my newsletter

We have the coolest audience that you can get yourself in front of.
Reach out at [email protected] if interested 💋

✨ for more goodies, follow me on:

UX Goodies on Instagram

Ioana Teleanu on Linkedin

thanks + AI & Design Love,

hugs hugs,

Ioana 🪩

/ soft machines