Creative Thinking

What education can't teach you!

2011-11-29T23:50:00.001-08:00

If you watched that video, or have seen it before, you were probably touched as much as any other human being. It was from Nick Vujicic. A young man born with no limbs. What is remarkable about the young man, is his determination not to let this impediment get in the way. The video goes along way to prove this, as he swims, plays football, and many other things that even some able bodied people don't even attempt. He is a remarkable young man, however, regardless of if he is an exception to the rule or not, the thing that, as he says, "helps him get back up" is not to let life get you down.

Being an educator, the process of critiques and assessments passes my door on occasion. What tends to be spilt out in many a fashion during these sessions, is the complete opposite attitude to that of young Nick. The main focus is to give more reason why not to achieve something, than that of reasons why to stop. There are many reasons why this occurs, but one thing that is for sure, is the 'thing' that can stop this cannot ever be taught. Now during many of the lessons I perform I include a word that is a key to this situation; aptitude. Not everyone has Nick's drive, not everyone can be a creative, not everyone can be a child minder, or policeman, etc. This is having a natural aptitude for this type of activity.

One of the key aspects of being a creative however, is that of 'the creative flare'. So many times the term "talent" is banded about. Also in conjunction with the belief that there is some God given aspect to this. Now, from one atheist who has an aptitude toward creativity I can firmly state that there is no real grounding to believe that people are born being able to draw (for example), or play a piano, or sing, etc. Nor has it been gifted to them by some higher power. One thing I have noticed with my own passage in creativity, is that it consists of a great deal of aspects, that cannot be taught, but are essential to the role of a creative. These being dedication, perseverance, passion and perspiration. I remember whilst at school two things occurred (which seems typically stereotypical), I was asked at around the age of thirteen, what I would like to do as a career. At that time I had this 'dream' to be a forest warden. Live and work in nature and care for nature. I had no clues about this, nor experience, it was just a feeling. The second thing that happened was that when i realised I wanted to draw (at school), my art teacher told me to not to, and that I would not make it. I even recently posted my first drawing to see if I could in fact agree with her; here!

The first in hindsight seems to give me thought that children hold passionate dreams about possible lifelong career choices, regardless of their experience or knowledge in the subject. This may be accountable to a passion for something. The second incident (for myself) proved to be a motivator rather than a let down. I wasn't going to let my art teacher tell me I couldn't do this. On the other blog link, I post my most recent piece of artwork as a comparison. This took thirty years of drawing, but if I had to comment, I would not say it was a waste, nor that it was easy. It was a calling! The unfortunate state of the modern education system is that they try to inadvertently flush creativity out of young minds and dominate their attention with science and mathematics. There is social reasoning for this, but the outcome is more damaging. It crushes the desires that fuel possible creative aspirations. Many of the young people I meet and educate (with some rare exceptions) see art and design as a career. Not that this is wrong, but as two colleagues stated in a recent assessment, "you have to understand that art is a way of life."

If you are lucky enough to understand this, and also except (and have those around you except it) then the chances are you also have the right juices to be creative. I will give some comparisons against some arguments I've heard of recent. "I couldn't finish my project because I felt ill." Now, Michelangelo took many a year in completing the Sistine chapel painting. And there are many a story of him suffering from back pains and even working through illness to complete this work. Another thing I here; "I can't find the time to do my work". Now, Franz Kafka worked during the day as an insurance broker and wrote his passions at night, when he could. "I get more motivation if I know I am going to get paid for it." Again, Vincent Van Gogh (as everyone must know) only sold a single painting in his career. Never stopped him going out in all weathers to work. "I don't know how to use the equipment properly". As a final example and coming circle on Nick (who opened the blog), there is the story of Christy Brown. Subject of the film "My Left Foot". A talent young man, who would not let the fact that he had no arms stop him from painting. He simply trained himself to paint with his foot.

These people are not exceptional. Maybe they have been made to seem exceptional through their lives, but they were all born, as much the same as all of us, as humans. The simple distinguishable difference is they have the aptitude and passion to do anything (anything) to complete the desire of their creativity. They are inspiration examples as much as Nick Vujicic is. However, what needs to be learnt from their examples is that their passion and enthusiasm is in all of us. It can be mustered and fuelled, but as many things in life, it starts off difficult. Everything is hard until it becomes easy. That is the perspiration part. Too much of modern society enables the call for laziness by facilitating easy approaches to tasks. Whether a remote control, or following a Photoshop tutorial, or taking an idea from someone else, it makes it a bad excuse to NOT achieve the necessary aspects that will drive your creativity. I do mention to my students that the factor is the 3 P's (perseverance[practice], passion and perspiration).

Most things in life come down to the simple rule; either you want to do this or not! If it's the later, don't moan and excuse yourself about it. If it's the former; love it as you love your life!!!

Can design change things?

2011-10-20T23:40:00.000-07:00

I realised this morning whilst looking throw a set of determined websites in my morning coffee-based StumbleUpon search that I have done little to explore Lateral thinking in these past posts on Facebook and the blog. Mainly I am showing examples of good design, and although that is a good thing, it is also subjective rather than objective. Then, on my third sip of coffee, and as the aroma started to dig into my brain, several things came together. The trigger was this clever little Lateral Thinking puzzle. It was entitled "The Impossible Nail in the Wood trick". If you are curious on the achievement of this, then the link will be added at the base of this post.

What it triggered however, is the standard curiosity path, that I am sure goes through everyone's mind. On perplexing myself over a few more sips of coffee I finally looked at the explanatory video. Not what I expected. But, as I teach these type of thinking it wasn't a great surprise. One of the aspects of design is to originate, not necessarily a product, but a process of looking at the product. Here is a good example. My StumbleUpon search also revealed other new design aspects which take this into account. One of which was a TED talk by Don Norman. The talk covers the aspect of what makes something beautiful in it's design. He argues about simplicity and look and usability, but ultimately it comes down to the designer's ability to see a little differently to make a change.

So, can design change things? The world can be argued to hold a population that don't notice enough about design that it can affect them, or that the subtlety of design is so sublime that it is ignored. What is a fact is that bad design can be instantly noticed and commented on. However, much of this commentary does not affect change. Design and the modern world is a complex one of market issues and acceptance and implementation, etc. However, there are many aspects of life that can be improved, even if from simplistic beautification. This takes little implementation, just modification to the standard industrialised design, that originated on it's first production.

To think different is one thing, to get the majority to accept different is harder. I recently came across a set of designs for wine glass variations. On looking at them and marvelling at the design aspect, it then occurred to me that they looked odd. Maybe this was the reason why I liked them, but also it was a factor against acceptance; why? Society tends to work in creating patterns that become impregnated as a social norm. So, without educating people toward good design, it is a very hard, uphill struggle to gain acceptance for anything that is away from this norm. This however shouldn't stop designers being clever, expressive and forward thinking, because as a famous designer such as Syd Mead found, is that if the industry you work in doesn't accept your work now, many a new avenue can bring it into the spotlight and then get it accepted.

Always, when I try discussing projects to my students, I try to instigate the notion of non-normal approaches to begin with. This is an attempt to get their creative minds pulling out original aspects to the design over normal ones. Does it work? Well over time I see that they do question the process, but also can fall into the trap of cliche. Design is more about right-side expression than obvious challenge. So in that respect, maybe the best approach is to think of how we generate new ideas rather than for what.

Here is the solution to the wood problem: link!

Black cat in a dark room...

2011-08-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

Was just sitting thinking about a combination of things. However, as always I realised they were connected. It was focused mainly on the humorous aside done by Rowan Atkinson, whilst I was listening to some jazz. Paraphrasing the joke somewhat, it went like this; "It's like the story of the blind man, looking for the black cat, in the dark room. That wasn't there!" Funny in itself, but also a lead to an element of my creative thinking lessons.

This involves showing the students a slide of some black (much like above). I ask them what do they see? Many give an obvious and somewhat unimagined answer, but nonetheless the truth: "Black!" The idea of the exercise is similar to one artist's artists expression about a block of marble. He said it wasn't a block of marble, it was a beautiful elephant, it just needed to be brought out. The same can be said about the black. If you now enter the concept of a light bulb. The transference of imagination should have a better result.

If the answer still comes back "black" then the person being questioned should be given stronger lessons in using their right side of the brain. Tell them it is a room. It's just that the light has been turned off. The absence of light does not stop the room being a room. It's simply that the light is the tool that enables the clarification. What creative thinking and lateral thinking is, is the process of seeing a room without the benefit of being given a bulb to illuminate. It's like your mind in itself is the bulb that (in classic cliche) hovers above your head when the idea pops up, and illuminates the concept (room).

But I could have done that!

2011-07-25T22:43:00.000-07:00

A refreshing cool breeze blew across my face this morning, as the hot coffee and orange juice were equally partaken. On what will inevitably be another hot day here in Greece. I sat, as I always do, firstly wondering why I am up so early, and secondly about the work I have to achieve today, and this week. The ponderings of work were probably more on my mind, as yesterday I came across one of my favourite websites. The site cites examples of when creatives have experienced client interaction which is not very conducive to a good standard of work practice.

Made me think. As several of my connections on Facebook are also creatives and we sometimes discuss this matter. As well as the trials of being artistic and living in todays society of capitalism and free-market enterprise. Sometimes it seems that the money wheel is controlled by philistine marketeers. Who have no concept of the true value of aesthetics, but instead, due to their own inability to create, have found a way to make a quick buck off someone else's back. And subsequently put the artist (the creator) down as the lowest denominating factor. After all, it does seem that artists have a cheek. Given a talent and loving the whole process of creating, and, yes, and expecting to be paid good money for it.

What we have in the world today, is a system by which money (sadly) has become a new religion. This has been generated by the zeitgeist theory of credit exchange. Art is always a strange paradox, when it comes to money and finance. After all Picasso could go into a restaurant and draw on a napkin and then take thousands of pounds for it. This is not true for all creatives. I know if I would draw on a napkin here in Greece, it would be collected up with the endtrails of the meal, or frowned upon. Not because of the country, but because I have not become famous. Which in itself is a strange notion of position.

Is it true, or could it be said, that people are famous because they do something that people like. And os those people (the public) then purchase it and make money for the artist, who then gets richer and placed into the echelon of higher society, and continues a spiral upwards. Until the inevitable crash and burn. Whether that be through over-ego saturation and bad quality work, fame narcotics or the pressure opt-out clause. What if the artist was to gain public admiration, but then the public said "we like your work, but it's not worth anything. Keep it up."

Well, two things could happen. The creative would carry on, because they loved what they were doing, or they would stop because the drive was to make an income out of the art. At this point, and again, as I have a constant reminder of Vincent's brilliance on my wall, I have to declare my respect for his work. He struggled and kept at it for his entire life. Having a passion for his art. Wanting to be accepted, but finding that in his lifetime he was not the flavour of the day. Only to ironically find that many years later, his work is perversely sold at great value to collectors (who may or amy not be art appreciators, but do take this art based on it's credit value).

So I am sitting here, enjoying the filter coffee, which was so practically brewed this morning, thinking about the life as an applied artist. I do, do work away from the economic circus and actually love it more that the grind of trying to please clients. Mainly, and a good point here, is that I can do whatever I like, not worry about time constraints, only satisfy the best client there is (myself), and get truly involved in the work. Mostly however, my days are commissioned to try to juggle the problems of creativity. Why are there problems?

I have to be honest. I really don't value the notion of 'talent'. That is to say: "God given talent/born with God's gift" One strong reason is my devout no belief in the deity system. Secondly, I do believe in aptitude. Some kind of genetic patterning that can make someone good at singing, drawing, selling, plumbing, etc. but on the whole that aptitude will not get anyone anywhere if there is not a great deal of toil involved. This was something that always made me laugh as a student at college. Making my way to see my girlfriend at the time, who was a fine art student, and seeing canvas and canvas of students work with Pollockesque attributes, or Picassoesque styles, or Kandinsky or Rothko traits. All because this is a trap of notoriety. They believed they could jump a hurdle of hard work and sewat, and get to the money making style.

So, back to the work in hand. Interacting with clients. The main flaw in this aesthetic form of work, is that it is a service job that provides a product, that has no feasible concept to correlate the effort to the product. Mainly the reason for this is clear. And one of the aspects that I do an amount of research in. The creative right side of the brain's participation in the whole gamut of this sphere of creativity. How can you put a value on thinking Is the thinking an important aspect to the final product? Well, as an example. A client sits down with a creative mind. There is a blank canvas in front of them. The client says; "I would like to see an idea." There is a pause. The client says again; "I would like to see a visualisation of an idea for my product." The creative and the client look at each other. The creative say; "There is no idea without thinking, and thinking takes time. Time equals cost. If you want to pay for the idea, there is an idea on the canvas." The client then says; "But I am paying for the creation, not the idea." The creative then says; "But where does the creation come from?"

This is a continued argument ut let us take an example (I must point out at this stage, that I had in fact completed the note, and was doing a spell check, and the three paragraphs below this just disappeared). Let's image that we have $2,000. We walk into a car showroom and want to buy a car. After the salesperson determines that this is the budget range then he escorts us to the far end of the showroom, where there stands a modest and ordinary looking car. No extras, no trim, no nothing flash and exciting. It does have a banner on it, that read: "This is the $2,000 car for you!" You look at it for a while and then looking at the far end of the showroom, and squinting your eyes somewhat, you see an amazing razzle-dazzle car. You declare that this is the one you want, and start walking toward it. The salesperson tries to stop you and says, "You don't have money for that!". Buy then you look surprised and say, "But it's only a car!"

In a real world situation, and my most common request is that of the internet. "Can you do a website?", "Yes!". "How much can you do one for?" This question never ceases to amaze me, and seems to be a common thread on the 'Clients from hell' site, and I can only answer by saying, "how long is a piece of string?" The confused look is taken away, when the nature of the web is explained in brief. After the price is set, then comes the principle problem. Many clients see the internet as a page on the browser window. They don't see the programming, the design, the artwork and the technologies involved in the setting up of a design. They also see template sites offering a 'you-might-see-that-design-somewhere-else' approach for $60 and say, "look you are ripping me off!" They want original design at a template cost and usually tomorrow. So, the next thing that occurs is that the price is never good at making boundaries. They will (usually a week in) say "I've seen this on another site, can we have it?" or many other forms of this. Never believing there is additional time and effort, therefore cost associated. Creatives do it because they love it, after all!!

There are many faults with the capitalist way of dealing with aesthetics. The main paradox is that drawing was the first form of communication many thousands of years ago, and has resulted in an inability to communicate it's value. This is arguably paradoxical in form as well, as the monetary system is false and nothing really has a capital value. But basically, and to quote Mr. Gauguin: “I shut my eyes in order to see, and dream the dream my eyes cannot see.”, the utopian ideal would be to have creatives on the same billing level as a lawyer. To have their skills recognised and to be given proper credit and compensation for them. However, in a world of philistines and market manipulations this is not going to happen.

How can this conclude? I see a great deal of my creative friends doing something that is common in many. Creating because of the drive and the passion. They do it because they love it. If the struggle is part of the game, then let it be washed away with some passion. and so I will stop here and continue my day. The website is worth a look as it reminds you (the creative) that you are not alone, and in some case, there are worse out there.

Coffee is complete and there are noises being made outside, so the day has begun. I will go off and do what I do best, and create. Not because it will make me rich and famous, but better still, because I love it!!!

Educational Paradigm

2011-07-10T22:43:00.000-07:00

After some 200 years (plus) of Educational process, the early twenty-first century calls for a new educational paradigm. The existing educational model is built on a flawed system. This system is flawed due to one main attribute; the fact it is outdated. Can you imagine that the process by which children are being taught today is much the same as when the education process was created in the industrial revolution? The three 'R' we call it in the English system (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic). Which in itself is a joke. Not getting good marks in the spelling 'pop' quiz with that one I would say. The two hundred year old system was born out of a need to educate the masses in the (low end) process of industry. Mainly operating machinery, menial cleric work, etc. Give them enough knowledge to be able to think they are independent and smart, and you have a work force. A work force that will do labour that is not appealing, is not fulfilling, is not purposeful. Except to one goal; making someone else richer.

With the industrial revolution can one other big step for mankind; commerce. The values of which are now seen in the system, through capitalism. Money speaks, and morals do not. The simply fact that that paradigm itself has made it that the educational paradigm has become a farce, is a legacy of the influence of this new religion. All become dependant and hungry on the power of money that, in the case of education, the values of this system are put in jeopardy. Like many processes in modern mechanised systems, the educational system went from a craft-based structure (father-to-son) approach, to a more economically viable system, of pushing them through the mill (to use an expression). Many ways to describe this process have been defined by more apt scholars on the subject, but the basic value is that of 'parrot' teaching.

The most cost effective way to get a large mass of people semi-educated is to make a system of study, with a commonality of subjects, and to spout it out to the young minds and get the poor little darlings to repeat it, until they believe they have learnt something. When in fact all they have learnt is how to repeat something! It was reported that pre-school children under the age of five, where more capable of geographic based learning and study than early school children. One argument with that is that the children were not being taught the right thing. this was due to the fact that the system was out-dated and biased. The other argument was that many pre-school kids have a different approach to study. The socio-reflective approach to their upbringing means they have a more one-on-one connection with a parent or minder. When in school the children are then quickly forced to partake in a process by which educational markers are met. This does not account for many factors. One of which, and most importantly, is the simple fact that children don't learn at the same rate, don't enjoy the same subjects, have different interests. This is simply forgotten, why? Because it is not economically viable to give such individual attention to a large mass of kids.

An example of a small girl who was distracted in class, was aired by the protagonist of the modern education system, Sir Ken Robinson, and gave light to a big issue indeed. The girl was doing very well at school, was taken to her head's office. There, there was a discussion with her mother about the issues at hand. It was advised that she will be observed and reported back on this issue. A later meeting, the girl was asked to stay in the head's office while the mother was taken outside for a private conversation. Before leaving the office the head switched on her radio, to occupy the girl. The mother was not given any talk on her daughter's progress, outside the office. Instead she was asked to watch through the window. The daughter was engaged by the music. Seemed to be alert and interested. The head said that her daughter was not bad at school, she just wasn't stimulated by the subjects. So she was placed in an arts school. The same girl went on to become a leading choreographer and set the choreography for the broadway show 'Cats'.

What is one example explains very clearly is that young minds are not all the same. Their purposes are not all the same. But unfortunately, they are all pushed through the same system. All told that they must learn to write, read and do science based subjects. Why? Because industry needs robots like this. The one stigma that the creative world often gets is that they are 'irresponsible drop-outs'. That they don't fit into society. Well, one of the key things that has been evident in the archaic education paradigm is that arts have never been a part of the process Why? Very obvious! The arts and ability to be artistic is about the freedom of thinking. The ability to use one's mind for it's real purpose; to explore. This is against the model for a commercial world. And as an attack on this ability to fre-think what does the capitalist society do? It values art, makes it commercial and regulates it.

This is one of the biggest and saddest approaches to a system out of control. When you can't control the masses, control what they enjoy. The music industry for example is big business now. A form of free-expression has been degraded to sales, chart positions, popularity. And to an extent that even the creativity of such forms are moulded and manufactured to fit into the money-making model. If you do something a little different the you will not succeed. You don't have the capitalist 'X' factor. And even more damning is the notation of worth on a painting. Record values on masterpieces. This is a condemnation of the reason they exist in the first place. It was about free-form again. Even though some art was delivered at a cost (artist have to survive in the capitalist machine as well), their art is about the one thing politics cannot control; their spirit.

So, can there be a new educational paradigm? Not when there are performance tables to be adhered to. Not when people pay for education. Not as long as the ancient process of the three 'R' populates school halls. Maybe it is a little amusing to hear this, but one of the greatest geniuses of our time, who was removed from the modern education process (due to lack of stimulus) quoted on education as such:

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”
~ Albert Einstein
The capitalist system and the industrial (technological) revolution that created it's pillars are dead. A new approach has to be made. A new system to allow creative minds to ability to find creative solutions to the problems that all mankind face, needs to be discovered. It is evident after 200 years of misnomer on the education system, that nobody has been educated in the correct manner to our current predicament. Now, you see rare examples of genius popping out and delivery sheer brilliance in problem solving. What has to happen, is the money-makers themselves have to be educated in knowing that this genius is for the good of man, not the benefit of their pockets. The world has changed. The education system has not. Without finding a way to make the new young minds look at the ever growing issues of this planet and see them with a new perspective and fresh mind, then the system is doomed.

It is a little ironic that the word educate comes from the latin origin; "to lead out", and more of a joke that the modern education system is only leading these young minds by dangling a rotten carrot in front of them.

Genetic Transformation based on environmental influences

2011-05-07T00:28:00.000-07:00

The connections continue. This morning I was watching the first section of Zeitgeist III: Moving Forward. The section began by covering the affects of human society and human nature. What actually defines and promotes are nature was fascinatingly described in the scientific analysis. The connection arises from the book I am currently reading and a little of my own upbringing. The book being "How to do better creative work".

Not all of the book is pertinent to the discourse of what Zeitgeist was saying, but there was a passage in which the author tells of his own aspirations to be a good designer. One of these procedures he created to make himself better was in fact to pin a good example of design or art (in his opinion) in front of him in his work area. So that when he was feeling uninspired or down he could look up and have something in his environment make him feel more aesthetically motivated. He also adds that one of the great processes of being more creative, is to be surrounded and influenced by your profession: That visiting galleries, reading art magazines, art blogs and even discussing with like minded people, was a method by which you could become more creative.

Zeitgeist was inferring in the third instalment of their truth series is that environment and society can in fact evolve the natural state of your gene structure. That socio-reflective nature was not just about the environment that you live in, but the absorption of that environment into your physical state. That it was not a simple case that hanging around artists will make you more artistic, but that the repeated living in that environmental influence type will eventually genetically change your DNA code to become more susceptible to the promise that you can be more creative. It is not a guaranteed method by which to make a career choice into the world of art. This is where my own determination became more of a connection. As a child I drew; most children draw. However, my environment was not set up to allow me to be influenced by creative aspects. In retrospect I remember my dislike to my parent's taste in music, art and all aesthetic concerns. It was only when I met a friend who's family was a group of artists, was it that I enjoyed the idea of becoming more creative. I would spend days there, and even changed the things that I listened too, and explored. From that point on it seemed that I was awoken to the possibilities that I now do as a living.

Anything to do with genetics is hard to determine as the science cannot be a definitive marker, but the indication shown in Zeitgeist seems to give rise to the notion that if one wants to change one's life, one aspect is to immerse yourself in an environment and social interaction associated with that. You do see this in college environments. Students do, over time, get better at their creativity. This is when they intensify their concerns about their aesthetic environment. If the is a gene that can determine this creative role then it can not do any harm in helping it evolve. As Steve Harrison states; reading more, going to galleries and general saturation in artistic things can only help promote better creativity in oneself. And if, as most people believe, that you are born with such talent, it was indicated in Zeitgeist that even if that gene does exist and the talent be embedded there within, there is still a great deal of what happens there after that makes a person into a creative person. Food for thought!

Student Related Project: Hello/Goodbye

2011-04-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

Final Composition

(click the image to see the tutorial for follow this link, but be patient the movie is 140mbs)

This is the ninth project on the Creative Thinking list. It is based on developing a billboard campaign to greet and bid farewell to travellers to Thessaloniki. Not only did the designs have to be developed in a unique way, but also placed in an appropriate environment to show its compatibility to the environment. This tutorial shows how this can be done.

Student Related Project: Word Autopsy

2011-04-23T07:21:00.000-07:00

The final composition.

(click the image to see the tutorial for follow this link, but be patient the movie is 115mbs)

This was the initial project done by the students on the creative thinking course. The idea was to take one chosen word and to find ten variations of the word, based on the use of a little lateral and creative thinking. The video tutorial shows the process by which I would go through to get the end result.

Making something look a little more finished!!

2011-04-22T23:54:00.000-07:00

Video Tutorial: Click above or here to watch!

(The tutorial is over 160mbs so be patient)

As part of the process of trying to get people to understand the need to see two aspects of design; the idea and the completion, I have taken a concept from one of the discussions we had in class as a way to see how to be a little more creative with the process of developing an idea. This was done at speed, but does indicate that after some development and thought a good idea can come out and then the graphic display of that idea can be improved using some technical skills.

Three moments (creatively)

2011-04-19T03:31:00.000-07:00

This was a project I recently gave my students at college. The title being; "Three Moments in time". As always with these creative thinking projects I wanted to explore the possibilities of looking a little deeper at the process of thinking rather than creating. After all, it is very simple indeed to get a load of images of Google or take some shots of a candle or cigarette burning down.

This wasn't really the point to this project. And so many times I find that the student end up resulting something out in that fashion. "Three moments in time" as a key starting point will, like any subject, deliver cliched initial concepts in the mind. As mentioned before, we can all find them around us, hence their categorisation as cliched. To aid the students I tried to go through the process of defining how I saw a clever alternative. This was my result (above), based on a concept that followed the following path:

1) First to take a great deal of time to research many aspects of time. The measurement, the values, the variables, the concept, the myth, etc. Everything really that could help promote some notions about the next phase.

2) This was to then explore some of these possibilities as a division set in three. Looking at history, form and other methods to create the necessary division. In my case, I was in a discussion with the students about time. The first starting point is to test your own knowledge. So, in a discursive brainstorming session we looked at what we knew. I mentioned Einstein as a key element to time, as he developed to understanding of the doppler affect. Now, I was talking to the students about what this theory was, and I said then...

3) in the creative aspect of this, that I appreciate clever minimalism in design. So I looked a little further at the ways that I could promote this in a quick and easy form and the end result was achieved as seen above.

This process doesn't work all the time in every given project, but it can help if, by using the lateral thinking method, give alternative ways by which to seek out paths of information that could generate a new and clever concept. As I do remind the students, the subject is creative thinking, not cliched thinking.

How do we grow new ideas?

2011-03-27T07:19:00.000-07:00

Being a creative and and educator, I often find times when the struggle to explain the task of getting to an idea is further complicated by the need to understand that the students are in fact novice to all this. I did a lot of my research into Lateral Thinking and ideas when I was doing my Masters degree, some twelve years back now. Since then I have explored, read, watched, combined many theories and examples of how to get to the that idea. Whether its the hard toil or eureka moment, there are practices in place that can aid in the coming forth of good and even great ideas. Needless to say, that bad ideas are the metaphorical swamp that many a creative person finds themselves in at the start of any adventure into the creative world. So, we can only really pick ourselves up out of the mire of mediocrity and do better.

If you take our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, they have a knack of problem solving not far removed from the basic process of human endeavour. When challenged with something they tend to spend a great deal of time testing out extreme resolutions. Many of which fail, but in time delivers the end worth. It may not be the best result, but it achieves the needed outcome. Many people deal with the issue of problem solving i much the same way. Like sticking sellotape around something to fix it, or spelling something wrong on a crossword puzzle to get it to fit, so they can finish. These kind of solutions have no great practical outcome, as they are fixes to a problem, and not a resolution.

I was surprised when I typed out the short list of methods to make a good idea, as written in James Webb Young's inspiring book, and found that it wasn't too far removed from my own teachings in the study of creative thinking. Then, with some further reading into the book "How to do better Creative Work" it was explained that the reason that most people haven't truly caught onto this not because people haven't already thought of this plan, but instead find it hard to maintain the process. Maybe due to lack of motivation, time, or a number of other factors. However, the reason this process works is because it delivers the structure that the mind needs to go through to achieve that elusive idea. Here is the list again and the breakdown to it's value and purpose:

Gather as much raw information as possible.
Chew it over and let your first ideas leave your system.
Stop thinking about the subject and let your subconscious get to work.
Be ready for the idea to flow at any time.
Shape and develop the idea for practical usefulness.

1 | In many aspects, the most important, even if time consuming of the points. You can hardly move forward with an idea, if you know nothing of the subject and a little less of the needs. Many people (especially the learners) tend to believe they either know-it-all, or don't need to know anything about the depth of a subject brief to design something good. That it is more about what they think is good.

2 | Another aspect to what I teach. Get rid of the first idea. It's usually cliched and been done a thousand times before. There is never anything clever in seeing another person's work and then reinventing it in a different style. By all means use this as a starting point, but very quickly understand that this needs to be forgotten and/or worked on to be original.

3 | Now, this is a crazy notion. But believe it or not, creatives are 24/7 people. The actual aspect of stop thinking about it, means in a cognitive sense. You can never really stop thinking about a puzzle, as that is what the brain is for. Do what Einstein did, and lie down. There are reasons why it works, and anything that can aid in creating a brain flow should be considered.

4 | You should also consider the possibility that ideas (or better ideas) could emerge after the actual chosen path has been taken. Hence, after all, the expression, the eleventh hour. Many puzzles can be defined and determined by seeing other previously unseen aspects. Developing anything can generate these previously unseen aspects and therefore, should not be dismissed even if a conclusive path has been chosen.

5 | The final stage is possible the most enjoyable and satisfying, as its the assumed creative part. What should not be forgotten however, is that this is the realisation aspect. The idea is the more creative aspect. It is the thing that drives the brain to find answers.

So, growing new ideas isn't a difficult thing. It's just the difference between understanding if you need a quick yield or are patient enough to see a good idea bloom. The metaphor of growing may seem silly, but the process of seeing an idea sprout out of nothing, is as much as seeing young shoots popping their head out of the dark soil. It's a great joy when it happens. And the process that seemed pointless at the start now bears fruit.

Technique for Producing Ideas

2011-03-22T04:46:00.000-07:00

This is the basic notion to James Webb Young's inspiring book!!

Gather as much raw information as possible.
Chew it over and let your first ideas leave your system.
Stop thinking about the subject and let your subconscious get to work.
Be ready for the idea to flow at any time.
Shape and develop the idea for practical usefulness.

Great ideas come from...

2011-03-19T10:02:00.001-07:00

How to do better Creative Work - Good Book!

2011-03-12T03:13:00.000-08:00

How to do better Creative Work

I just started reading this, and surprise surprise, it says exactly the same thing that I have been teaching, within the first two pages. You can't be creative on the computer!!!

Infinite language

2011-03-12T02:13:00.000-08:00

Darwin on beauty!

2010-11-17T02:23:00.000-08:00

Brainstorming

2010-11-05T00:13:00.000-07:00

Brainstorming was invented in the early 40's by Alex Osborn. An advertising executive who strived to develop new and interesting concepts to help promote better ideas in his work. The technique became very successful, and now today, many firms and groups use brainstorming as a method by which to get concepts flowing. This has spatted debate to their value as well as developed several other techniques and process that can help in the development of their ideas. One of these other processes is the acclaimed Lateral Thinking process, developed by Edward De Bono. What however, has to be discussed is do these extra brain stimulators really work?

Women and Shoes
One day, two mothers and two daughters went shopping for shoes. Their shopping spree was successful — each bought a pair of shoes, and all together, they had three pairs. How is this possible?

How long does it take to solve this problem? Well, with the understanding of some of the things that De Bono talks about with pattern recall, it shouldn't actually take long at all. Matter of moments. The answer wont be give, but the point is that by placing this problem into your mind, the action is to not think vertically in the reasoning behind the odd outcome, it is to think laterally. To analyse all the reasons that the group ends up with three pairs of shoes. The common method to resolve this would be to use the reversal method. Start with the answer and then work backward to the start to see how three pairs can make the question.

Our brain is very good at solving problems. It has been doing it in time in memorial, but the additional modern concept of trying to use the brain to solve creative issues has taken a step to a new paradigm. The humorous conclusion to any thing in these debates is that the answer is already there. The challenge is to find it. Its almost like the analogy of looking for something in the fog. The fog is the deception of modern education and cliche, and the clearing of the fog will reveal the answer. Good design can be attributed to clever people with aptitude to see variation. But, with some understanding in looking sideways instead of forward, when it comes to concepts, the answers can and do flow in. How does brainstorming work?

Brainstorming can really only be achieved by the method of working in a group. To use a tired expression; "The more the merrier!" In the case of creative brainstorming it can help that all have some creative knowledge, but then again, the actions of having ideas thrown into the melee from inexperienced people can in fact draw out unbiased ideas that can be fresh and exciting. So, the challenge with brainstorming, is to be open and expressive as possible. Almost regress to a child like state. Mainly as children are rarely inhibited by the bounds of reality, and their fantasy side of thinking tends to take over. They tend to think of what is desired rather than what is possible. Osborn set up some simple rules to the process. Their is no bounds to what is said. The weirder notions and ideas tend to make better seeds to concepts. There is no disrespecting a persons idea. Shyness to expression can inhibit a possible great idea. Also, all attendees to the brainstorming session should participate. Having a 'wallflower' sitting in the corner is not at all productive.

The hardest thing to remember in all this, is the simple fact that there are inhibitors at work in any given brainstorming session. These being the constrictive values of vertical thinking. Basically all that has been taught to you before, and all that you have experienced. Not easy to wash (or put) all this to one side whilst you try to develop genius, but if you understand when an idea pops into your mind and seems familiar or weak, then it should be flagged as such. Novelty is the mother of creative ideas and the brainstorming process is hopefully presenting the fertile bed by which to grow these seeds of ideas.

Creative Thinking - extended

2010-10-29T02:42:00.000-07:00

Plagiarism

2010-10-17T01:34:00.000-07:00

This is a double edged sword when the debate about the effectiveness of the internet comes into the arena. How does a creative person sell their wares, or even advertise their wares, without the fear of being copied, ripped off, or having work stolen and reuse. Well, it is an increasing trend in today's creative society to copy/paste concepts and ideas from the more talented and claim them as one's own. Look at the recent news of the Microsoft equivalent to the iPad, due in 2011. It is a simple reflection of the fact they replicated the iPod into a Zune, and replicated many feature from the OS X system interface into the Vista interface. This is just one example of high end reworking of the twists around copyright and patent laws. On a smaller level, and more creative level, how can one defend against someone stealing ideas.

An interesting site to look at is this one; plagiarism.org/. They state that the terms copying is a weakened description of the more serious aspect of the crime. According to the dictionary, plagiarism means:

plagiarism |ˈpleɪdʒərɪz(ə)m|nounthe practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's

And is actually derived from the Greek word for kidnapping. So, can words, ideas and artwork be stolen. According to many laws the answer is yes. Even in recent years the new law of 'Intellectual Property' has been devised to protect ideas before they materialise into real entities. This website tells you more on that issue; intellectual-property.gov.uk/. The big issue is not really if there are laws out there that protect you from the crime, but how one can deal with the issues of plagiarism. There are two angles to this; first the role of victim and the second, the perpetrator.

Avoiding plagiarism as a creative is very hard. Copyright laws are in effect, and simply being the creator of a piece of art entitles you to a modicum of protection under the existing laws. However, the extensive nature of the world wide web means that policing your work over the thousands of countries that could view any online gallery, is near impossible. Also, for certain creative forms, such as fashion, the world of copyright can be bent, as fashion is seen as a utility item and therefore cannot be protected. So, copying is not against the law, just a moral issue. However, the laws don't really help, just like a stamp to define ownership. Watermarking images can help, but again, that simply stops perpetrators actually using those artefacts, not taking the idea or concept. As you have to put work on the web to get known these days, the easiest safeguard is to originate a unique style. This way, copying the style will indicate the breaking of the law, as it would be near impossible for two people to have such similar styles the more unique it is.
Also, something that is promoted at lot at, at college is the use of sketch books. What this can do is to help show development of concepts. By doing so, this can show a time line by which an idea can be validated. Simply having a finished piece is not a good sign of ownership.

As far a being a perpetrator goes, you can protect yourself from this by validating any sources you have used in any written or visual work. "Inspired by the work of" can be enough to qualify the derivation. In written work, bibliographies and reference listing are a great way to avoid the "copy/paste wikipedia" spotlight in many a persons essays. However, looking deeper into the person's actual portfolio and seeming a blinding snap of styles from one piece to another can also indicate that the piece is not original. In text, knowing a person's writing style can also show a change in aspect. The end line however, is as much as Jim Jarmush stated; "nothing is original". It is hard to close one's eyes to what is around and not be influenced. It is also hard to lock everything away to avoid gazing eyes. Art is about observation in both directions. Technology is the perpetrator in the respect of giving license to people to 'believe' that the internet and all its artefacts are free. They are not.

In the end, the morality of each and every individual is the key to protection. As a creative, the notion that you simply copy other people's ideas and make them your own shouldn't really sit well in your conscience. Being original is the motivation to taking your imagination and translating it into art in the first place. If you can make a dollar for the effort, then this is a good thing. If a dollar gets stolen from you in the process, because of plagiarism then one's value of an artist and creative has been under-minded by the powers of capitalism and commerce. Will conclude with a favourite quote at present:

Practice safe design: Use a concept. - Petrula Vrontikis

Socio-Reflective and Cognitive

2010-10-06T21:22:00.000-07:00

Steven Pinker wrote a book called "The Blank Slate", in which he makes the point of saying that we all have the genetic ability to retain information from generation to generation. That this genetic connection can be passed along through centuries of family connections. That maybe the understanding of what talent and skills are, can in fact be accounted to some linage in one's history. Now, when we look at things in the here and now, we can see two main forms of development: socio-reflective and cognitive learning. Whether our history and genetic linage aids in this perception of the world as we grow and learn could be a deciding factor in some of our choices. It is obvious that being the off-spring to a qualified person brings a greater chance that the child will follow in the parents footsteps, but what if there is a noticeable diversion away from that.

In our existence as humans there are two forms of learning we go through in our development. When we first pop out of the motherly womb and enter the world we are fresh and inexperienced in many things. Nature provides us with a nature functions to allow us to develop; instincts. However, the finer points of human life must be learnt by following the examples of others. As a child we watch our parents and take in a great deal of information about the social development of our lives. This process is known as socio-reflective learning. Mainly it is based on the notion that elders know better and therefore if you copy the actions of elders in your development you will learn the ways of existence. It happens in all walks of life and animals alike. Parents teaching the off-spring how to deal with complications that occur in their lives. Children basically reflect the actions of parents to learn things.

Around the age of five or six, we, as human, take a changeable step in the method of learning. We basically send our children to school. This does two things. Firstly it swaps out the role of socio-reflective teacher from parent to peer. We follow the examples of children of our own age who are more willing to take on the role of leader. And secondly it gives us the first real exploration of what is known as our cognition. The thinking part of our brain. Education is set out to instruct us in the problem solving aspect of life that our instincts cannot provide. An example of that would be that problems such as being able to walk exist in young bodies. Nature provides the answer in an instinctual development by enabling the process to slowly develop from rolling to crawling to standing and then to walking. Some of the lessons in life do not have instinctual instruction. This is one of the reasons our pre-frontal lobe came into development. To enable us to think, and that thinking is about resolving problems.

Cognitive learning is only really effective if the student of this process is inherently well equipped to deal with the problem solving. The development of the modern education system was devised to aid in cognitive learning. To train people to deal with the, as then, new industrial revolution. What has occurred over the two year development of this education system is the process by which a cognitive method has been twisted into a semi-socio-reflective form of learning. This has taken onboard the catchy title of 'parrot' teaching. What it results in is teachers delivering content that students digest and simply repeat when required. This unfortunately denotes the basic values of cognition. As these minds then transfer away from the educational institutions what occurs is a constant need to be instructed. One of the biggest hinderers in this process and a cause for concern in the development of real cognitive study is the of course the computer age. Computers have been designed as assisting tools, which sadly have converted their role. There has become too much of a reliance on the technology to provide the solutions instead of our own brains.

Our own brain is more powerful than the computer technology it tries to command. It has been designed to do the same function as most computers; problem solve. However, many forms of problems that are placed in front of us are either passed over or given to another form to resolve, simply because the desire to use cognitive deduction has become exhausted in our minds. If 'parrot' teaching is to blame then the education system needs to be revised. If it is a natural process of evolution then this is another matter. We are so very able in our early years to challenge ourselves in the processes of following instruction and then taken our own steps from what we have learnt that it seems awkward that reliance on others has now become a later generation trend. Cognitive learning is as much about finding the problem as it is about seeking the solution. A lack of charge to approach such forms of education is making us lazy.

Introduction to Creative Thinking

2010-10-06T08:59:00.000-07:00

differences

2010-10-05T00:12:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between Socio-reflective learning and Cognitive learning?

more to come...

Creative Thinking - Induction video

2010-09-23T23:38:00.000-07:00

Video presentation presented to the new induction students at college.

blocks: prejudice

2010-08-28T23:09:00.000-07:00

This symbol is the Chinese symbol of Yin Yang. It's definition and visual definition is set to indicate balance and harmony. They all things have equal space and value and that every element contains elements of the opposite within it's form. It says a great deal about the way life should be viewed and accepted, but to many it rarely is understood. To a creative mind, the idea of harmony, balance and unity should be key in the creative mind. However, there exists a word that defines an action that so often plays a part in the design concept and therefore designates a block against good design. Being a lecturer at college and listening to college students talk about briefs, projects and concepts, it becomes apparent that this action is a leading part in design failure to some extent.

When we say this word, many people see it as a grand negative word with other stronger definitions; such as racism and hatred to others. However the word 'prejudice' is derived from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgment.’ Which is exactly what the action is. Now what we are not aware of, which are things that have been talked of before regarding blocks, are the influencers that can cause prejudice, and more so, prejudice in design. The hard part about this is the fact that many of these triggers are engrained into our system through our upbringing, that it is hard to move away from it. We are born in a culture, brought up in a culture, have cultural history, and so forth. However, we also define our own tastes and likings based on natural reactors. We all do it, and for the sake of saying it, it is not a fault. It is the way we live our lives. It creates a safety zone for us.

The idea of creative and lateral thinking is to, to quote De Bono, "think outside the box". Prejudice stores all your knowledge inside this box. Even if metaphorical, the values stored there are based on the constrictions we and our world around us have defined. Simple examples are; my favourite colour, the type of music I listen to, the things I read, a feeling I get when touching a type of cloth, food preference, etc. But if you extend this and (just for fun) list all the progressive values that could be classed as a prejudicial trigger, the list would include almost every aspect of your life: I am English, I was born in England, I speak English, I had a brother and sister, my Father was a butcher, he was also a Christian. My bedroom window overlooked an industrial park. I walked past a pond on the way to school, etc. etc.

This may seem a little extensive and over the top, but what I am trying to get at, is that there are two aspects to this data input (in the way it works). Firstly, and most importantly to designers, is that visual input is very strong and influential. A very simple example is; how could yellow be your favourite colour if you couldn't see it and it was just a word. You can't favour a word that describes something that is true. It has to have some correlation. The point is that anything that enters our cerebral cortex is filtered and can be defined as a pattern, based on it's importance to be remembered. Its hard to understand what makes one person favour, say, a colour of another, but the end result is the same. A stronger liking to it based on a pattern recall in our brain. The second aspect to this is the blocking or close minded aspect to it.

This can be, in sociological terms, very destructive. And this is where prejudice comes from. However, from an artistic sense, or more specifically to a design sense, this can hold back the flow of what could evolve into a great design over a normal design. 'Thinking outside the box' has become the catchphrase to Lateral Thinking. Although inspired by a puzzle created by De Bono, it can have visual metaphoric values to insight the need to look further that that which is stored in the said box. What this is all coming round to (and I will admit that I probably [or do] suffer from this as well) is that we rely on these prejudices to safeguard our creative outcomes. Looking at a video that was used to sell Apple's new philosophy of 'Think Different' there is a very important aspect that is stated at the end. After the melee of negativity that is aired to people who think different, the conclusion is "That they change the world". This is something that a good designer hopes to do. The only real way to achieve this is by thinking differently. The only real way to think differently against what you have engrained inside you is to be aware of this prejudice that occurs on initiation and to work against it or have strong argument toward it.

One of the funniest experiences I had was when I was a student myself and we had a crit. The student (who will remain nameless, but was female) was asked to give a presentation of her work based on a brief to design a title sequence design for a 'boys' programme. Some way into it, and after discussing the shapes, forms and progression of visuals, I asked why she had chosen pink as the main colour for the background. The reaction was, as I now think in hindsight the expected one, which was "It's my favourite colour." After saying that was not a good reason to choose a colour, the conversation turned abusive and the teacher quickly moved on. This now (knowing a little more) shows me two things. Firstly that when challenged about one's preferences as a prejudice people can be very strong in their defence, even without knowing the reason why. Saying it is my favourite colour is not a strong argument. Also, that the prejudice can work both ways. Society has defined 'pink' as feminine and 'blue' as masculine, but through some research I discovered that blue was actually used to dress baby girls pre-war. So, the fact was that both of us held some prejudice in our opinions, which never ended in a good resolve to the design.

Maybe mild prejudgement (prejudice) doesn't hurt people in the end. It creates social patterns, clubs, cliques, and fashions, but from a design aspect in a world were to get noticed these days the need to strive for something different means that to think outside the box is harder, but also not knowing the definitions of this boxes confinements is also a restrictive challenge. To begin with, when starting a conceptual thought, ask yourself; "am I designing this, this way, because its something I like, or because it has some appropriateness and originality to the design process?"

definition: creative thinking

2010-07-01T00:11:00.000-07:00

Things just pop in there; occasionally. Had some feedback on a post I did some days back. Has been ticking in my mind for these past days. Or maybe bouncing, rattling or crescendoing around. Anyway, waking up this morning and starting to layout all the project briefs for Creative Thinking for the new semester, Norman McLaren popped into my mind. First, if you are not aware, he was an established Canadian animator, winning an Oscar for his piece "Neighbours" in 1955. Why did he pop into my head? Well gathering those strangely connected fragments together it was based on the fact that some years back (and is now in my collection) I saw a documentary about the artist in question, called "The Creative Process"

This was linked to something that was on my mind as I woke this morning. Thinking about the initial talk that will be given to the induction of students. The college I work at is associated with a University in the UK, that has coined the phrase; "Creative Thinking". Also, used by me as a title to this blog. One thing I try to do to my students is to define this expression. Because, personally, I think something without meaning cannot be understood. So, as it is in my mind, I thought it only right to add that definition here two as a supportive note to this concept of "creative thinking".

The two words by definition are as in the Oxford Dictionary:

creative |kriːˈeɪtɪv|adjectiverelating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work : changeunleashes people's creative energy | creative writing.• (of a person) having good imagination or original ideas : Homer, the creative genius of Greek epic.nouna person who is creative, typically in a professional context.

and

thinking |θɪŋkɪŋ|adjective [ attrib. ]using thought or rational judgment; intelligent : he seemed to be a thinking man.nounthe process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something : they have done some thinking about welfare reform.• a person's ideas or opinions : his thinking is reflected in his later autobiography.• ( thinkings) archaic thoughts; meditations.

However, that definition is simplified and I feel that there is a greater definition that can help draw out a more exacting reason to the terminology. So, back to Norman McLaren. The initial part of this documentary is called "Creative Process". The later part of De Bono's inventive process is called "Lateral Thinking". By taking these to methods and combining them we can amalgamate the definition "Creative Thinking". I think this is an important aspect to understand the need in this type of discipline in many of the applied arts, if not all arts.

The 'Creative Process', though not defined in the Oxford dictionary, is the methodology by which a creative can move from an initial idea toward to the goal of the completed piece of work. Saying that, the process may not deliver the best result, a complete result or an effective result. Hopefully however, but exploring the process of the creative will of the artist in question, answers can arise and necessary solutions can drawn. Whether this is based on style, media, composition, proportions, etc.

The 'Lateral Thinking' is the new concept to thinking devised by Edward De Bono, with some association to creatives, in order for the process of thinking about a solution to be more varied, more open to different solutions and maybe more prolific in outcome. The method of Lateral Thinking also denotes a methodology set around looking at all possibilities before the path is set to the final conclusion. If it were seen as some Buddhist quote, it would be something like "choose you path carefully" or "a travelled road makes a return just as much as the initial journey". The point being that thought can solve issues.

Maybe in some creative way, most artists are able to do this on "the fly" as to say. However, the point that some may not know this process and it could aid them in knowing is never a bad thing. After all education should be instructive. Also, when it is not possible to be spontaneous, there is never anything wrong in finding a little assistance. Are brains are their to think, the process of becoming intelligent is to solve problems. Combining this action in a method by which a better result could be forthcoming is not at ends a bad thing. What is necessary to incur in all this start-finish method is to apply it and to apply it well.

An example would be the idea that when considering an icon for a company logo. many people would instantly consider the obvious to define the company. Maybe by the product, service or some location related to it. However, a little exploration in several areas of research could define a reasoning not previously considered. This would be the point in defence of the process of Creative Thinking. And with some evaluation to the project briefs set by the University, it could be said that many of these, without some thought process involved, could be achieved very simply and quickly in a shorter time. The point is to propagate the thinking methodology to allow for this better solution to be defined.

In a cluttered world of more and more creative people, the challenges to be good are not always about technical issues, or even name. It is about being different. What can make that difference is the ability to do exactly what is meant by De Bono's coined phrase: "Thinking outside the box".

creative thinker's: a love story

2010-06-26T07:07:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine at school was very good at art. It seemed inherent, as his father was good at art, therefore seemed to run in the family. It kind of made me like the idea as well, so at Sixth Form I walked into the art class and asked if I could do art as a subject. The teacher, Miss Parker, allowed me to join the class, but after some weeks took me to one side and politely told me that I would not make it as a creative person and I should think about leaving the class and doing some other course. I wouldn't accept this, and with several other similar comments from family and teachers alike, I set out to prove them wrong. I guess in a way I have. Also saying that however, I have always had the feeling that I could be artistic. Still today I get up and want to create. Sometimes more than get breakfast, or sort the house out. I say this little ditty at the start as I wanted to mention perseverance.

If I had listened to my art teacher, all those years ago, where would I be? Would I be happy? Would I be in a job I didn't like? Who knows. All I do know is that I stuck with it, and today I think I am pretty good at what I do. Anyway, many years along this path I have come to understand a few things about life and so aim to share them as examples of how I have seem the importance of things in this development. I don't disagree that creative people need to work hard at what they do. I always show my students my first drawing that I did in class, and the reason behind my art teachers obvious pessimism in my skills. I try my best to practice at these skills as much as I can. Maybe for practice, maybe for a development of a personal project or commission. What I also have found, in the ten plus years of teaching people is that somethings are missed in this development and that it can help to have them pointed out.

I don't think I am alone in this. Many of the exemplary people I quote and use and remark on all have aims to see how certain factors can aid in personal development. When I was asked to teach the Creative Thinking section of the course of study at the college I am at now, I loved the challenging aspect to feel that some of this knowledge, some of which I learnt myself at my masters level, could be put across to see how 'thinking' in a creative environment can be of great use. It is not a new thing. Aesthetics has always been a good vehicle to make the mind see things in a different way. After all, the expression, "A picture speaks a thousand words" has aided me several times in class when even the most articulate statement is not enough to describe a point of view. More recently I have done reading (mentioning no names) about the affects on education through social development and the we have evolved.

The first time we scratched art on a wall, it was a form of communication. There was a need to express a notion of something in the mind, and that ability was converted in art form. One aspect I use in my teaching is Aesop. The story of the Crow and the Jug of Water. It is a work of art; in the sense it is a moral tale that tells a story. So is literature. However, there is a depth to the story, to allow people to see the puzzle in the moral tale. When you think about it as well, almost all puzzle related activities have design as a key. Without it the auditory version would be a weak variant and ever so more confusing. So the notion of art and thinking has been around for thousands of years. Maybe in a audience based role, but still there. Today, as art becomes more and more carbon copies of itself and originality of design is flagging to follow trends, then the aid of thinking is a useful tool.

The big issue is where is the limit to what the artistic mind can do and needs to do and can hold in terms of theoretical assistance. One simple thing I say to my students on their arrival in class is "Did you drink orange juice today?" Just a simple aside. However, there is evidence to show that orange juice drunk (not eaten) can stimulate brain activity. Now brain activity is not only necessary to do mathematical equations, it is also necessary to stimulate the right side of the brain too. Lying down to try and come up with an idea (much as Einstein did) is another humorous statement added to the class to make a point that creatives are not only ever going to be good at something if they push themselves at using a pencil. There is a depth to every component in our lives, and luckily most people don't dive into those depths. They simply get on. However, as an example, we eat to create fuel. We sleep to recoup, etc. However there is a function in our biology that limits and regulates all this. Children eat more sugary food as they grow as the body converts it to carbohydrates, etc. to give them the energy, as the body takes a lot of energy to actually physically stretch upwards to adulthood.

Thinking, and thinking practice in design is not for everyone. However, it should not also be disregarded. Now that same art teacher years ago, and subsequent theoretical teachers have introduced the history of art, Marx's essays on Art, and many other themes that at the time seemed to a young student not of worth. Today, I fascinate at this knowledge and can see its value, as much as my failings in biology class, even though didn't make me into a doctor, have given me rudimentary knowledge of the body (my body) to understand somethings. This is what knowledge is. The striving to understand things. When I now sit down and draw an icon for a company, I try to embed those thinking notions into my routine, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't (but that is said of most things I guess) and I really think I would be wrong in not giving the opportunity to the next generation. Knowledge can be dismissed when learnt, but if never learnt could handicap an ability.

art

So going back to the start point, what I have noticed in reflection of my attempts to aid in teaching through some theoretical knowledge is the acceptance and gratitude of some, and the belligerence of others to such knowledge. Like most things it is not for everyone. Some students just want to jump on a computer, and have an adversity toward a pencil as well, but that is a tool that is (in my honest opinion) necessary as a creative. Why isn't the tool box a little more open to accommodate other tools that can aid in the improvement of one's skills. After all, that is what it's all about.

Alternative 9 dot puzzle solution

2010-06-25T01:17:00.001-07:00

Interesting way to solve the 9 dot puzzle created by De Bono to show lateral thinking, and the motivation to the expression; "Thinking outside the box". Good for origami fans :-)

You need a licence to fish!

2010-06-24T05:05:00.000-07:00

*Note: Before I start I would like to point out that in no way am I trying to sell myself as being a great expert at design. I do however, enjoy what I do and pain myself to deliver quality work for my clients. Whom I think would agree on, on such matter. I do use the logo example above as it is the closest to showing what I would like to get across as an argument. Plus, if you can't blow your own trumpet once in a while in the economic crisis then who will.

That all said, I am drawing to a close a development on a website, that has basically been going on for nearly two years now. The initial approach was based on the above logo. The lady in question, who has now become a good friend (and should I say loyal fan) asked me to do something about her logo. I took one look at it and nearly cried. The sadness grew when the client in question told me that the logo was designed by a graphic artist. She originally asked me to just do something about the pepper character in the centre. I told her the whole thing had to be scrapped and redone. She agreed. So some weeks later I delivered the final version, which you see now on all her products. The funny part to the story and the reasoning for the theme of this blog post is that until convinced the client was willing to believe that this original design was as good as it was going to get. That if it was given to her with the bill then she would have to say 'lovely' and pay up. As I stated above, I am not saying that my alternate version is the best solution to the problem. What I think I can say, and tell me if I am wrong, is that its a good improvement to something that was literally going to be aired as a company logo. I have edited this due to comments of bias, therefore would be interesting to have some comment to which logo has what values.

This made me chuckle a few moments ago, as I did some other final work on the project, as I thought of two things. First was this continued argument I have about quality of work. Most of this resides as a student retort to the idea that a professional magically appears on leaving college and that quality of work is not something that should be strived for or practiced at. The second was that great quote from "Parenthood" the film. I add it here as a reference, though it has nothing to do with design.

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

I hope you can see where I am going with this. I am sure most graduates in the arts field have a sense of achievement as they enter into the real world, believe they have become part of an institutionalised profession. A career choice that is meant to place you above the rest. Warrant a little respect in the work place and command the type of attention that clients believe you know what you are talking about. The truth today is however, that that is a load of crock. As Sir Ken Robinson stated in a TED talk I watched recently; "Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job.” This is even more true of the arts. The reason being? Well, its that old nutshell of any Tom, Dick or Harry can now explore the arts. Especially design based arts. One reason is that the electronic age has allowed accessibility and opportunity into people's lives. Not saying that this is a bad thing, and not all good practitioners are graduates of higher education. However, in a world that is being saturated by unemployed this and that and the other, then would be a case to argue that some form of licensing should be incorporated.

After all, could you image the moment before you were put under for some major surgery and needing some reassurance, the doctor told you he was self-taught on weekends and does most of his work after watching YouTube tutorials. Or is a lawyer standing up in his closing statement turned and with a grin, tried to show some sign or self confidence flicking through law notes from Wikipedia. This would not (or rarely) happen as they need to prove and are licensed to perform their roles as professionals. And when you think about it there are many jobs where you need to carry some form of mark the fact that you have past a standard by which you can perform your job. And if there is a cause for argument that licence would come into defence to prove such a role. If you placed that notion onto a designer (saying that architects need a licence, and maybe others) how many would be able to stand up and be counted. What is the accrediting body that would administer them, and by what mark would you qualify?

This is a difficult position to argue, but when the crunch comes and jobs are hard to come by, its not a reassuring feeling to know a corporate identity was given as a brief to some guy's nephew because he likes drawing at the weekend and uses nice colours in Photoshop. This is not reassuring when you know you spent years training yourself, practicing, educating yourself to find that the technological aid now places a filter, plugin, action or whatever into the hands of an amateur that delivers a low standard outcome. Clients need to also be aware of demanding the best. And by that I don't mean the definition of style. It i obvious to most human eyes the difference in any given style between a good piece of work and abad piece of work. Actually, just saying that in words makes me think that people probably don't. So what can be done. What can stifle this influx of work that makes the design world cringe with despair, but has little or no govern authority over it. Mot countries have arts councils. Why could they not be the officiating panels that hand out licensing declarations on people abilities.

This all seems a little totalitarian maybe. People find joy and happiness in creating. However, people also make a living out of being creative and that is something that people really shouldn't have their toes stood on about. Owning a computer and drawing stick men isn't a good enough argument to sell oneself as a graphic artist. If it were so, hey come round, I'll transplant a liver on my dinning table for $30,000, can't be that hard. I am also saying this in light of the forth coming fourth season of Mad Men. Though a drama based around a design agency. It has a lot to say about the credibility of the industry. When Ad men were seen as gods for what they could do for a client. Mostly, this was because they were trained and good at this, as it was a profession. And drawing was a feature of that skill, because? There were no computers. Whether that is the main bone of contention is another argument, but I have said before that the last great revolution has had a lot to answer for in lowering the standards of the creative world. Just a thought, would like to hear other viewpoints.

Young people don't do crosswords anymore?

2010-06-18T21:50:00.001-07:00

Sitting in a bar one evening, after the college exhibition, discussing with a colleague and friend the idea of setting up a chess club at college as an additional activity. This was triggered from the basis of the new course at the college in games design, leads me to believe that the initial reaction would inspire interest on the notion that it is revolved around computer based game design, and not the more compelling notion, for example, of redesigning the concept of chess. Could that game be made any better. A little discussion brought about the memory of the 3d chess board seen in the Star Trek films, but on the whole there has not been any improvement on that classic game structure for over the past five hundred years. It does draw into consideration, in this debate, what occurs in the minds of designs when such things come about. The motivation for chess was in fact a method to strategies war for generals in combat situations. Understanding the tactics and values of certain divisions of armed forces could aid in the better planning of real combat. This was a strong motivation factor in the development and design of the game. Even though originally it only contained four pieces the main aspects of the game remain the same.

The view that the world is changing is evident all around us, regardless of evolutionary factors, climatic factors and economic factors, the way in we live sociologically is also perpetually evolving; and at an alarming rate it seems. Although the first ever computer system was employed in 1937, the modern computer as we know it has only been around since the late seventies, early eighties, but in that remarkable thirty year span, the computer has evolved from a 32k command line interface to a hand held smart phone with the world in your palm. What it has done, is create a dramatic revolution. Not only in lifestyle, but behavioural habits. Its very rare these days to see a person, of any age with a mobile communication device of some sort. Computers, or better said as computer assisted devices are omnipresent these days; remote controls, microwave ovens, even traffic signals, etc. What it has done in a sociological sense is made us dependant on this new electronic age. Recently, during a power outage in our city, my daughter was lost for things to do. There was no television, the computer didn't work, and so her world seemed to be at a loss. Even though there is a book shelve of some two hundred books she could call upon to read. Everything she seemed to want to do was via an electronic devise.

This is not necessarily a negative thing, as social evolution is part of any structure of development. What does draw into the argument, and bring back to the point of chess and even more importantly the subject title of crosswords, is that of how it affects our thinking. I mentioned in a previous post, and on the AAS Games Design course blog and group the fact that design is based on thinking. The whole concept of drawing out a new concept, almost out of thin air, is dependant on the process of thinking. Even placing pencil to paper is motivated by the idea contained within the brain. Now everyone wants to have fun. What other reason is there to exist if life has no enjoyment. However, due to the development of the three major revolutions that changed the world, the notion of "work hard, play hard" has dissipated into a more lethargic aspect. This is not to say that humans have become lazy or that all activities are resigned to less strenuous aspects of activity. Far from it. However, with the introduction of mechanical assisted work and now computer assisted lifestyles, those aspects that can be made easier, seem to be made easier for the sake of making life easier.

When was the last time you saw a young person doing a crossword puzzle? Tell you the truth, when was the last time I saw myself doing a crossword puzzle. I do do them, but it is obviously based on finding an English newspaper in this country of Greece where I live. I do remember doing the Guardian crossword every day at college during my masters degree. The funny this was, and to try and draw in the anecdote to the reasoning of this post; I would find the crossword online on the Guardian website and actually print it out and then go sit in the refectory a engage in doing the puzzle. I think that there is something more stimulating and tactile about doing crosswords on paper. During some of the formative research of the Games Course it became obvious that anything that was originally developed as a game in the real world had sadly found its way onto the computer screen. This is not for any beneficial reason, or game play benefit, but simple a sociological observation, maybe, that more people spend more time on the computer. It's an obvious marketing strategy to give people the easy option to swap between work and play in the easy environment of their desktop. More so for those young people, who tend to live their lives in front of a computer. This then begs the question; if you had the choice between doing a crossword or playing Doom III which would you choose?

I guess for many a young mind it would be the latter. And this is where the issue lies. The later, although filled with excitement, colour, spectacle and stimulus does not activate the parts of the brain that control intelligence interaction. What a crossword puzzle does in all its banality, is stimulate the thought process and the creative centres. Mainly due to the fact that you need to find a synonym that fits in the space provided on the puzzle. A simple concept, but a very good exercise for the brain. Same with jigsaw puzzles and sudoku, and any puzzle who's prime aim is to seek out variants in a pattern form. So, as a designer, the aspects of drawing on aids that can aid in beneficially stimulating concepts is a major advantage in design terms. The deplorable fact that computers these days not only do spell check, but even on my 'wonderful' Mac, they now auto-replace word mistakes. This makes the brain lazy. Makes the thinking more reliant on the technology to assist. And ultimately creates a basis for design that isn't pushed to its greatest possible outcome. What is required, which seems almost more like a sisyphian challenge is the idea of getting young minds to do taxing problems to help create a better world. A sign of intelligence is the ability to solve problems. This is the key, and the primary motivator in good design. Seek the problem and then find the clever solution; the novel solution. So, in times of creative despair when you find you can't put pencil to paper, look at simply replacing it with a pen and put that to paper on the latest crossword.

What's wrong with education?

2010-06-06T23:15:00.001-07:00

Sir Ken Robinson has done a follow up talk at TED based on his higher poignant speech of 2006, about the state of education regarding the negative approach to teaching creativity. His second speech, found here, follows up by defining a new approach to teaching, in which a global revolution is needed. The speech itself is very moving and speaks volumes to the state at which education is today failing society. The current education system has two flaws (well more in fact) that consist of defining an education approach based on training the masses to be prepared for an industrial lifestyle, and secondly to white wash the approach to education. based on the previous induction methodology. The simple fact is that the current plan of attack regarding education was invented at the age of the industrial revolution, and hasn't had a great deal of modification since that early inception. This social state arose out of an evolutionary path that was proceeded by the agricultural method of growth.

Doing research myself, on the subject of evolution in design through the centuries, after a stimulating experience of watching "Home", I found that there are many factors that aid in the need for such protocols, but also create faults in the delivery of these systems. The main reason that the agricultural revolution came along was the need to generate surplus food to feed the growing population. This worked, but worked too well, and the population boom was immense. With today's census indicating a 5 billion excess to the sustainability of the planet. What good that did come out of the agricultural revolution was the 'crafts' movement. Individuals who were able to express a skill (rather prefer avoiding the term talent), and deliver products and artefacts based around that skill. This was semi-localised and able to define culture and style. What happened next was the supply-on-demand criteria that meant that the crafts industry could not keep up. The population was booming and the need for more products quicker was becoming essential. There began the industrial revolution. This was the beginning of the downfall of education.

Previous to the industrial revolution education was a matter of passing information from one generation to another. In the craft sense this was ideal as individual quality could be maintained, as well as maintaining the style and characteristics of such local craft. What the industrial method did was call for a mass educational plan to get enough working bodies up and running to deal with the mechanical demands of the society. What happened however, in this structure was the desire of teaching the maths and sciences to the future workers. What it neglected, due to the automated approach to many process in industry, was the need to explore and educate the crafts. These still existed and were practised, but began to wane, due to competition of cheaper, mass produced products.

How this reverts back to education and the need for a new revolution; as called for by Sir Ken Robinson. Is the simple fact that educational numbers and parrot fashion methods to teaching industrialism in a modern technological environment is not conducive to peoples natures in a modern world. It also is detrimental to focusing and emphasising individual skills. Craft and art are about individualism. You can't, in the same light as teaching algebra, teach the same group of people the same way to express their artistic flare. Therefore, the education of people should in fact focus on people's own passions. Allowing them to concentrate on the aspects that make them more vivid in the challenges of a career option. Craft, as stated previously, is about individualism, and also nothing to do with the sciences per sae. To be frank, I can hardly remember any of the taught information that was promoted to me in school, and was never enthused in the notion of becoming a scientist, engineer or manufacturer. Hence a person notice that education does not solve everyone's passion and desire to study and fulfil themselves.

The revolution that is required is to see how such individuals can possible excel at activities that could change the world. This is based on the craft mentality to study, but not in the sense that arts should be a new focus. Education can spotlight desires in children at an early age and then stream them to their passionate goal. Being an educator myself, I do see the disparities that arise from forcing an out-dated educational approach onto a youth that really doesn't know what to do with it. The victim as well, in an under-staffed and over-populated institution, is creativity. Students getting numb to parrot teaching, not being nurtured with desire or passion. So, to conclude, watch Sir Ken Robinson, it is very moving, and help start a revolution!!!

Something happened on the way to the art class

2010-03-03T22:00:00.000-08:00

People in this day and age seem to have this notion that you walk up to a computer, find the application of choice and press a button and all should come out as they want it. Then, they find themselves saddened by the fact that the end result is far from what they imagined. And there lies the crux of the problem. The simple fact that the imagination has the greatest ability to be so wonderfully creative, expressive and without bounds that the translation into this mortal world has some faults. Or does it?

I spend a great deal on my time sitting in front of students in academic form, trying hard to be an educator. In some ways I am, however I start my day, my career and more importantly my life, as an artist. That is who I am. That is what I practice, and more importantly above all else, that is what I desire. I look on the faces of these students, year in, year out, as they find ways to think of a convenient excuse for the reasons their work is not complete, not as good as they expect, or not finished properly. It kind of saddens me, as there is a great deal of technical practice and theoretical knowledge I can bestow on this youthful minds, but the one thing I can't teach; can't even explain properly is the 'drive' that happens inside to make you this creative person.

I don't know if you are born with it, or its comes one day like a bolt of lightning or whatever. I do remember that for myself, I went to school, at an early age, and sat one day in class looking at a E.H.Shepherd illustration of Winnie the Pooh and, even to this day, remember that I loved it so much that I copied it. And there started my days of drawing. Never stopped. Not to this day. I wake most mornings wanting to be creative. This is the thing I want to try and explain, but can't. Its a passion that is internal. It is the wanting to move that pencil to draw a great picture. It is the vision that pushes you to design a great concept, etc. It is not thousands of books read, or hundreds of hours of technical practice that makes it look right. These things are simple support mechanisms to bring your passionate vision into the real world with some credibility.

Looking back at many of the great designers and artists of the world, you see something as they talk, work and even in their work. They live the life that is presented to the world. The actual title of this form of development; "Creative Thinking" even detaches itself away from any physical form. Creativity is an aesthetic force and thinking is the abstract or logical path by which these two things come together. Everything must happen in the mind first before it transcends to paper, pixel or whatever form it aims to finalise itself in. How can you teach this? Switch on your brain, mix it up and see what comes out? I work very hard at trying to avoid using the term talent. I honestly don't think it is about talent. I say this as I look back at my first drawings I did, when i branched out from being a plagiarist and almost agree with my art teachers remarks that I should look for another choice in career prospects. But now, after more than thirty years of trying, sweating, making mistakes and most importantly, not giving up I find myself in a position where I can say I am good.

Like many things in life, it is a continual learning curve and I have much to practice. However, the three aspects I find that have gotten me to this position so far, is that of a great deal of persistence (not giving up), a great deal of perspiration (hard work and sweat) and practice. I say this to my students as the magic 3 P's. But, on saying that what all that will do eventually is make you a good practitioner. What you must do is dig deeper and seek out that burning desire to do it. To live through hard times, to take the criticism, to wake at three in the morning and still deliver your vision. To see inspiration all around and help it fuel your want to make something different. Find the passion!!!!

The Dreaded Question

2010-01-20T02:27:00.000-08:00

There sitting in front of me was one of my students. Young and innocent. Looking for some answers to their prospects as a graphic designer. Then came the dreaded question. The question that strikes through me every time a novice asks me it. A question that is hard to answer, and therefore maybe the reason I dread it so much; "Can you give me some advice on what it takes to be a graphic artist?" I looked at her and at the same time another student turned with interest to see what I was to say.
Where can I start, I thought. Funny thing was I did reply, and the sort of things I answered were also reflected in a sentence I had in a discussion with my very close friend, about the very same subject.

Now, I started my trek over thirty years ago. Didn't know at the time that it would lead to much. Didn't know at the time that my parents would not like the idea of my career choice and my insistence in going to college. Didn't know then that there would be ups and down in income (mainly downs), or that there would be all these issues I would encounter with technology and clients. What I told my student though, is the one thing that I did know. That I loved picking up the pencil and drawing. Loved to create. And again this is the thing I said this morning about this inherent skill that creatives have. It shouldn't be the fact that people pay you that makes you want to be creative, it should be the fact that doing it gives you that thrill and its just one of those amazingly lucky things that means people will be obliged to give you money for your love.

This is something really hard to explain to a person just starting off. How do you describe passion as a career tool. How do you motivate people by getting them to use their feelings. Most modern students rely very much on the computer or tools that seemingly ease their passage. They rarely bounce into the class with that spark that I think is necessary, to get the creative juices going. Rarely do they seem to abundantly populate a page of a sketchbook with ideas and observations. And most of all, they do not look. However, you can teach people about Photoshop, or how to make a line with a pencil even. You can't teach someone the fuelling mechanism that is required to make that pencil move correctly and with beauty. To draw ideas from the brain to add to the canvas on the computer screen.

So, what did I end up telling my student. Well I told her, and the inquisitive ears, about dealing with clients, dealing with the long hours and the fact that this type of work is basically of the strain that denotes the expression; 24/7. I told her that it was about practicing and experimenting and learning. Of the hours of research that will be needed to achieve something that some people believe was done in a thought. I explained it was about the knowledge of media and timescales and the transfer to the printers, and the plethora of many things that really does make this job simple. However, what I tried to add as a cementing element to the whole aspect of being a designer was that if she was to ask this question now and not feel happy with the answer, would she be able to do the same in thirty years time. That for every single day of this drawn out career, it was the feeling to creative that needs to be present. The enthusiasm that will make them (and me) pick up a pencil and draw first thing in the morning, because that was more important that breakfast. That I could not explain this and could not even teach this. I explained that if they could not find this then the should consider if they have it, or if they will survive so long, trying.

I believe I am lucky. I wake up on even the coldest day and still get a buzz and a kick out of creating for even the lamest of commissions. I still work late into the night for deadlines that seem to not pay as much as you feel you are worth. And maybe, at the end of the line, I wont be famous, or rich, or prolific as I would like to be, but the wealth I could explain is in the doing and the living of this dream like state of creation. Now how can I teach that to someone?

Design Control Clients

2009-11-04T07:38:00.000-08:00

When I first thought to do the final post of this discussion on clients, this was the picture that came to mind. However the humour involved in today's encounters has turned a little more cynical, with a better rendition being this funny video found on youtube! Is it true that the 'customer is always right?' Can a designer have any control of the visual outcome of a project or is it the plain truth that all aspects are under the control of the guy with the purse strings? How can clients be influenced as well, and how can become clients? There are a great deal of questions associated with this area of design control it is again a large subject.

I am a big fan of 'Mad Men'. Not only a well crafted tv series, but also delivers the dream notion on what graphic design and client relationship should be like. It is however, set in the 60's, which makes an amazing difference in the understanding of the way this relationship works. They are treated like they know what they are talking about. Like they know the difference between right and wrong. But most of all, they seem to be respected for their work. What seemed to have happened is the technology revolution. A damning blot on the creditability factor of all creatives. Computers made the life of 'would-be' designers a lot more synthesized with that of a creative with a natural talent. Clients believe that computers make life, or at least work, easier, and therefore demand designers to comply to such aspects. They also believe having a computer and a copy of some arts package gives them the entitlement of knowing how to dictate the commission. Before saying that clients are simply bottomless money pits who pander to artist whim, I am not. There is however a big difference between having a personal viewpoint and having a strong aptitude and educationally supportive background in a subject. After all, I could probably go an perform surgery on my relatives if it were simply a case of thinking I know something about medicine. I don't, so I don't wander down that path.

Art is its own worse enemy. The simple fact that it proliferates society with both cheap and expensive design aspects is a cause to understand why people tend not to distinguish between the two. They see the values of capitalism as the factor. Therefore if a product sells or a person receives more work, they relate it to the look and feel. Many of us use the sense of visualisation as the first step in understanding something. The problem is that seeing isn't always believing, and that is the crux to the issue of respect toward a creative and the client. How many times have I heard; "He's got that so I want it." or "I've seen this and it looks nice, so can you copy it somehow?", or "I drew this, can you do something with it." At present, I am teaching through the process of lateral thinking and visual communication with my students and I can see how deep and heavy the subject is. So I can only assume that the students themselves are overwhelmed by it all. So, to try and get a client to see what needs to be considered to even think of a good idea is beyond the scope of rational thinking. Especially when they only see that the pushing of a pencil or mouse is the only aspect to design anyone need to understand. Almost as if the role of artist has moved from blue collar to white collar, or below.

So, how can creatives and designers work together along this double edged sword? Difficult question and apparently no answer. People with money are not always right. Empowering them with that feeling, also stifles creativity. Paying for something should not always mean control. Its odd that as I teach and we hand out briefs which define strict criteria by which the project must be completed, it is odd to see that never has there been a time when such a thing has occurred in a job. So why make believe to new creatives that the scope of a project is based on defined criteria when in fact it is based on the whims of the clients. Which, I can say from experience, tends to change on a daily to weekly basis. That also generates a sting in the tail, as much of the time it seems to reflect badly on the creative rather than the client. The whole blog could turn over into a list of bad experiences that have been endured, but I will avoid that. The strangely funny thing is, that during the development of this blog and the posting of the 'Client vs Designer' video I have had many comments from creatives basically stating how true it was to see that.

Creatives need work, clients need designs. What is a difficult challenge is to negate the terribly destructive middle ground that seems to fog the notion that creatives are tools instead of talented entities that deliver a vision based on an understanding of their art. So to round this off, it would be interesting to know if anyone believe; that the client is ALWAYS right or not? And whether the creative should know the humility of bending away from their ego and delivering work that is acceptable to the market instead of being their brain child?

Design Control Censorship Pt2

2009-11-02T23:55:00.000-08:00

The last part of the debate was giving discussion into possible causes to why censorship occurs. How it started, and who possibly even started it. What this second part of the discussion will talk about, is the idea that preemptive censorship can control design even as much as the censoring bodies cause to released matter. The idea that in some respects censorship can aid in delivering the market force required to selling a product more that the actual clever, or not so clever advert itself. In my youth I remember the release of a song by a group called 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood', the songs title was "Relax". The censoring bodies (as we know from the previous post were dominated by religious activists) deemed the lyrics of the song too suggestive and sexually derived, and therefore banned the song to be aired on radio or television. This did a remarkable thing. It made the curiosity of the record buying audience curious. Therefore, the record shot to number one and stayed there for some weeks. Now, it is debatable whether the songs success would have occurred if it hadn't been banned, or not. However, on perusing the lyrics it is hard to find anything that actually could be that offensive to an open-minded individual. So, this does prove that censorship can in fact be a double edged sword that can aid as well as hinder the process of creative affect.

I did mention Toscani's famous Benetton adverts in the previous blog. A very remarkable and if said by some, controversial set of advertising images. What must be questioned here is what people think the aspect to the creative notion works and why, then, do people find these adverts so risque? What one could do is to say that in some respects censorship is out, not to mask harmful content, but to mask truth (in itself a big debate). On researching the debate here and thankfully posted by Panagiotis, there are some images of an advert that was aired once in the UK, by the MTV company. Now, it could be seen evident to the reason why the people at the controlling board decided to pull this set of adverts. However, if you look at the work rationally, there is nothing in fact wrong with the pieces. All they do is tell the truth. What is the issue is that seem to be insensitive. The joke in that irony is that all advertising to some degree is insensitive. Aiming to sell you a product that you don't actually need is the key trick in making advertising work. So, why do some creative pieces get pulled over others. As said before, it is because the governing body is controlled by a group of people who's main motivation to understanding the notion of censorship is primarily driven by morals governed by their religious upbringing or belief.

Here it not right to say that advertising and art should not be held accountable to taste and morality, but instead that the curbing of some forms via a blinkered governing body does in fact stifle creative aspects. I spent some time looking at nudity in art for the first part of the debate. Some very interesting evidence was coming out in what I discovered. Many of the classic renaissance images that held any form of nudity in them were even so restricted by covering the reproductive elements of the shown figures. Even if completely nude, the angle by which these figures were posed had it so that the genitalia was either masked by another figure, and appendage or was turned in such a way that it was hidden. Why was this? Lots of possible reason. Maybe the climate of the day was so that it was not seen acceptable to show nudity thus. However, these images were openly showing all flesh apart from the reproductive elements of the body. Take Venus by Botticelli. Nude as nude could be. However, the vagina is masked. Another possible argument could be the simple fact that the patrons had control over the art and therefore asked for it to be removed. This could only be seen rational if the patrons had cause through moral control. What is known is that many of these image are in fact patronized by the church. Could it be said that the church or strong moral fibered people still have such influence. Maybe so! What is needed as a discussion point here though, is in today's modern society and the openness of so much pre-considered taboo aspects of life, does creative get stifled before it even emerges from the creatives mind. Does the idea that the work could be rejected be a reason to angle the content in a way that is safer, more acceptable.

One area that is still a little open to freedom is the area of fine art. Damien Hurst is a good example of a person willing to take things to the limit of decency. The recently controversial art exhibition in South America by a native artist willing to display a live dog in captivity until its death, was seen as art and not a moral injustice. Funnily, in the same token the artist Shaun Monson, who directed a brilliant 'truth' motivated documentary film "Earthlings" has the stigma of being classed an eco-terrorist due to his efforts to reverse the type of affect that the dog exhibition puts in mind. His film has been censored in many theatres in the US, and will never be allowed to be aired on States TV. All he is doing is telling the truth!

It would be interesting to have some feedback to understanding what goes through a creatives mind when the brief is delivered and the ideas flood in, as the brief allows for some openness in it's interpretation. Does the moral aspects of the actual artist's own lifestyle ever manage the output, or is it more if a case that restrictions are thought due to the overpowering notions that people just may not accept that type of creative angle? I myself, as an educator and creative try to explore and help young minds in seeing creativity as an open aspect form. That, nudity, shocking aspects, seemingly immoral aspects, etc. are not taboo in a creative process. That the open-mind can deliver creative approaches and that the mind also (should) know when that point has been pushed too far. And before people barrage this debate with all the things that I know are obviously wrong, then I am aware that some things just are not acceptable. However, as society develops and our social openness accepts such things as gay marriage and the acceptable state it should be, like heterosexual marriage, and that it is simple a case of understanding that is the divide in many such cases. This is what human's can do on an evolutionary track. Evolve their understanding. Some fifty years ago couples were not allowed to be seen on tv in the same bed. Now, TV shows couple in alternating variations having sex on TV, in full natural nudity. So, with respect to many other aspects of morally unacceptable notions of what should be seen and not seen, time can be a great healer.

For the creatives though, pushing the line of this viewpoint is risky and challenging at the same time, but has greater scope when you are aware that the subject matter could offend. Why is this such a stimulating aspect to a possible creative's idea generation to believe that taking risks is a better aspect to design than playing it safe?

Design Control Censorship - pt1

2009-10-30T23:22:00.000-07:00

This is an immensely large subject full of debate on so many levels, that it will be hard to cover all of them. What would be the best approach is to skim the surface of the main points and mix it with some historic flavouring, in an attempt to make some discursive approach to the post. What must be made as a point at the beginning of this post, in conclusion to the last, is that one of the worst types of censorship, is that of self-censorship. Not stating one's opinion based on some fear or lack of knowledge is not the best approach to creating communication. It may be clear that I may not know what I am talking about in some of my posts, but with a little supportive research and a desire to say what I think, I put in words a viewpoint. After all, this is what I can do and is a right of all individuals, to have an opinion. Not saying something can possibly take away a viewpoint or piece of knowledge that could help in the argument, help an individual understand or even just give counter to the original point. Not saying anything, is nothing at all: no progress forward, no understanding, no communication. So it is better to say something than nothing.

All that said, what can be said about censorship. As it stands in todays society, it is difficult to state that it is hard to accept censorship. It is a very symbolic, double edged sword. On one-side we have the positive moral control that can stop harmful content being thrown on susceptible minds. The other side, the negative side, is the side that restrict people in knowledge and creativity due to regulations that have been designed by people who tend to believe they are right in their political agenda. So, with that starting point, there now follows a (maybe) frank discussion about how the whole approach to censorship has or can effect design. As previously stated, the whole show began thousands of years ago. Well, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Something occurred that made us change from roaming upright animals, naked to the world, to clothed conscious humans. The most logical answer is that we basically migrated from our African origin and moved to more temperate climates and required protective layers to warm us. Nothing wrong in that, so where does censorship change that historical aspect. Well, the simple fact could be argued that there are still more people on the planet these days that still believe in the notion (or reality) of the visualization of Adam and Eve, than having the knowledge of our own natural evolution. The classic representation of a caveman for example is of a loin cloth clad man with his genitalia covered. This image has not occurred from fact maybe, but instead of controlled censorship by a religious body, that has denoted that the human reproductive parts are not conducive to a social empathy to their way of thinking. This has not always been the way, as the Pagan religion was able to see nudity and sexual activity as a key part to their belief and even denoted it in the art. This religious form was eradicated through the stronger Christian belief and therefore was the seeding point to some of the affects of censorship. Before there comes a barrage of criticism believing that I am trying to knock Christian history as a cause to many of the woes of the creative world, I am not. Many other cultures have also depicted human form with the same level of control in art and design, but it is just a simple fact that the religious aspect is a cause and Christian belief has been sustained for over two thousand years now, that it is a good benchmarking tool to aid in the argument of censorship.

As was discussed in the previous post, communication has been an important factor in the development of aesthetics. Mainly because all creative forms can be seen as a communication form. However, more so type and words, along with ideograms and pictograms created the process by which we now communicate and also control communication. The juxtaposition between using the form to saying openly what you liberally want to say and on the other hand finding that it has the ability to restrict you is a very difficult area to control. What is meant by this? Well, to cut a long story short, with the development of alphabet comes the process of words, sentence and then meaning. Someone has then defined what this meaning is. Part of that meaning is controlled. A simple example would be the denotation of what is commonly called blasphemy. Excuse the crudeness of the following sentence, but will use as an example; if you are to say: "What the fuck are you doing?" Then what can be seen in this expression, regardless of how you see that four letter word, is a little piece of emotive expression. In a sense a degree of creativity. Say the sentence without that expressiveness and you are left with; "What are you doing?" It has the same conclusive outcome, but with out any expression. If you were to try to think of other ways to say the same thing with substitution you would be left with; "What the hell are you doing?" Still creative and delivering the correct force in the sentence to make it different to the less expressive question. And this seems to be a key point. The fact that you are saying that is socially taboo seems to give the more force to the expression and therefore a more creative feeling. It has a stronger and more different meaning. So why do we do it? and does this extend further into design aspects?

I remember growing up as a young boy, watching TV with my parents and finding that there was this 'wonderful' invention called the 'watershed'. This is a period by which a governing body would denote suitable content for viewing age groups. In America is is also referred to as the 'safe harbor'. Mainly, any content of adult nature would be shown after 9pm in the evening. This, in my childhood marked the maximum time I was allowed to stay up. When that watershed came it was off to bed. Why? Because it was deemed safer for influential minds to not see such content on TV, but also, because adults wanted to be able to see such material. This can cause a good argument to the whole censorship angle, but the funny thing that I learnt as I grew up, was the fact that this governing body was in fact a Church driven organization, that was intending to describe what it believed to be sound content for the television viewing market. So, it seems that the whole gamut of censorship can be linked to a 'not religious' but religiously controlled attitude to what it seems to be right and wrong. Maybe, this has been developed over may views based on the writings in the bible or some other scriptures. But it almost seems ludicrous, as denoted in Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose", where one of the head monks literally kills followers of one form of expression; "laughter". Because he believed it to be wrong.

This is the basic notion to what censorship is about. Toscani, in an attempt to make Benetton sales increase clicked on the creative notion of being shocking. His first two ads for the campaign, that has become a historical landmark for the debate, were of the first man to die of aids and a newly born infant fresh out of the womb. These ads, seen here and here, were a censorship nightmare. His argument was to show the truth. Especially concerning the new born, he declared that we are all born naked, and that this image is how we all enter the world, so why be shocked and embarrassed by it. Its a simple case that society has delivered this transcended viewpoint. There was a great deal of art in the development of our social heritage that contains nudity, however the further we go back, the more we find that it was sanctioned by the church. That morals were kept in line via the authority of the people who controlled a great deal of what they believed to be clean or immoral. This maybe a reasoning to how censorship has been evolved into our daily lives these days. It is still forbidden in some media forms to show male genitalia. If you look at a great deal of classic art through the centuries, almost all reproductive organ depiction has a degree control over it. This was through either direct or indirect influence of the church. What we do find is that art that is trying to push the bounds of that thin line of what society determines to be in the bounds of censorship tends to get a great deal of respect for the challenging aspect to its approach, or the counter affect of a great deal of criticism due to its risk in challenging what is morally correct.

So, to conclude the first part of the censorship debate, would society benefit from a less constrictive control of aesthetic form, or has it benefitted from a view that someone needs to deem what is wrong in what we see, hear and say? And does the idealistic notions of a few basically restrict the creativity of the many based on the fact that communication has defined what should be seen as right and wrong?

Design Control Evolution

2009-10-28T22:49:00.000-07:00

I was trying to think of an easy way to start this blog section, but then I watched an episode of "Life" by the BBC last night and was fascinated. One of the aspects I actually teach in my creative thinking lessons is how nature can inspire design. And there it was, a programme showing the remarkable ways that reptiles and amphibians have adapted in order to survive. What was remarkable was the simple fact that these two species of 'Earthlings' have been on the planet the longest, and have many close links to their dinosaur relatives, and thus gives great respect to their ability to survive for so long under earthly conditions. One such reptile that amazed me more than most was a desert chameleon, who through the power of its natural design can pigment its flesh dependent on the angle of the sun. Making one side of its body dark to absorb sun and the opposite side white in order to reduce heat loss. Now, regardless of how clever, or developed or even good at design we think we are, there is no way that we have managed to counter such natural brilliance.

Maybe this is the starting point of the notion of design control. Call it 'natural selection' or what have you, but does the limits of man as a refined ape make his ability to design or natural design, give him limitations. A point I make in my lessons is that the one physical difference we have attained from our simian cousins is the 'opposable' thumb. A physical attribute that is suppose to distinguish us from all other creatures. Giving us the opportunity to shape and use tools. Now if this is the only thing that gives us an edge over other creatures then our natural evolution hasn't come a long way, really. However, it is not the only thing that makes us different. We have evolved a pre-frontal lobe and cognitive state. This gives us the ability to think, analyze and solve. All positive things you would say. However, maybe the process of analytical deduction in itself is a design control.

Many thousands of years ago we set off on our journey of discovery. Making steps that would create the world we now live in. One of which was a remarkable step forward and difference from all other creatures. In a cave in France there was found a remarkable discovery. On a wall, deep inside the cave, were imprinted stenciled images of human hands. According to a BBC documentary called "The Story of God", these hand prints were an attempt to show a connection between the real world and the spiritual world of deity that the human's believed was through the solid divide of the walls. The fact that there is a religious overtone to this has no part in the understanding in design, that there was a beginning in communication. This in many respects was a key element and is the premise by which design is now so prolific. Design is simply about communication. From that simple 'hand' print and the process of evolution we gained alphabet and that is how we have arrived to today's status. What maybe a argumentative statement, is that the simple holding of alphabet and letter form is in fact a design control, but more deeper and semantic than that, is the notion that what this language has done is created a communication that has defined the design control. I don't want to actually deliver the word 'censorship' at this point, as there will be another debate about that. But what we have done, over the thousands of years of development, have given definition to all the things that have existed.

It may be a hard thing to comprehend, the thread by which this post is aiming, but can you imagine the difference between the brilliance of no-debated, or non-defined designed that the desert chameleon has achieved over years of evolution next to the structured, analyzed and communicated design of humans. Would human design be any better without the control of analysis, argument and criticism? Is it a good enough argument to believe that design could be more capricious or more evolved if the process of explanation was taken out of the process. A very hypothetical debate, as we do exist in the system and our ability to analyze, as previously stated, is now part of our genetic make-up. However, what could be seen as an interesting aspect to the whole gamut of design and creative development is that a group of individuals, over time, have been able to define criteria by which we all work. And even more so, in today's environment and society, there seems to be even more control through regulations, laws, morality issues, etc. What is meant by criteria? Well, that could be as simple as defining except-ability, or even the aspects of process. Not to play on the religious aspect too much (as this will feature in the censorship section), but in a sense their definition of faith through their writings has in a sense caused a control. This has nothing to do with the notion of faith, but the way that man under the guise of faith and religion has been able to tell the masses what they define to be right and wrong. A simple example would be the portrayal of the human form.
One of the most effective designs ever existing on this earth, that was created by man, is the simple wheel. It has not evolved in any practical sense since its original inception. This makes its design fundamentally perfect, as a functional device. What has occurred over the centuries are many variations to improve on it, but ultimately the design is good. The communication of improvement has not actually improved on its original starting point.

So, in an attempt to start the ball rolling, the staring point to this debate would be a simple query in "what would your views be on the idea that becoming a more 'thinking' creature is in fact a hindrance to the design process, and that design should really be about natural evolution over analytical control and social reform?"

Design Control

2009-10-26T23:44:00.000-07:00

This post is was inspired by several things that occurred over the past few weeks. Some were observed, some experienced and even some were reflections on things past. However, they all seem to drive toward a main focal key point; that of design control. One of the things I notice in the world and reflect to my students when I teach them, is the simple fact that every single thing in the world that is manufactured (and I could say naturally made) has been designed. Regardless of how bad or good that design is, someone has had to sit down and conjure a way to make an idea look good based on its needs and requirements for function. Looking at the process of education, and its seeming lack of concern to the arts or the fundamental aspects of teaching children to draw, there is a great deal of scope in the argument toward design control. It has always been a strong curriculum bias towards mathematics and the sciences. I can even remember as a child that the art class to most was the 'get-out-of-doing-work' class. This was a state of mind from the children who attended. So it is also apparent that the social conditioning always transcends to the next generation to hold art and design are seen next to the more classic educational roles. There can be a great deal of explanation to such attitudes, which will be discussed over the week, but it can be mainly attributed to the stigma that society places on design.

The fact is also, that not al design has the same mud thrown at it. Fashion design has a great deal of respect in society due to its main fact that it is a daily and necessary process to think of one's own look and style. What we have however, is a process of evolution through the centuries to a point that there is a collision between to fundamental conflict points: technology and the arts. It can be argued that technology is in fact in conjunction with the arts, and can inspire and aid in the arts. That certain arts can only exist from the use of technology and the sciences. What could also be argued in counter defense to that, is the fact that the process of technology has also delivered a substandard market by which artists now have to exist. I have wrote a blog recently about the fact that I was lucky enough to be born outside the technology age and learnt the skills of the simple pencil, as that is all I had. What does seem to occur with the younger generation and technology, is a reliance. However, greater than this is the amalgam of elements that create the society that we live in and the way each and every aspect of this, in fact, affects the process of design.

So, to basically put the bull in the china shop, there is a strong believe, after doing research on the evolution of aesthetics in man's history that several aspects of society and human development have in fact been key to the whole gamut to design development. To say that it has been controlled can denote that artists are not free. Maybe they are not, maybe instead of the sociological aspects to design control, there are also ethical controls, financial controls, and a greater spread of things that can inhibit the creative flow. The follow week will look at some of these aspects and to see if there are good discussions for and against such points. It is intended to hold these as discussion points and receive some feedback in the whole aspect of design. As I have previously stated I am in fact trying to piece together points and evidence to collate into a book called 'Design Depths', so any feedback on any of the given subjects would be appreciated. Look forward to any participation.

moving in more ways than one

2009-10-20T23:34:00.000-07:00

It's kind of strange when you watch a video on youtube and it moves you. Many people watch songs or films, etc. However, I was strangely directed to a video this morning via Twitter, that moved me simply because I am a creative and its showed something that I believe to be fundamental in design. That of connection to the audience that is in receipt of the design. If you haven't seen the clip already, the best thing to do would be to watch and then carry on reading.

This whole aspect of creativity seems to be centred around the control that other bodies have over spending, planning, ethics, and even maybe style. The main issue with may a creative person is that they must interact with a client. Many of these clients tend to see the holding of the purse string as a puppet master role that gives them the right to decide what is good and bad design. I have argued this a lot and can always find interesting analogies to aid in this perception. For example, how many people get to call the shot on every single aspect of any product they use. Do you call the tea manufacturer who provides you with a box of tea bags and say; "Hum, well, I'm not happy paying for this unless the flavour is a little more to my individual liking." You don't. You accept the mass market requirements of the fact that this is the way it is sold. With creative works though, the artist does seem victim to the consumer; "I want it this shade of blue, as it reminds me of a moment from when my son won a track and field tournament." Could be a cry that would go against all aesthetic simplicity and workability, but the client is holding the loot, so the client is right.

Having said all that, looking at the video, it is a wonderful thing to see what happens when a novel and remarkable concept gets to be aired in its creative openness, without restriction. The fact that the wonder of the item has been transferred from its origin to its goal is remarkable. This I believe is because the authority of control has been lost. It was a spark of an idea that ended up with all its creativity in tact. The other amazing thing is that it changes people. As the video states, after its instillation 66% of the users switched to using the stairs, and spent more time on the stairs. This was because design was given a free hand. The process of making life easier (by using the escalator) was rejected to am more pleasant approach, even if more time consuming and less energy efficient. What all this seems to point to is the fact that when design is given some openness it can change people's lives. If it is forced through control then it becomes mediocre and unobserved.

conducive environments

2009-10-16T22:53:00.000-07:00

I have written something before about environmental issues in a conducive environment, but yesterday I saw a TED talk which really aided in re-enforcing the point. I have linked it here, so that you can enjoy the subject of how noise affects us. It was a scientific exploration of how the mind reacts to the sounds around us. What was discussed was the fact that we have adapted to try to accept these noises around us, and especially in our working environment. One point actually popped out, during the speech, that made an impact and actually supports the points made in my previous post on 'environmental blocks'. That point was the notion that our working environment should be suited to our needs. Not simply for personal gratification reasons, but also for productivity reasons. Recently it has become a trend to have open plan office working environments. This tends to negate the whole process of a god work practice. Mainly due to the noise output affecting our ability to work. Research has shown that productivity falls by upto 60% in open working environments and joint offices. That is a very large percentage to have against a good working output. On a creative level this is also a bad affecter, due to the simple fact that the brain has to process all noise entering the ears; regardless of ambient or direct input. This then would take away from being able to concentrate on other more productive tasks. In the TED talk they do mention that multi-conversational sound patterns is one of the most annoying processes the brain has to deal with. Mainly as it needs a great deal of concentration in order to try to decipher what is being said, even if relevant or even directed at us.

One of the other points that was made also in the speech, which I am a strong advocate in, is the notion of our connection to our prehistoric past, and the origins of our evolution. The scientists have made a pattern chart that can guide in understanding the formulae needed to develop a good working environment. What they mention in the discussion is the way that music variations can aid or hinder our creative process. The surprising thing that was mentioned (or not so surprising) was that bird song was the most conducive of sounds that could be played in a working environment. Why? Well, as I tend to believe, that all things are related, the basic structure of our inner being has related concerns to primeval instincts. We simply associate bird song with security. This is due to the premise that birds sing in the wind when the environment is clear. Therefore our state of mind, and our body relaxes. what we tend to do as humans is to take away from the massive importance that our inner body and its affects on our hormones plays in our actual conscious state of mind. Also, our daily practice of work sometimes forces us to have to work in conditions that are not ideal. Maybe people talking in a room, the wrong type of music, ambient sounds of workers drilling outside. What can be gained from this is the understanding that to be creative needs to have a great deal of self-control over how we deal with these process.

A simple solution, as described in the TED talk, is to plug in some ear pieces and play bird song to isolate yourself from all existing ambient sounds. This also can be done for whale song, which also has a pacifying quality. A strange point was also made, which I also know to be true of Kodo drumming, which is that the sound of lapping water on a sea short helps. This is because the typical pattern is at 12 cycles a minute, which is the same tempo as a calmed beating heart in the human body. Again, this indicates a way that our subconscious actually finds a way to relate to our environmental existence. As conscious beings we tend to want to take control of our environment rather than let the environment dictate us. However, knowing that the only sensory input form that cannot be turned off (as to say) has such an amazing impact in the way our actual state of mind works, is its daily routine.

So, literally, the next time you sit down to try and be creative, or lie down to conjure an idea of thought, take a moment to the sounds around you and the way that they can actually affect the outcome. One of the practices I do sometimes when I want to listen to some music, is to play opera. Why opera? well, firstly I love opera. But secondly I have also come to understand that because I don't understand the words that are being said then the sounds of voices don't distract me from needing to analyze the words being spoken. This may seem odd, but it seems to work for me. And I guess this is what is key. Trying to find something that works for each and everyone of us, in order to develop a piece of space that can environmentally be more conducive to a better work practice. Also, the thing that needs to be considered is the actions of not affecting anyone else in their daily chores. Being considerate with noise levels, always tends to be overlooked. Mobile ringtones, music blaring and chatting next a working body is all very ignorant and disruptive ways to affect a creative mind. The unfortunate conclusion is, as the process of understanding the TED talk tends to indicate, is that the best working environment would be a completely empty, sound proof room, with bird song playing. This could also indicate the notion of an asylum cell, so maybe the point of creativity is knowing our own madness in the need to be creative.

Thinking: Inner battle

2009-10-07T22:11:00.001-07:00

Was asked an important question the other day, by one of my students. That was, 'is it possible to lear how to think differently?'
The remarkably funny answer to that is that its not that there is a correct or defined way to think as such. It is more the case that through the experiences we face in our lives we tend to get influenced by so many things. One of the questions I asked my students this year on opening my Creative Thinking class was, 'Did you enjoy school?' The unanimous answer came across as being a negative one. Not that this is necessarily bad. Again it is all down the the social conditions by which our lives are affected. Let me try to explain. And let me add at this point that a lot of this is my personal opinion. some of which has been derived from reading and experience.

We all live in two domains. There is our physical state, which can be described as our body, and therefore all experiences dealing with the outside world and our body. Then there is the inner state; our mind. This in some ways is detached from our external existence, as it has an ability to imagine and define away from the real. As I have explained before, the brain is divided into two hemispheres. They both have two separate roles on the daily existence as a human being. All that said and done, the brain requires stimulus. Practically as nutrition and rationally as thought stimulus. What needs to happen is that people think as individuals. What does occur however is that we are herded in social conditioning. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not also conducive to creative thinking. This is where school becomes a barrier. The structure is designed to teach a large amount of young minds a standard curriculum. This is in order to cover many subjects with the least effort on derivative aspects. After all, if every single student wanted to learn their own subject thread then school would last forever. So it is simplified and unfortunately is the reason that the process is seen as being dull and negative. It doesn't stimulate the mind. It is, after all, part of the vertical thinking path and that is only effective at defining simplified patterns. Not to aid in creative diversion.

The point to which my students enter my class therefore, is as a bucket of knowledge that is quite global, but shallow. They know about geography, they know about mathematics, they know about religion, they know about language, etc. Surprisingly, they know little about creativity. Which is in itself a promotor for good thinking practice. Being a teacher at an art college and seeing that almost all the students that enter, and choose to do an art based course no little to nothing about drawing or creative aspects, is a shock. Maybe that is why there are so many lawyers and doctors. But getting back to the original point. Can you learn to think different? Well its no a case of learning, its a case of manipulating. An good analogy would be 'knocking in a nail'. For years you have been told that you use a hammer to know in a nail. So you buy a hammer and for years you are able to knock in that nail. Somethings it goes well, other times it bends or doesn't go all the way in. What if then someone told you you didn't need to use a hammer anymore and that there was a pneumatic gun that can do the job, and that every time it would deliver the nail exactly and precisely to the point you require. You wouldn't get rid of the hammer, would you? Its like the basic of the truth to knocking in nails. However, that gun just seems so much more immediate that when you need the job doing, then you pick that out of the tool box, and not the hammer.

Education has been about giving people one tool, for centuries that it has become a standard. What you need to realise is that this is about other people's ease rather than the thinkers. The brain is very complex. It is capable of solving some of the most complex thoughts and actions ever. However, we feed it with mediocrity. Understanding the brain is like standing at a crossroad. Instead of looking in all directions confused, knowledge places a clearly defined signpost. But for a creative mind, there is the challenge of the dominant left side. The well trained logic centre that has spent your entire life telling you the truth. Creativity is not necessarily about truth however, it is about fantasy. What needs to be learnt, if anything, is that logic has its place, but should not be the controlling factor to creative thought processes. To end this post, I did mention the trick that some people employ to get their brain to move away from the logical. And its a simple easy trick to employ. All you need to do is to lie down. Doesn't matter where. Why does this help. Simply because as bipeds we rarely if at all, get into this position unless its to sleep. So, by lying down tricks the brain in thinking we are about to sleep. Why is this useful for thinking? well, what happens when se sleep is that our left side slows down and relaxes. It stops dominating the right side. Therefore the imaginative activity that is firing away there can come forward. It is a known fact that Einstein himself took a writing pad with him to bed. This, after all, is what dreams are. Your imagination running wild. Why not tame all this to be creative for you?

depth: part five - and the winner is!!

2009-08-19T23:46:00.001-07:00

After two weeks of working and tweaking and convincing the final logo has been decided on. In some senses it is still my second choice, although I was very pleased that the concept came in a 'eureka' moment one night as I was feeling desperate about the clients insistence on doing something different from the original design and close to the original. This pays dues to the notion that good ideas come when you are horizontal, sleeping or consciously resting. It has a great deal of gestalt aspects to the design as well. Making the 'sigma' appear from a negative shape that reflects the 'kappa'.

What was then part of the process is to deliver the several variations that may be needed by the client for print. This includes black on white and the reverse out against black. Also included are several adaptations of the logo with text positioned differently. I managed to convince the client that the use of PF Archive Pro was better than the original Sans Serif font (Myriad Pro). This is mainly due to the subtle psychology that the serif font is more classy and seems to represent learning over a sans serif font. Also due to the fact that many books are still printed in serif typefaces. The client did insist on having a period point in between the "S" and "K". I was convinced that it wasn't necessary, but the client pays the bills. All in all a full and rounded design. Now there is a need to develop the website.

So, after these two weeks have been completed, the process of depth design has brought us to a conclusion that was not part of the original concept (or flash inspiration design). Which goes to prove that even if the initial design is the answer, the process by which you explore the possibilities can give alternate answers; whether better or worse is down to the client's choice.

depth: part four

2009-08-16T22:08:00.001-07:00

So, moving further down the path of the depth process, we have ended up, through client choice, at a possible two versions. The surprising thing, that never fails to amaze me, is that the icon on the left is the first design I chose and developed, based on that feeling. The client was skeptical, and so wanted variation, but then when it came down to it, returned to this choice. In some aspects of trying to understand this, it could be said that this is possibly the eye that designers have in knowing a good design over a bad. Not saying that some of the other logo ideas were bad, but sometime something just stands out. And as the client wanted something a little closer t the original then this sort of hit the mark.

So what the next step was, was to define a minor variation to draw the logo to a more Greek feel. I decided to incorporate the principle of gestalt in the design and minimizing the two letters of the school's name from the 'sigma' and 'kappa' that exists into two minimal shapes that, I feel, hold the styling that make this two letters visible through visual completion. These have now been passed onto the client with colour variations in order to complete the process of the creative process and end up at an ultimate design that all are happy with. From this, there is one final step that needs to be considered. This is of the universal usage aspects of the logo. This will be discussed in the next post, as soon as the logo has been finalized.

depth: part three

2009-08-03T21:41:00.000-07:00

What usually tends to take place next i the depth process is to define the images I like the most as fully rendered icons. This tends to be done in illustrator. Illustrator is great for icons and logos, many as you can resize the objects without loosing quality or clarity. So what I tend to do, is whilst designing and thinking about logos, I tend to image how I will achieve them in illustrator. Its hardly worth trying to think of a great logo that can only be made in photoshop. Not saying that you can't use photoshop for doing logos. The issue there is that you have to make a very large version and then hope the resizing wont degrade the image too much. So, for the sake of all that hassle, it is best tho construct the whole image in illustrator. There are a great deal of effects now available and with some training it is possible to make the image look almost as good as a photoshop file, if that is the look that is required.

For these logos, it was important to maintain a clean and fresh look, so illustrator was ideal. As you can see from the examples above the chosen ones have a great deal of difference in their look. This is to explore possibilities. One thing you must be aware of though is that giving the client too much choice could in fact lead them down a different path. The art of good design can be about tell the client what they want, instead of giving them what they want. Too much variety is a bad thing. So, what you can do, is like in this case, is choose which of these looks like a candidate and pass this on to the client. As I said before, some clients are stuck in their head about redesign. As this is a revamp rather than a new design, the client tends to hold the old design in their mind as they look at the new. Showing the client these versions, they instantly locked onto the one that relates to the old look first. Even though it is a strong icon, it still has good variation in the set too. Anyway, after the meeting it was decided to explore the chosen icon. This process is to enable for colour variations and slight changes in the look. this will be the next step. A simple point to be made at this level, is that sometimes you have to learn to bite the bullet. By that it is mean that may clients believe themselves to be designers. They think they can tell you to stick a shape here, or add a non-symmetrical element there, and use a non-complimentary colour. All this has to be taken on board and have you know at the the end of the day, they pay the fee.

depth: part two

2009-07-23T09:42:00.001-07:00

So once we have our list of terms and derivations, the next stage is to convert them into visual ideas. Mainly, as this is a creative project then all the elements need to be presented in a graphic form. What I tend to do is to develop via sketching. Saying this though, there is a disparity in what can look good in a sketch and what can look good in a final design. This understanding can come with a great deal of experience in how things look in rough and complete form. I tend to so all my logo designs via illustrator, and so when sketching I tend to keep simple lines and blocking that I note will be colour or shape.

Anyway, what happens depending on the list of words, is I try putting down any idea that pops into my head based on the initial visual I see. This can usually populate an entire A3 sheet of small thumbnails. Like the one I added above. Another thing that is hard to describe, as a necessary part of the process, is the need to have gestation time. For example, I have tree in my head, so what I ted to do is think tree, think elements of trees, think variations of trees and metaphors of trees. However, at the same time i could be thinking about books, or simple shapes. This is one reason that sketching is effective, because you can't assume all ideas associated with my tree train of thought will come out sequentially. Sometimes I even have a piece of paper and a pencil on the table and I play some load music and pace up and down the room. This may seem like a bit of time wasting, but thinking is a constructive process as much as drawing. This actually reminds me of two anecdotes I heard. One of a design studio in London, who built their entire offices around a basketball court. Telling their employs to take a break when they couldn't think and have some gestation time. The other story was of Peter Gabriel. He, whilst recording the "So" album, would stop recording when it wasn't going right and took his crew out to play croquet.

You will find a practice that will work for you, but never think that thinking is wasting time. Also, depending on the client, you will find communication on this sketching level either easy or hard to get ideas across. Recently I did a series of sketches through another artist and that was over 20 sheets of concepts all in rough. However, due to the nature of most clients, they tend not to be able to visualize things in the same way as an artist and therefore want to see final work. What you should avoid doing is doing your development work all on computer. One big reason for this is because sketching is quicker, and working on computer takes longer. What I tend to do is once I have populated three or four sheets I pick the most likely to develop as semi-possible concepts. This is the next stage and will be the next post. But to finish, the point of creative thinking and sketching is to not see one path. This is where the process of visuals then proliferates on the list. Tree as a list definition can only have one meaning, but visually you can draw that word in so many ways, so many styles. So this is the reasoning to go through the depths of graphic interpretation.

depth: part one

2009-07-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in a previous post, to get a better understanding of how to generate ideas in the process of lateral, and therefore creative thinking, there will be a series of posts based on a live project and the process I go through in order to get a good result. This obviously can vary considerably, as there are many external influences that can take place than can alter the way the project is run. The biggest headache I have discovered is that of the client. It is a big double edged sword. On one hand they have their hands on the purse strings and so you really tend to want to please them, but on the other hand there is a crux you must bare, as they (as many people believe) tend to see themselves as armchair designers. A great many people don't see the process as a skill (like a doctor, or engineer, or lawyer), but instead due to its nature, fixed in passion, they see it as a fun thing. A job that anyone can participate in. What they don't tend to see is the amount of patience, learning, practice and understanding that comes with the job. That said, it is important to try and convince clients that you do know what you are talking about, and that in a gentle and polite way, convince them that what they think is right isn't necessarily right.

That rant out of the way, the process I try to adhere to regardless of good or bad client is the following. You are usually given a brief. That brief will consist of various points that can be used to define possible creative aspects to the design. At present, this live project is a website plus logo for an educational institution. So, what we can look at here is the aspect that the logo needs to hod several qualities to the type of work the institution does (saying that the logo can be totally abstract). So, knowing that lateral thinking is something that needs to create multiple branches of stemmed ideas, I start at a simple level. That of exploring meanings and derivations. The brief states education, so I look up in a dictionary the word "education", this then gives definition:

education |ɛdjʊˈkeɪʃ(ə)n|
noun
the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university : a new system of public education.
• the theory and practice of teaching : colleges of education.
• a body of knowledge acquired while being educated : his education is encyclopedic and eclectic.
• information about or training in a particular field or subject : health education.
• a particular stage in the process of being educated : a high-school education.
• ( an education) figurative an enlightening experience : the wares in the shops are an education in quality.

What this does is give you a possible link to other meanings that you may not have considered before. For example here it says; knowledge, teaching, tuition, theory, etc. What dictionaries also do, is to hold a word origin. This can sometimes help in finding and abstract variation to the original concept. But also, my computer dictionary has an attached Thesaurus. From this we can also see other words that mean the same thing, but can trigger different visual ideas. For education the folowing appears:

education
noun
1 the education of young children teaching, schooling, tuition, tutoring, instruction, coaching, training, tutelage, guidance; indoctrination, inculcation, enlightenment; formal edification.
2 a woman of some education learning, knowledge, literacy, scholarship, enlightenment.

So, as we explore these terms and meanings some of them will pop into our head as an interest point. So what I do is make a list. I then link tis list to related and abstract terms that pop into my mind. As an example, from the word Knowledge I added "Tree of Knowledge". A term that you may not have considered thinking about when first looking at the word 'Education', but there it is with an obvious visual possibility to the design. It is very useful following this pattern of research, as it give the scope that a limited project time can not allow sometimes. The next step is to look at this list and to populate it with visual variations. This will be the next step.

Thinking with the correct side of the brain

2009-07-08T00:09:00.000-07:00

One of the things I see when I am teaching is the great deal of nervousness that occurs when the students are about to do that simplest of actions, of putting a pencil on a piece of paper. After twenty odd years of doing all this drawing and sketching and the like, I find it odd to observe, or at least funny that someone has that nervousness. There can be many reasons for this to occur. I have thought about it whilst sitting and trying to encourage the students to leap right on in there. One possible reason could be that there is a daunting task of seeing how to fill a large expanse of white space with something. Another, and especially in the classroom environment, is the fear of embarrassment in making a mistake in front of people. This is odd, as I have always stated and affirmed, people can only make progress by making these mistakes. However, the one problematic area that can easily explain all these in one form or another, is the way in which we use our brain.

I mentioned before in another blog, that we rarely consider the fact that our brain actually sits there in the back of our head. As it controls everything, we are aware of the everything it controls. Like our arm, when we need to make a line on a piece of paper. But we don't think about the actual brains part in that. American psychobiologist Roger W Sperry, was the first to discover that the brain had two ways of thinking with the alternate hemispheres on the brain. Over the time of research it has been found that the right side has the weaker dominance over the left. And this fundamentally is the issue with the basis of aesthetics in design. What the left side of the brain does is brings us reality. By this I mean; logic. When we are upright and consciously moving through our day, this side of the brain is the one that makes our decisions. Tells us what is right and wrong, and gives reason to things. This is all good and reasonable. What it does do however, is clash with the more fantasized right side. The side that dreams and relates to images more, and is the key to fantasy (therefore artistic expression).

So, when those students and people, who hesitate at the point of contact, with their pencil on the paper it is because of incorrect brain displacement. Sounds a little funny, but the simple fact is that people are concerned that either they are making a mistake (based on logic) or that something doesn't look right (based on logic) or that what is being created is not compatible with the real world need (based on logic). So, as you can see, logic is the artists worst enemy. Therefore the left side of the brain too, can work against you. As it dominates your processes, this counteracts the desire to be creative. creative thinking is a need a desire to move past that. It is possible to challenge this action of the left side. One simple way, and it may seem funny, is to lie down to think of ideas. Why should this work? Well, when you lie down, subconsciously your brain believes you are about to rest, or sleep. When you rest or sleep your right side begins to dominate your left, and so you can be more creative. Another simple exercise you can do is when trying to research something on the internet, instead of scanning all those text results (which promotes logic based response in letterform cognition) try clicking over to the image results and look through those. Your right side process images, and so by being bombarded with images more that text your right side will be more active.

These are two ways to get things ticking in the right hemisphere, and there are more. However, the actions of individuals are just that; individual. Some people have an aptitude for art and this is because they can simply control their left side. Art is an expressive form in any medium so the power to be more expressive is a key to aesthetic success. The big issue is that much of this process is subconscious. Even the emotions that hold us back from being creative, or wildly leap us into a design, are also subconscious. One thing that needs to be consciously noted and exorcised is the need to try. Without trying (or giving up) will never even get you on that first step.

Depth Perception

2009-06-27T22:36:00.000-07:00

As humans we look at things with different degrees of analysis. We are in fact the only living creature that has the cognitive ability to analyze things, event, problems and try to come to a conclusive result. The advantage of this analytical brain is to help resolve these problems in a more effective manner. Our closest relative, the chimpanzee, when faced with a termite nest wont look at it holistically and see the potential aspects to which a solution to get a termites out. Instead they are limited to their surrounds and their capabilities. They generate simple tools to approach the most convenient solution. Saying this, it is wrong to take away from the chimpanzee the ability to fashion tools and use them. For many years man has deemed himself the only manipulator of his environment, is such a way as to physically alter and fashion elements to create tools. This is not so. What this has to do with creative thinking is a little more deeper than termites in a nest.

Holistic knowledge is a good concern in the process of lateral and creative thinking. Taking a situation, problem, subject as a whole gives the added advantage of this degree of what can be noted as depth perception. There is a tangible notion that all things are connected. That somewhere in all subject there is a slight vein of truth that will lead them to another element of this cosmos. Its a little hard to explain in example as it would take so long to follow any given path from one starting point to another. However, the simplest way to explore this is to see the basic fact that we are all part of an enormous universe. It would be wrong to think that just because there are billions of insects and millions of mammals, fish, birds, etc. that they were all placed on this planet to be solely individual and disconnected. That would be a massive lack of insight into the global construct of life. As much as the development of the chaos theory has made formulae to state that a butterfly flapping its wings in one country can affect the climate in another, so we can also see deeper into the way that thinking has such depths.

In the fashion industry there is a mode called 'fashion forecasting'. This is basically a concept by which fashion designers predict what people will like to see and wear in the coming collection, or year. It is one of the few design practices that actually do this type of analysis. Most other art forms live in the now of their creation. This is trendy at the moment, so let us follow suit. It has been stated before, and in the immortal words of Andy Warhol, "Nothing is original". We can at least understand that design is always in a retro cycle. The trend is usually for a thirty year turn around with many aspects of design. Many young designers don't even subconsciously see this. And this is the process by which depth perception is required. The need to see the basic of where something lies and to explore all the known possible aspects and depths to that starting point. This obviously involves a great deal of back breaking research. Something that many a young mind falls victim to avoiding in these days of A.D.D and interactive online supply.

One aspect that tends to be brought into play on starting any given design project is to first note all aspects of relevant info and category definition. This is the most obvious of starting points. Many a time however, this is the point at which many point spring into mind their 'eureka' concept. Not a good place to be. Many a time premature 'eureka' moments are based on cliche and retained, superfluous data that is omnipresent in our everyday lives. Not saying this is a bad thing. But in a world where, as Warhol stated, 'Nothing is original', we must strive as designers to at least forge some originality into the world. To design a better world. How is this done? Well the next best starting point, after the initial round of being obvious, is to take paths down away from these points to push them to their nth degree. Like walking into a wood until you think that you are at the centre, because it gets darker and darker, but you still push yourself. At this point, I will explain the use of the picture at the top of the post. Basically it is to denote the fact that nothing is what it seems. Most presented things on a path of dicovery can reward you with abstract solutions. A very good example is the invention of velcro.

Looking at velcro and its micro fibre plastic construction you would possibly believe, doing reverse design techniques, it was developed in a lab. With scientists trying to formulate a perfect combination of fibres in order to create this sticking ability. You would of course be wrong. Velcro was in fact invented by means of one man (its inventor - George de Mestral) taking his dog for a walk in the Swiss Alps. You can read more here! This was a marvelously 'eureka' moment as the scientist was able to see the connection instantly to another value this seemingly abstract moment had. He had the depth of perception to see the connection. Some time ago, here, I posted a logo concept as a quiz to see if people could evaluate its origin. It was for a company called 'Nu Skin'. They deal with moisturizing creams for skin. See the conclusion here! The notion to the icon design was taken from a piece of depth perception that on the start can not be seen. Look at the previous post and see if you could have guessed it.

So, the best angle to create more novel and clever and inspiring design is the process by which you follow each and every path through its depth perception analysis. Time consuming "yes", but can result in a multi aspect research base by which notions of the original concept can be heightened or widened based on aspects that you had not originally considered before. The best aspect to understand this is to go through an example path, in order to define the way that depth perception works. The following posts will discuss the real and psychological aspects of developing this process with a live example. Stay tuned!

Brain matter

2009-06-14T22:03:00.000-07:00

Have you ever really sat down and thought about your brain? The strange and funny process is that you very rarely do. You can sit and think about your other extremities, but rarely do you consider the one part of the machinery network that actually makes it all function. Maybe, if you have a headache you will feel bad through over drinking of tiredness, or some other ailment. However, because this two pound lump of gray matter sits behind all of your sensory receptors it gets ignored. The brain is in fact a miracle of evolutionary magnitude. The actual fact that it is capable of doing what it actually does is a technical marvel. Scientists for example have been trying to figure out these aspects and recreate them in such a way that computers could have, what we call, artificial intelligence. That we could build a robot that functions in the same way as humankind. the sad truth is that this seems like it will never happen. Reading Steve Pinker's book on the subject has shown some fascinating aspects of the human brain that not many people consider. A simple example is the amazing ability to move a hand from one place to another. Why would that seem to be such an amazing thing? Well you would if you literally see the action. Just a hand going from one place to another. Well, it isn't actually. What some scientist have done to try to understand this action, is to ask some people to move an angle poise lamp (quite a good replicator of a human joint structure) to move the lamp in the same way as a hand would move to the same point of movement. It is always near impossible. If you can imagine that it is not simply about moving the hand from A to B. The brain has to calculate the correct aspects by which to move each and every single muscle in such a coordinated fashion that the subtle and precise action results in the hand reaching the correct position flawlessly. On top of that, it also has to calculate all the environmental aspects that may affect the movement. Compensate for internal issues related to the muscles, tendons, etc. All in all, this is an amazing process. Now, if you consider that, but then transfer it to the process of walking, then the amazement is extended further. There has not been one scientific achievement that can replicate bipedal walking actions. Now, these aspects of the human brain are simply related to the process and function of kinetic action.

The brain is the powerhouse of our entire system. It has to pulse information on heart beats, on digestion, etc. but what it also has to do is to take in neurological input and convert it into the more abstract elements of our life, such as thoughts and emotions. The brain has to convert matter into dreams, whilst at the same time realise that we are asleep and to disfunction our motor-neural functions (in order to stop us acting out our dreams). It takes impulse of electricity and makes images that our eyes say they see. It takes invisible waves and makes sounds that we hear. The more amazing aspect to this whole process though is that it doesn't just create a jumbled collection of shapes and or sounds. It has the amazing ability to order all this and to give focus, depth and importance to many parts of that communication jungle. If, for example, you look at the scene in front of you (like I am now), technically it is simply a series of colours that enter into our brain. The light bounces from the sun, hits the object and rebounds the inbuilt colour values that object or material has and sends it to our receptors. These receptors don't actually see pictures. They see data. Information code. Simply put, it could see red as a '5'. So what then happens is that the brain translates all this information and makes a picture. But what has to be extended from this is the fact that the brain is able to make the depth distinction of the edges of objects, the lighting variations of objects, etc, etc. All in all a very wonderful achievement.

What has all this got to do with creative thinking. Well, if you consider that the brain is, as I said, a powerful analytical tool, one of the aspects that can be very much disregarded in connection to our function as a human life form, is the process of how the brain takes in data and how it then uses it in order to have form and meaning. A good way to see this is the simple fact that knowledge is about information. You can't simply know something simply by it existing. What is required is the necessary about of investigation in order to give an appropriate value to that form. The more you seek this information, and the more the brain is allowed to analyse this data, the more knowledge is gained. A very simple example on this, and a function I try to teach my students, is the process by which learning a computer program is a simple case of making mistakes. I added a chinese proverb to the FB site some days back. If you take on board the message it states then this is the simple building process of knowledge.

One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.
- Chinese proverb

However marvelous we see the brain and the mind, in all its functions and actions, we have to understand one clear aspect to all this. If data doesn't go in, then it will not come out. This relates to al aspects of the brain functionality. The part that relates to creativity is also compounded with several other aspects that can be discussed in other posts. The main concern is how the brain is divided into two halves. Each half having a specific value in its operation outcome. Much of the existence in life on this planet requires a degree of rationalisation, and therefore the brain has evolved to hold a stronger 'left side' that computes all this logic in a formal way. This has a strong and powerful affect on the 'right side', or the 'artistic' side. For example, the reason we dream during the night is because the right side has relaxed. There is less functioning for the left side when we sleep so the right side becomes more dominant. Therefore creative people have a disadvantage in the simple fact that during the working day the dominant side is not simply geared to be creative. Have you ever woken up in the night with a wonderful idea? Well, its because your creative centre is able to be more active. One of the ways to challenge this is as previously stated. Allow for your brain to be continually analytical of data. Observe more, hear more, touch more. Allowing the subconscious questions to arise about such things will promote knowledge. And with this knowledge will come greater scope for creativity.

Design depth

2009-05-12T22:07:00.000-07:00

Whilst sitting in a cafe the other day, just finishing another section of the great book "Blink", I started jotting ideas down on a piece of paper about how I saw the evolution of design. A pretty grandiose task you may think. Maybe it was. Maybe it is, if you look at the development of design as a simple progression from one designer to another, or from one style to another. Or even from one generation to another. I didn't want to try and see this as a chronological process of influence. Instead, as I have been doing a great deal of reading on several aspects of how the mind develops, works and analysis things, I was more interested in trying to figure out clues to why design is the way it is today. Before I leap into a complex analysis of all things related to aesthetics, I should point out that there is a great deal of elements that can be drawn together that can trigger the notions and arguments towards this analysis. However, I will try to make it as simple as I can. Mainly as this is a taster, and I really like the idea of doing this subject as a book.

In a discussion the other day, and seemingly unrelated to this notion of deign, a group of us were talking about things we ate as a child. I told my story of being invited to me old neighbour's house (aunts as we called them) and being given dripping on bread, with a sprinkling of salt. For people who don't know what lard is, its the residue left from pot roasting a piece of beef. Basically the white fat that transpires on cooling the liquid remains. Now, what does this have to do with design or even aesthetics, or even an analysis of such matters? Well, I found a common link to the fact that generations deliver certain attributes to our living style and therefore our actions in those lifestyles. If that seems life a very abstract connection, then look at it like this. McLuhan said in his book "Understanding Media" that we are influenced from what we have, see and take in from our surroundings. But in the same degree of respect this media is also influenced via the way we wish to play out our lives. Nether one models the other. They are in unity. So, seeing things like this you can see that the way we experience our life can ultimately deliver the life that we are experiencing. Almost a Catch 22 situation.

I say this, based on a television programme I caught a glimpse of and have mentioned before in other blogs. Life in the last twenty years or so has had a very strong, remarkable influence that has not only affected people, but the society in which they live. This influence is as revolutionary as the industrial revolution in the 19th century and the invention of the press had to knowledge. The revolution of course is that of the technology age. Young people of the age of 23/24 and under have been, and will be born into this age. An age of computers, remotes, high definition and mobile technology. The paradox in this development in society is that as many would think, technology is here to help. But look at the simple common denominating factor to al this; we have a remote to make life easier. We have a microwave to make life easier, we have computer to ease the process. All of these primary servicing attributes of this technology have the promotion of ease as a key part of their development. However, what happens if we substitute the word 'lazy' instead of 'easy'. We have remote controls to make us lazy. See how the notion of society changes? What a scientist stated in this programme was that people under the age of 23 are becoming more and more susceptible to ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). Now, as I commonly state, all things are connected, there are many aspects to life that can trigger this. Food additives have been blamed, and even dysfunctional family environments, but also there was shown, in the abstract notion of technology development, that young people fall prey to their environment more because their lives have been engulfed by this environment.

How does this relate to design? Well, simply put, this laziness in our lifestyle also moves over into our working conditions. Young people live, like all of us, in a society of design that is based at best retro recycling. Was it Andy Warhol that stated that nothing is original. It is true. Influence is a great part of design. However, some elements of design I feel are there to shake up the tight conformity of design requirements. As much as punk came along and shook up the music industry, so do certain elements of design. As an example, graffiti is here as a visual punk. It is a social comment more than an art form. Its a way for vocally lazy, in should I say, vocally inept members of the youth generation to say what they want. It is not an art form as such, it is a simple expression. However, art is reflecting this in its work these days. We have grunge and such other design elements that are today making the new style. However, whether they should be included in the history of design is another question. What the issue is, is that having them as resource to draw on is making the youth generation of designers fall into the 'remote control' aspect of design society. It is true that not everyone can be a great designer, but using bad typographic alignment for example and saying that 'this' is the latest style. Its what everyone is doing, is not a good argument, it is simple laziness.

What a great deal of people don't realise is the strong connection that design and the arts (in whatever form) have in shaping our culture and society. My friend Steve mentioned yesterday, over our cup of tea, that a small child knows all the names of the NBA basketball players. Not from watching NBA on TV or even via the internet, but damagingly, via the X-Box game that he continuously relates to. More of a shock is that his father told my friend that he can't remember what he did in history the day before, but can name all members of all teams, their positions and probably all their numbers. I stated to Steve, that my beginnings in art were aired to my students in our drawing class the other day. I can remember the day that I was looking at E.H. Shepherd's "Winnie the Pooh" drawings and liking them enough to copy, or emulate them. This was over 30 years ago. I can close my eyes and see me drawing these images. If you remember, I also wrote a blog to the amazing affect this has had on me. However, like the child, I cannot remember other education aspects of my past, but any visual stimulus is a strong pattern. This is how society is being defined. However, much of social art and design is being translated in the same way that our youth are living their lives; in a lazy rush. Ironic yes!!!

Consumer association

2009-05-03T00:25:00.000-07:00

Decided to finally get through the last bit of 'Blink'. Malcolm Gladwell's book on the spontaneity in human nature. On reading one of the final chapters I came across a very interesting section covering the concept of what can be called 'Consumer association'. This was an original concept founded by Louis Cheskin. See his website here! He moved to the USA from the Ukraine and found great delight in the development of the American culture. However, he discovered a desire to want to analyse the system by which consumers related to their choice in products. One of his achievements was to aid Coco-cola in their understanding in why Pepsi was beating Coke in the race for customers in the late 1970s. Coke was under the assumption that the rival was true in their statement, in that in the taste test (something I remember as a child) Pepsi was better than coke. So Coca-cola spent time and money in the development a new taste. They even called it 'New Coke'. What they didn't realise is that their assumptions were misguided. New Coke was a flop, and never even made headway against Pepsi. also, on returning the original to the market the new coke drink failed further. What they were under the assumption was, was that the customers like the taste of Pepsi and therefore to compete they had to simulate that taste to be in good competition. What Cheskin made them realise is that the 'Pepsi taste challenge', although not incorrect, was a misguiding aspect to the Pepsi success. What Cheskin pointed out to Coke was that people rarely drink their drinks blindfolded in a test environment and that there was a big difference between CLT's (central location tests) and drinking a full glass of Coke over a sip. Basically Coke is still the leading soft drink over Pepsi, not because of the research criteria, but simply because the customer who drinks the drinks is in a different state of mind, than to the presumptions of the advertisers. Sometimes advertisers can get it wrong.

Cheskin's skills were once again proven correct in many occasions from convincing margarine manufacturers that they could not simply sell the product based on its value as margarine. He convinced them to change the colour to a soft yellow, in order to compete with butter. And that the actual wrapper was an important aspect to the customer's choice. This was also very successfully noted with Christian Brothers Brandy. The quality drink was loosing ground against a more inferior brand and there was a need to understand why. There were several tests, looking at advertising, taste, etc, before the Cheskin approach was adopted. The previous tests failed to distinguish the reason for the decline in sales. What Cheskin and associates discovered was what we can call an evolution in marketing. They carried out several tests. This was based on the notion of consumer association to the product. Christian Brother's Brandy was in a wine bottle, the rival was in a squashed decanter type bottle. The labels had different aesthetic aims to show the feel of either quality or brandy culture. What the tests did was to first serve the drinks in a glass, alone. This proved that people like the superior one above the inferior. Then they did a remarkable thing. They served the drinks with their associated bottle sitting behind. They found that the inferior drink won hands down over the superior. Then they switched the bottles, so that the superior was in the inferior's bottle. The result was what they expected. The superior brandy served in the inferior's bottle was more successful.

What this basically proves and is sometimes overlooked by the designers and advertisers, is that the association to a products package is as important to the customer as is the product itself. Even more so, on top of this, it is not just about the package, but the elements of the package and their presentation. Del Monte changed their peaches from can to jar and found a successful response. Why? Because people associated the product to a memory of the way their mother would give them jars of peaches. Also, the design of the elements can affect the customer. Sometimes a customer seeks trust. Therefore this needs to be indicated in aspects of the design and so forth. There are many aspects of the aesthetic process that tend to negate this value of consumer desires over cost or trend values, that they really do forget that the customer tends to be right. Mainly, as we know from experience there are many values that come into call when designing something. However, some of the ones that are tended to be put aside are the most important, as shown by Cheskin. Those of how people relate to it, how it looks on the shelf, and the most important; the customer association.

Intellectual Blocks

2009-04-18T08:03:00.000-07:00

Another in the series of developing an understanding to the many types of blocks there are. Just as a quick reminder, we have already covered: Environmental Blocks, Cultural Blocks, Perpetual and Associative Blocks. This post will look at another aspect of the mental block structure; that of 'Intellectual Blocks'. What does this actual base its notions around? Well, there are many aspects to this form of mental blocking. Intelligence as described in the Oxford dictionary reads as such:

intelligence |ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒ(ə)ns|
noun
1 the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

Based on this, the measure of an intelligence is the amount of this such knowledge and to what amount it can be utilized in order to make head way in a given situation. Another way to look at the definition of intelligence is that of this basic concept. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. The more intelligent, or more knowledgeable one is, then the more likely you are of completely the task of solving the given problem. Let's face it. Life, like anything else can be defined as a series of binary questions. The path by which your course takes is further extended or complicated by the initial resolution to the previous or preceding question/answer. Let's take a simple example. You wake up in the morning. The first question that could pop into your head is "Tea or Coffee?". Now, this is a real world example and doesn't relate to how clever you are. Just symbolic of possible complexities. So, understanding that, the knowledge of drinks could either stop there or be extended. So, your knowledge base could wake up and say; "Tea, coffee, orange juice, milk, water, alcohol, chocolate, etc." Hence the fact that your range has been extended by the types of drink you know. The knowledge base is greater. If you look closer then you will see that this can in fact be expanded even further by the simple fact that tea could be broken down into 'Earl Gray, lapsang souchong, Darjeeling, English Breakfast, etc.' and you can see that all these different lists each in turn develop multiple branches that can extend the knowledge.

If you see this simple analogy as a real intellect base of creativity then you can see that the more knowledge you gain, doesn't necessary make you cleverer, but does give you a base by which to work from. I do tell my students however, that there is a big difference between reading a book and understanding a book. Let's face it, it is oh so easy to sit and read some hi brow intellectual book on the inner workings of the creative mind and then chalk it up on the old book list to impress people with the as a sign of your intellectual heights. However, if you can't stand ground and debate the information contained within then there is little reason to proclaim the fact that the book was read. It would be like watching a car advert and proclaiming that you know how to build a car. One of the values I try to instill in my students when we talk of research (that fated word in the the student vocabulary) is that the information gathered means little to nothing if the person cannot place it into their own words. Now there is also a down side to all this thinking. Every coin has two sides, as they say. Being too full of knowledge can also be a problematic state. Not saying it is a negative one. However, the fact is that there is a necessary interaction required with the real world. So, having too much knowledge could even cause that analogical situation of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Many of the best resolutions that have ever occurred have resulted usually in what is simply termed, the 'Aha!' moment. This is a time when the brain is subconsciously working harder than the cognitive state and a chance occurrence of values actually bring an answer away from the normal thought process. The information is stored, but is stumbled across, not sought.

There is no real reasoning to what defines 'intelligent'. Autistic children with no common schooling with other children can show remarkable degrees of problem solving and natural ability that some scholars would find hard after years of learning. So, the understanding that intelligence is an association with education could also be argued. It is not this at all. What it is, is the way by which the brain takes in knowledge and then forms the necessary patterns by which it can then recall this information. For the relevant reasoning that it will be applied too. The block is either the transference of knowledge on either end of the scale, or it is the taking in of this information and the apparent understanding, put weakness in its translation to solve a related problem. The next block we will look at in this series will be 'Emotional Block'. Nothing much to cry about.

Plato's Simile of the Cave

2009-04-12T21:13:00.001-07:00

Is a resident of the cave (a prisoner, as it were) likely to want to make the ascent to the outer world? Why or why not? What does the sun symbolize in the allegory? And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:--Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision,--what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them,--will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner? (1)

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; (2)and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. (3)

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed--whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, Here Plato describes his notion of God in a way that was influence profoundly Christian theologians. and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.

Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

Yes, very natural.

And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conception of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?

Anything but surprising, he replied.

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.

That, he said, is a very just distinction.

But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.

They undoubtedly say this, he replied.

Whereas our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

Subject Four: Hard Sell

2009-03-04T23:52:00.000-08:00

The last theme in this two week stretch. Thanks for all who have viewed, if not commented. Thanks to Panagiotis for his contribution. Strange thing is I see him in class, and therefore could have had this debate off the computer, but never mind.

For the final subject I wanted to start the notion of 'to what levels would a piece of graphics go' to sell its message. I am a great admirer of the author Marshall McLuhan and his book 'Understanding Media'. If you are interested in Creative and Lateral Thinking with relationship to the medias then this is a book you should read. Several of the chapters he talks in have many aspects to the values of the visual medias and in particular he talks on the 'medium is the message'. This whole philosophy is a little deep and hard to add to a short blog post, but basically it is the notion that our society has devised (consciously or subconsciously) the methods by which a combination of words and structures have moved from the position it holds into the thought process by which we accept it. It is a very fascinating analysis of modern living aspects. It does include much related to advertising. Another subject McLuhan talks of is the 'Hot and Cold' process or theory. This is very much associative to the notions of advertising as it evaluates the trickery that media forms can use or hold to make people more connected or repelled to a form. Again, a complex subject to add here, but the idea is that certain media hold either a hot or cold value. This meaning that for example, TV is a hot media, as it holds much of the transmitted information and therefore doesn't take too much audience effort for it to manifest. The opposite is a cold media. This requires much involvement from the participant. An example would be playing some Mozart on a piano or reading a book.

Taking this into consideration the values held in advertising have a strange duality in holding both 'Hot' and 'Cold'. This is because superficially the overall view of a billboard or TV advert is openly simple. That is to give the blatant information of the product. However, the other aspect which has evolved into more modern advertising is the 'cold' value. Which draws the viewer to analyse and interpret possible angles on the information being transmitted. The last image in the event folder does a simple job. It is trying to sell a paper. However, the audience looking at this can then reflect on the hidden messages that the advertising is trying to say. In some respects this is what makes an advert both clever and memorable. Now, there is a slight issue here that the foreseen planted message could be mislead. In an economic sense this is not an issue. Remember the success of Benetton adverts by Toscani? Many people were shocked and disgusted by them, but it didn't stop people talking about them, and making Benetton a more successful company. Some of these messages however, could be harmful, or reverse effect in they promotion of a message. The image at the top of the page is a very good and clever advert. But what is the main point of adding it as the trigger to this debate is to start the debate on how much of a 'hard sell' does a campaign or piece of graohics need to make the real message work. There was a video placed in the main creative thinking folder about living with the consequences of road accidents. Basically it has a very good point, but the deeper aspects can evoke other concerns looking at the harshness of the underlying messages. So this begs the question:
1) How much concern to hard selling a message should be employed if there are stronger underlying messages that could have adverse effects on their viewers? Or is it about sell, sell, sell?

Subject Three: Obligations

2009-03-01T23:25:00.001-08:00

Advertising and graphics have a power above all else. The expression "a picture speaks a thousand words" is testament to the fact that the visual form is a strong method to get a message across. In fact since we climbed from the trees and tried very desperately to communicate, one of the first things we did was to make marks on walls and in sand. These pictograms eventually turned to the multitude of alphabets we now use around the world, with some confusion between races. However, the visual form is in-all-tense-and-purpose a universal tool. Something that can be recognised from one mind to another, the world over. This in one sense makes it a very powerful tool, but at the same time makes it a very powerful weapon.

What ad men have been argued at is not having is morality. Whether that is true or not is another debate, what they do have is the obligation to sell the product that is placed in front of them. To this end they could be faced with dealing with some very hard and heavy subject matter. This could range from medical issues, political issues, child related issues and social issues. Knowing this and knowing the way the mind works there have been some really clever attempts to make this subject become effective. The problem is that how sensitive and to the point can these images be in order to make a good point, but at the same time hold the line of sensitivity? There are several images in the event folder that add some light into such matters and are either good or making a strong sensitive comment. What should be discussed at this point is a two sided argument:

1) Do graphic images have a place in portraying sensitive subjects?
2) Is there a better approach to getting these messages across?

Subject Two: Human form

2009-02-25T22:05:00.000-08:00

Second subject to discuss. The human form is something that is the most natural part of our life. We are in fact born naked and then for some reason of climatic need, or social obligation required to don clothing. This was the point of one of Toscani's first and most shocking photos for Benetton. To highlight the public repulsion to our own naked form. Many things have happened over the centuries that have driven or modeled the way we see ourselves as a form, but it was only in the beginnings of the advertising era that the human form took on a new angle. A device for selling.

One of the things that has become apparent over the last few decades of advertising this form, is that our liberation toward it has in some aspects become reflective to the forms shown in the utopian view on billboards, etc. However, there is a great deal of distaste seen in the way the human form is used (even if to good affect) in some advertising and graphic forms. It is questionable whether advertising can affect society, but one thing is noticeable, the fact that society is changing. It is more aggressive, more violent and more sexually motivated. Whether this is a coincidence of the nature from which people draw from what they see can never really be determined. Society evolves and so does the methods by which we control, use and experience our surroundings.

Looking upon several of the images that have been placed inside the events gallery it is obvious to see that the stretches of advertising limits are being tested based on either the double entredres or simple connection to having a naked body in the image. I have added five images that all portray human forms to products that have no real reason to include a human form in such a way, but they do. Whether it is through simplicity, cleverness or any other reason is unsure. However, one thing that came from watching an episode of Mad Men last night is that in one scene between antagonists the following dialogue came out:

"You are spreading the lie, man!" the hippy said. "You are living it!" said the ad man.

No matter how much we complain about what we see around us in the images we call art, graphics or advertising we still ultimately accept them and also shape our lives based on them. No matter how much morality you throw at the subject can resolve the argument. This is to those two true facts. If morality is based on a religious stance then the argument falls short if they are reminded that creation of their knowledge of mankind in their religion is from the naked forms of adam and eve. If it is about the simple negative view of the nudity of the body, then again they can be reminded, like Toscani did, that we are all born this way. So if there is any dislike to that form it should be inverted rather than overtly blamed at people who see a openness about it.

The discussion point is really this:
1) Is there a need to use the naked human form as a selling device?
2) Should women be objectified more or at all over men?
3) Can advising survive with this type of directed selling, or using sex as a motivation?

Subject One: Censorship!

2009-02-22T06:58:00.001-08:00

This is the first of hopefully many debates inside the Creative Thinking arena. You can participate or view the outcomes as they unfold. Please contribute, as most people have an opinion and it would be good to hear it. I have moved the discussion here as it has the opportunity to create a wall of discussion. When leaving comments please add your name. You don't need to have an account, simply choose "Name/URL" and supply your FaceBook ID as the name. Couldn't be easier!

First subject in this two weeks will be 'censorship'. For many years as a youthful creative I was always an advocate of non-censorship. Remembering the hidden religious control of the British Board of Censors as they deemed things inappropriate due to their middle class, church going attitudes. I thought that there was nothing wrong with showing things that were viewable in real life, in the confines of adverts, films and television shows. However, as I have grown older and a little wiser I have come to realise that certain things are not allowed and/or are close to the edge. The more I research the subject of Creative Thinking in clever and provocative ads I wonder how close the line of sensitivity will get. I mentioned before that I was watching a TV series called 'Mad Men', which is about the 1960's ad men of Madison Avenue. One episode previous a comment triggered this discussion. That being that advertising is here to sell things that people don't need to people who don't know they need them. In analysis this is true. In reality this was a good starting point to advertising. Now though, there is a need to be more stronger in the approach to getting the message across. We commonly see mentions of death with connection to cigarettes and drink driving, but the biggest seller of all is 'Sex'. Sex sells, based on the pre-notion that it occupies everyones thoughts and therefore we trigger this natural instinct to relate it to selling merchandise. Yesterday I uploaded a video for a 'Durex' advert to the Creative Thinking group on FaceBook (if you are reading this and haven't seen it then take a look here!). The point being that there is an obvious cleverness to the advertising, but when does it stop being clever and when does it start being too cutting. If you look at the image placed in the event section, you will see I have tried to define some subjects that could be of issue. Noticeably the one for the Orbit gum seems to stand out more. The others have a focus on sex, where as this one is basically saying that "Orbit will give you perfect teeth even if the rest of you isn't." Now, even though not an issue in censorship terms, it does carry a strange angle on how people should see themselves. That this image is not perfect, or even abnormal. It could, to some people be very cutting. Therefore could possibly be negative. We are living in a world with more overt openness to too many sensitive subjects, that any attempt to push the bounds of advertising a little further is the risk that companies are willing to take.
What I want to have happen is for you to look at the images and see if the cleverness of the selling technique is acceptable or whether they are going a little too far. Comment on the following:

1) What are your views on censorship?
2) What aspects of graphics should be censored?
3) Who should be responsible for censorship, if any?
4) What is the possible future outcome of graphics, with and without censorship?

is inspiration dead in the water?

2009-02-10T22:30:00.000-08:00

Being an academic and a creative I tend to read and put into practice a lot that I look at. Recently I have been doing a good deal of research into 'inspiration'. Inspired as you could say, to motivate the students into getting their act together. It is a complex subject. Never is it easy as to say 'switch on' and get productive. So many variables fit into the complex motions of getting the brain to turn those gears. However, one of the great aids is the ability to see possible hurdles that could combat or challenge your creativity. There are too many to name here as possible blocks and remedies, but I will attempt to tell you some and hopefully this will aid in the process of getting your act together.

The first and most easy to achieve is attitude. Again, that is easy to say, but having a late night, not getting your coffee in the morning, missing the bus, etc., can all contribute to making the daily attitude seep a little. However, one thing that you should and need to do, is to detach yourself from the clutter that we can call "the outside world". As we are aware that many things fill our mind, we can relegate those thoughts to are automated subconscious and focus on some of the more pressing feelings of wanting to get creative. The actual definition of 'inspiration' is the process of being mentally stimulated; especially with regard to being creative. We can all say that things weigh on our mind, but it is important to focus. Having a positive attitude towards work is a good way to get the focus started. Believing that you have a long path a head will make you feel more demoralising, so simply see the process that you have to go through as a series of steps rather than one giant leap.

Looking at some of the things I have researched recently, there has been a repeated notion that 'time' of inspiration and our nutrition plays a good deal of influence on our creativity. Looking at some of the blogs and articles I have discovered that many talk about preparing the brain for thinking. I have mentioned this before with the students, but understanding the value of food and the way it affects the body is key to preparing yourself. There are two food types called 'slow carbohydrates' and fast carbohydrates. Each of these do varies affects on your body. However, as far as the brain goes, it needs blood sugar. For example, when you feel faint and want to pass out, this is due to a lack of blood sugar stimulating your brain to send all those messages to the body. Usually in this situation, people will administer some orange juice. This is a quick release option that goes straight into the system after some 15 mins. If you want to get active or break out of that doldrums affect in thinking, then orange juice is a good example. However, did you know that there is a great difference between drinking orange juice and eating an orange. Well there is. One is quick release and the other is slow release. Eating means the system needs to digest before putting into the system. Liquid generally tends to go straight through. So if you need to prepare for a thinking session in the near future, the best approach is to take in slow release carbs. There are many types, but any vegetables, fruit, pulses, etc will do. If you have a normal sleep cycle then the best approach would be to have a good healthy carb based breakfast. As it tends to start taking affect from upto 2 to 3 hours this is an ideal time to stoke the fire.

Sleep is also an important factor. The brain tends not to think straight when tired. Medical advise states tat eight hours is normal, but it is also good to have refreshing naps during the day. There are techniques that have been developed that are called "power napping" which can give you the same affect as eight hours sleep in 15-20 mins. I have actually tried this method in an afternoon and it does work. However, it should never substitute a good night sleep, as the body needs to replenish and repair. My research has found as system of recording process of creativity through what is called a 'heat' chart. This can be found here! The basic premise is to indicate on a 24 hour chart when you feel the most productive. What this achieves is tw things. It can indicate times that you can then move away from creative activity to do all those menial and mundane tasks, but also be an indicate to show you how your dietary process works. Noting if you are more productive some hours after a big meal, but not being so productive after your morning rise, due to the absence of breakfast can be a great indicator that you should consider what you eat. This could be done on a trial basis, but needs to cover several days to indicate a pattern. Give it a go, you may see a possible change that is needed.

The final thing to mention is the actual creative process. As I have explained several times in many other locations, the creative process is a series of steps. It is very rare to get a good 'aha!' moment and jump many of the steps to make a great idea come to fruition. So, failing that genius approach, we have to find another method. Even away from the process of sketching, drawing, creating, our initial steps could be as simple as the attitude we have when we walk down the street. This maybe be an odd thing to say, but the mental state of mind taken when having the difference between what I will call "a rainy day walk" and a "sunny day walk" is extreme. One, is very positive, like the sunny day (hence the name). You walk down the street, smiling and taking everything in. You will see that you notice more, explore more, view more. And the importance of this is that all around you is stimulus. Taking a 'rainy day walk' is not as creative. Simply as you hang your head, feel lethargic and not look at anything. Its about A to B, not the journey. What you must understand is that the A and B are points that may not hold inspiration, so the journey is vital to get the brain thinking and active. When I am walking to a place, as a graphic designer, I look at all the shop frontages and think and analyse if I think they are good, how I could redesign them, etc. This is a very productive method (even if it doesn't lead anywhere) it is getting the brain working. Many other things you can do in a stationary state are keeping a notebook, or scrapbook, or even using digital technology to record things. All this can be classed as reference work and material and is great to develop inspiration. Saying that there is no substitute to developing the brain's knowledge base. Read more, and read variety, and things can pop out from the most surprising places. Go be creative!

Problem = Solution

2009-01-25T09:48:00.000-08:00

I just today put a 'status' change on my Facebook account, saying "Every problem has a solution!" I have had a plethora of replies to it. Some funny, some quizzical and some responsive. The fact was, regardless of the grateful responses, nobody was able to conclude that this was in fact correct. That people are not willing to strive for answers to many of the problems faced. This all stemmed from a conversation I had with a student earlier today on MSN. He was belligerent to get his projects finished and was trying to get me, not to give him the solutions, but instead the path away from trying. This was a little annoying for me, as I try to live by the belief that what I quoted is true. The simple fact is there are many ways you can look at this simple puzzle. The hard thing is that many people see the first stage as being a negative. The use of the word 'problem' is in itself a negative initiator. The mind tends to not work so well when it believes it is faced with such negative starting points. One big solution to that, in a step-by-step process is to exchange words. Instead of saying 'problem' say 'challenge'. This way, there is a great deal more enthusiastic quality to the expression; "I have a challenge!" Further to this, you can say something like, "I have a solution to find", or "I have something to resolve." Now this may not seem that important and is basically a load of old semantic hog wash, but the psyche of the brain is a very strong motivator in how we deal with things. As a quick example, you find that people seem to be in a better frame of mind in the summer sun, rather than winter rain. This is due to the expressive nature of the environment. That, ultimately affects our mood.
Problems are a mood dropper, there is no doubt about it. Most of us simply look for the path of least resistance. Easy to say if that path exists. If the path doesn't and the solutions are simply a collection of methods that have some effort involved then the usual outcome is to forget or negate the 'problem' to being without resolution, or not with able capability. I try and teach in my classes that the best starting point to any given situation is to see the variant possibilities before deciding on the path to take. Without sounding too much like a Tibetan Monk, a problem is the whole of its solution. The fact being, a problem cannot exist without a solution. Or even better a selection of solutions. The main angle on that entire process is that if you see the solution as the last step in the development from the problem then all becomes easy. This is quite easily said, as hypothesizing about challenges and realising them are two completely different things. However, the fundamentals are the same basically. You see the issue at stack, you see the possible options available and then you devise a plan to resolve the situation using the most effective solution. That doesn't necessarily mean the best solution, but the one that can get the job done with the least effort and best result can be the godsend.
In creative terms there are many issues in resolving problems. Many, as I said, see the quickest as the resolution. My student's answer was not however a solution. Giving up is never an option, and to finish in the immortal words of Yoda, the Jedi master:

Do or do not... there is no try! That is why you failed.

Gestalt!

2009-01-01T01:39:00.001-08:00

As I have some new notes nd presentations to write for the beginning of the new semester I have recently been doing so research on the famous Gestalt theory. I say famous, but asking many people they seem to be completely unaware of the notions of this theory. So I dug a little deeper and sought information based specifically on the use of Gestalt in aesthetic application. The main reason for this is that last year was our regular mid-term assessments. One of the biggest and most annoying aspects to having to sit through the 'so' unprofessional quantity of student presentation was that something very clear was wrong with a specific part of their work; the visual presentation. Hence, my intention to bring light to the errors via a theoretical approach to understanding the aesthetics. I might be shooting myself in the foot here, as many of the students seem to switch off at the idea of taxing their brains with some cerebral work. I have decided to share this information here as it is interesting, and I can only hope that people see the importance and use of this time of theory base, when applied to presentation, and also composition of work.

Gestalt is the German born theory of the concept that the brain constructs links in many forms, regardless of their existence or not. Now that as an opening statement seems a little hard to grasp. So, lets try to clear it up with an example. The image I have added to the top of this post, is an example of one type of Gestaltist theory generation. This is called 'Proximity'. The basic theory behind this is that when you look at the image you instantly see a Dalmatian dog. Your brain needs no time at all to see it, and even if you haven't seen this image before, your brain fills the gaps to define the shape. The reason this happens (and in this case, more so) is that it is the proximity of the objects that ultimately define the dog, that aid in the generation of its whole. Your brain is a pattern making machine. That is all it does. Stores patterns by which it recalls information by combining those patterns. This is a set of shapes that when in the close proximity of each other creates the dog. This is not the only example and is a great part to many of the clever optical illusions. This type of affect works best in art composition. When we start to look at the need to use Gestalt theories regarding layout or presentation we must look at the notions of 'Reification'. Here is the definition of reification:

Reification is the constructive or generative aspect of perception, by which the experienced percept contains more explicit spatial information than the sensory stimulus on which it is based.
For instance, a triangle will be perceived in picture A, although no triangle has actually been drawn. In pictures B and D the eye will recognize disparate shapes as "belonging" to a single shape, in C a complete three-dimensional shape is seen, where in actuality no such thing is drawn.
Reification can be explained by progress in the study of illusory contours, which are treated by the visual system as "real" contours.

How this has concern for the use of the theory toward composition is that regardless of how something seems to work and is correct, the ambiguity of the underlying Gestaltist aspect of the images is what can make the difference between a good layout or presentation or a bad one. Here is an example of how this works.

What we see here is the fact that the left aspect of the diagram is really simply a set of shapes in a pattern form. There is no obvious intent to make a square, but what has occurred through the reification of the shapes in that compositional order is that a square has been defined. Looking at the right side, the same patterns are used, but due to their value in compositional terms, there is not square. If you can imagine taking this type of information and when setting out a presentation you apply the same sort of visual clarity and order then the brain will naturally harmonize with what is being shown. This is a very crucial aspect to the process of selling an idea to someone. Mainly because the main function of a presentation is to make the brain work at the primary target. The object being displayed. If it has to work harder with some display disparity then the brain can get tired, confused or even loose focus on what it is trying to look at.

This is a brief insight into the use of Gestalt thinking. I will try to continue to add more of these aspects in future posts, but for now simply be aware of the values of what you place and how they can work for or against you in a positive or negative presentation process.

instructive versus deductive

2008-12-04T00:16:00.000-08:00

I was in a discussion the other morning about the development of education and a theme came apparent about two distinct styles of teaching and their values in an educational scenario. These two types of teaching are those of instructional and deductive. To explain them a little more, the approach to instructional is that of having a teaching guiding you through a process. Much as with most modern education and that of the form of vertical thinking. Deductive thinking can be a result to instructive or a stand alone approach to education, but is based on the approach of learning from experience rather than secondary information retrieval. Teaching is an important and powerful way to get ideas, information and process across to large groups of people. The issue with this method is that it has, especially in recent years, become what can only be called "parrot' fashioned. By this it is meant that a teacher educates and the students repeat. This is done, like a parrot, until the mimicking is exactly as the teacher teaches it. The biggest disadvantage to this is that there is a greater concern to the correction to mimicking the information than to digesting the information and understanding its meaning and importance. Another great disadvantage to all that is that the information, due to its approach to teaching is not giving great association to the subject. What is meant by this is to give global respect to a given theme by associating it to connected themes or subjects that could make the cognitive process more receptive to developing a greater understanding to the education process. A good example to this is seen in the college in which I work. Many of the students are given instructional tutoring on the complexities of the applications they will need in their creative career. This is OK. It is much the same as learning to drive. You need to know the functions of something to know how to operate it, however after this there needs to be some greater need to throw a little experimentation into the works. With the computer applications, after the general instruction to the interface the students are lost to see how to apply the tools to their then given subject. This is where deductive education should start to make a mark.

Deduction is about knowing something and then linking it to another possible value. A very simple example would be having a teacher telling you the worth of two as a numeric value. Teaching you two plus two equals four (2+2=4). Deductively, you should then be able to figure out that 2+2+2=6 or even further you can see from the answer four that it could be constructed from other numeric values; 1+3=4. This is deductive education. From a starting point of instructional education there should be a drive to see how this can be extended without the continuation of instruction. Figuring things out for oneself. For the students in front of the knowledge base of photoshop, for example, there is no seeming connection between knowing how to use the blend tool on 'that' instructed photo, to applying the knowledge to a given project. This is because in the grand tradition of the instructive teaching process, they are clueless unless the actual steps that are needed are shown related to a specific task. This is not a failing of the education system. There is a need for instructive learning, but the issue is that the next step has not been given the best motivation start. Deductive learning needs a drive.

Without this drive creativity also gets affected. The instruction becomes redundant as the student has no drive to explore. Our brain is designed to cognitively take in information and to analyze and evaluate this information is such a way that we resolve the issues contained there within. If we allow the solution to be delivered before the cognition is initiated then the learning process is lost. The data, as explored in the lateral thinking theories, is not made into a pattern and more importantly, is not stored in the mind. This is basically why people forget things. Most things that are forgotten have not been analyzed. The reason they are not analyzed is for two reason. They hold no importance and cannot be stored as a simple shape, or there is no cognitive evaluation. Without cognitive evaluation are brain simply cannot see its importance. Therefore is washed from our short term memory and never stored in long term memory. Instructional education alone is not an effective way to deliver a successful educational approach. It should be seen as a method to deliver information that should then be instantly challenged in cognitive process. This cognitive process only becomes very successful when the participant defines its importance.

Watching Sir Ken Robinson's inspirational speech on how education destroys creativity, we can see that a standard method may not be the answer to showing the world's potential in what is possible. All the education system is doing is generating a series of drone like people that can just regurgitate data that delivers not apparent content to their life structure but was parrot fed to them in an educational system that didn't inspire ideas or innovation in the thought process. The most important key element to any development of a corrective educational structure is the basis that the individual counts. Generating mass content for mass audience doesn't not engage the cognition in such a way to inspire individual thinking. The great thinkers of the past and present and hopeful future are and will be the ones that break from the mould of instruction and find their own education via exploration and motivation in their own desire for knowledge. The brain works best when it thinks!

Environmental Blocks

2008-11-22T22:53:00.000-08:00

Continuing the theme of blocks and how they affect the working and creative attitude of many people, today this blog covers that issue of 'environmental blocks'. This is something that is external out there, but affects our mental state of mind. It can range from a number of sources and be caused by a number of things, but ultimately it has control over the way our mind works.

One aspect that we never really consider in the development of work is where and how we sit. Or more precisely the environment in which we sit. Firstly, our seated position is of utmost importance to our health and our state of mind. Sitting incorrectly for long periods of time without any degree of support or relaxation is not very productive. Making our back ache is resulting in doing harm to our main nervous channel. All the stems of our bodies extremities come from the many spinal cord. Hence, any aching and numbness caused by sitting incorrectly is a direct result to the prolonged angle at which your back is twisted. The simple fact of having these pains can distract you from working on the thought process at hand.

Or environmental concerns can be more simple. The simple physical area in which we sit for example. We could have a good chair and posture, but if we can't swing a dead cat in the space given then it can psychologically make us feel trapped and restrict our brain function. Also, on a more practical level, not having enough room to place our working tools down can develop negative behaviour and therefore loss of creativity. The incorrect lighting placed on your working space can also be detrimental to your eyes and cause strain and tiredness. All this can seem a little basic and obvious, but when you realise that to be creative you are in a constant battle with the right side of your brain to begin with, then the addition of other external influences is not the best plan of action to get work done.

Many of the issues described above are the result of how you go about setting up your work environment. In an alternative view, your working environment can be affected by external influences seemingly out of your control. This can be in many forms, but at the end of the day, having interference can affect your work flow. Some of these influences can be as simple as ambient music (or the lack of ambient music, if you like working to such things), ambient noise, objectionable personalities, bad machinery, environmental temperature, and so on. Some of these can be resolved very easily, some need some diplomacy. However, if ignored or even simply taken for granted, will over time start affecting the way in which you perform. The best approach to this understanding is to see how you work best. What times have you been the most productive and to see what the environment was like. Try to recreate this type of environment as and when you need to do your work.

One issue that has been a great concern to myself is the fact of connection to other people. One aspect of any good creative process is getting the idea out. Being an individual doing the process can be very difficult. One aspect that is taught is to work as a group and do what is known as 'brainstorming'. A collective, creative process by which a group of people work to getting the problem solved. This obviously only works when the project being worked on is a group project. However, having other creatives in the same environment as you can work to your advantage. Showing, and bouncing ideas of trustworthy people can help more that staring at a blank piece of paper trying hard to resolve an issue. Many students being taught have a concern of hiding their work and/or rushing off and feeling that the comfort of their own home is the best approach to being constructive toward their projects. It isn't! We have to remember that we are in fact social creatures and the fact of being around other humans, even if not directly concerned with our creative aspect, can help deliver a greater sense of working tranquility.

With all the other types of blocks that can stop us working effectively, the last ones we want to be the most prominent are the ones we seemingly have no control over. Making slight adjustments to the way in which we work and where we work is a crucial process in creative development.

Cultural Blocks

2008-11-08T22:56:00.000-08:00

Some months back there was a discussion on the subject of 'Associational Block'. As with this subject of blocks there can be considered other aspects of the thinking process that can also create blocks. Many of these aspects are subconscious and hard to even notice, but do exist. The process by which 'Cultural Blocks' affect us not only reside in us due to long exposure to their influential promotors, but also as a deep seated passion that is based on many aspects of the culture we have come from. It should be pointed out that these blocks are not a controlling factor in our decisions on every aspect of our choices. If fact they are rare to spot, but at the same time do exist, and can exist in such a way that you are not aware.

Due to the natural process of cultural development we tend to take things for granted. Many of these things can include music, art, food, and fashion. All of which by the way can be considered forms of design. However, when the notions of culture start to include the notion of patriotic aspects to our daily chore of living, we can see how even food can be controlled by the way we eat. A good example of this was when I was in a supermarket with my Greek girlfriend. She had never been to England before, and so was a little (what could be said here) blinkered to aspects of the new English culture over her own. We walked down the aisles and I was deciding on things to take. Almost every time I was about to take a product that she had an appreciation for in her own country, she said: "No, you have to find Greek wine (for example), its the best in the world." At the time I found this amusing, but it draws a good perspective to the notion that people are strongly affected by the cultural identity that has built them.

When this comes to thinking, or design, then there is what is known as a block created. This block can be formed in a harmless fashion. Much as the choice of wine is. Or it can be a deep seated attempt to control the outcome of something based on a very strong prejudice. A simple example of this could be seen in two related events. The first would be if you asked a designer to design a poster and to use as its driving force the term, "Patriotic". Now depending on the country of origin of the designer and his own connection to his own cultural identity, there is a strong chance that colours in any design used will be based on the national colours of the designer's home country. Another example appears quite a bit in the teaching I do in the college. Regardless of the theme there is a strong dependency in using blue and white in the colour schemes. This is simply because the national colours of Greece are blue and white. People are not aware of this connection, and it isn't saying that its wrong. Sometimes the design could and does work well with this colour scheme. What is important to understand is when when it controls an initial choice based on a subconscious drive to use those colours then a more appropriate option is being overlooked.

Cultural blocks are not simply promoters, they are receivers as well. The simple action of needing to make choices will have the block standing as a guardian to what we think is more appropriate based on our cultural development. A very good example of this is who different cultures find what other cultures find disgusting to eat, even though totally acceptable and part of another culture. The downside of this and potentially destructive aspect to it, is the continued promotion of cultural prejudice, or even the extreme racist aspects of cultural diversity. Because cultural development is unaware then the barriers we build against others can also be seen as sublime. However, there needs to be a question raised to the use of anything that is based on some other culture. Recently I was asked to help a student develop a storyboard concept for a mock 'Campbell's Soup' advert. She presented me a visual idea, and was shocked when I instantly had an objection to it. To her, it was funny. To me it was offensive. Not to me, but to another culture. One of the aspects of growing in a multicultural society such as England can aid in the awareness of cultural issues, even though not a total safeguard. For the girl, living in Greece, that has a small African population, the thought of having several native African warriors dancing with bones in their noses was quite acceptable. Even after explaining to her that she was being unintentionally racist, as it was a subconscious action to choose them, she still protected the idea as being good and not prejudice.

Cultural blocks are a hard aspect to protect against, when they occur, but can be avoided. Simply, like all other block, ask a series of questions to aid in the simple understanding of how other people will see the design, or whatever. Never think that what you think is always the only necessary vetting device. This is because we hav all come from somewhere, and that inherently derives a prejudice, even if unintentional. We all do it.

Answer to the NuSkin

2008-10-17T02:51:00.000-07:00

OK, as nobody attempted to reply to this, the answer is forthcoming. It is easy to analyse the fact the company is in fact involved with skin products. The twist on the variation of 'New' converted to 'Nu' is a common trick to manipulate words to make them into clever logo derivations. However, in my classes I have the students stumped the reasoning behind the icon above the text.

One thing I try to get my students to do is to think laterally. This is the teaching of the originator De Bono, and is a good way to exercise the brain in other possible outcomes to a seemingly obvious or obscure answer. If there are additional tidbits of information added to reveal certain aspects of the logo the challenge becomes simpler and simpler. However, this really shouldn't be the process of a clever thinker, nor a creative mind. Look at the logo. What does it seem to represent?

What connection can be seen between this and something to do with skin?

Think abstract. Obvious will never lend itself to giving quick answers.

Why would a person use skin products?

Usually skin products are used to heal or beautify the skin. One process is to moisturize in order to maintain a young looking skin.

Now look at the logo. What does it represent?

Think of a legend that encapsulates the desire for youthful looks. Now does it become clear?

The logo is in fact a representation of a fountain. Thus relating to the 'Fountain of Youth', deep in the amazonian jungles. The legend has it that all who bath and drink from the fountain will remain forever young.

The logo symbolizes skin care by playing on the story of the legend.

An abstract connection?

Is plagiarism creativity?

2008-10-16T01:11:00.000-07:00

Teaching Visual Communication yesterday and was embroiled in a discussion about culture. Basically what defines culture. Some days back I was also watching an interesting TED talk by Larry Lessig. You can see it here! So, both of these ingredients combined by the fact I was trying to teach the students a theory of "the medium is the message" from McLuhan's book "Understanding Media" made everything come together.

What I believe the students were finding difficult to understand or conceive is the fact that in some arguments there has to be some evaluation to a metaphysical state rather than a rational real world state. By this, and as trying to be taught yesterday, was the notion of containers. These were described by McLuhan as objects that hold values in the form of a message. This message is released or broadcast and creates an effect. McLuhan nicely uses the lightbulb as a good example. Stating that the mere presence of a lightbulb creates the message of the room. In a pitch black room the room still exists as the light is able to give the message that the room exists. It all sounds a little deep, but if you consider the fact that many seemingly random things are connected then you will understand the principle that darkness can only exist if there is an absence of light. Darkness is not in itself a whole entity. So the lightbulb allows the position of either element of the whole to be communicated. The darkness of the room is merely a patient state of anticipation waiting for the broadcast of the bulbs message; which is light.

What I did then, was to use this in an every day example. This was to show how culture can be created by a change in the container and the content it holds, as to produce a strong message. I used Apple's introduction of the iPod. Instantly my example was knocked. Mainly because the concept of what I was saying about containers and messages was not clearly seen by the arguers against my example. They constantly insisted that iPods never created culture they simply extended culture. That of the mobile audio sound device. I said that according to McLuhan's theory music is the extension of the ear, and the transport of the music was not in itself a culture change. It was in fact the way the transport was broadcast. In the case of iPod it was Apple's clever idea to generate white ear buds instead of the standard black. This was the lightbulb to the music player's dark room. The message was to illuminate the change of appearance; thus creating a culture shift.

How this bends round to plagiarism and Warhol is through Larry Lessg's speech at the TED talks. He also promoted the way in which culture is defined by a need for a container, however much it already exists today, to have a new message to broadcast. If you watch his speech he is very good at convincing the notion that the new culture is in plagiarism. What he basically indicates is that in many respects cultural definition is now about reworking existing cultural entities in order to deliver a new form. Much the same way as Andy Warhol so delivered rehashed images of tin cans and famous celebrities in the name of 'pop' art. Now there is a need in a new culture to be creative at someone else's expense. To have a definition generated and then to believe that (as Lessig calls it) trespass into aspects of that former creativity and allow for a more radical 'amateurised' remake.

Lessig states that as trespassing is an hidden acceptance with the government, as they break the set rules of such violation on a daily basis then to not allow others to explore the possible regeneration of art (which defines culture) would be a crime masked by their seemingly legitimate excuses. So theft and reworking are ways that a new message is being delivered which aims for UDC (user driven content). People are not happy with what is being given, they seek personalised variation which then becomes public domain through its illegitimate airing. It is the new 'punk' of the cyberspace. In light of the orphan works bill this could be a turning point to create a new accepted culture. A position of notice. However, like all trespass someone is affected, and the strange dichotomy here is that the art being generated is in fact affecting the art that defines the culture it is raping.

So, is plagiarism creativity? To me, no! To a culture of young radicals out to say something, but not having the creative mind to invent, then yes, but it is not only stealing physical property to create a new culture, it is stealing the aspect of the creative that generates culture. Thus weakening the message, and thus potentially ending up with us in a pitch black void of a cultureless society.

Seeing further than the obvious!

2008-10-02T06:06:00.001-07:00

This is an image that I use in my first year lessons. I ask the students to look at the icon carefully and try to a) evaluate what the company does, and is trying to sell, and b) understand what the actual logo is trying to represent.

The whole point of the exercise was, and is here, to test to see if people can see two different things. Firstly to see if the mind looking at the object can see past further than the obvious, and secondly whether the icon is clever enough to trigger the necessary reaction from the viewer. Icons, are suppose to be clever. They are not intended to be obvious. However, as creatives, you are intended to be able to understand the reasoning and development of such a logo and how it came about.

I try to discuss with my students that it is a paramount concern not to isolate ones knowledge base to that to which one studies. Instead eyes, and ears should always remain open to all suggestion, input and knowledge that is around. For example, knowing something about the Greek gods has nothing whatsoever to do with logo design, but helped in the definition of the Nike logo. Knowledge is not something that is focal. Information is all around. It is whether we wish to participate in the gathering of that information and realise its worth.

Look at the icon and try and figure out the rationale behind it. It is very obvious if you incorporate a little lateral thinking. At the end of the day, all the information is present in the image. The discussion will continue in a week. The next post will continue to discuss another potential block that may hinder in the thinking process.

Answers to Quiz analysis!

2008-09-29T00:18:00.000-07:00

OK, I was hoping that there would be some discussion about this, but as there was no entries into the challenge then I thought it was pointless.

Here are the answers again:
1) Audi - Vorsprung durch Technik
2) Microsoft - Where do you want to go today?
3) American Milk Board - Got Milk?
4) Nike - Just Do It
5) Sony - Go Create
6) Hewell Packard - Invent
7) Apple - Think Different
8) Canon Photocopiers- If Canon Can
9) Google - Don't be evil
10) Heineken - Probably the Best Lager in the World

What the point I wanted to make, or try to make is that the memorable ones are the simply, short and positive slogans. The three that stand out as being problematic are the Microsoft one, the Google one, and the Heineken one. The Microsoft and Heineken are simple to analyse in their problematic status. They are ambiguous. They seek an answer from the viewer. The viewer doesn't basically want to think with advertising. And after all, the whole point to advertising is to tell people that they want their product. The issue with the Google one, which is in fact being addressed is that even though sounding positive, is in fact including two fundamental negatives; "Don't" and "Evil" This just hangs in the mind of the view and doesn't bode well.

The rest, very strong and affirmative. Many of which have not even changed through a great period of time. So, anyway, that is the conclusion to the problem. There will be another post in this week (as college is starting). And another query. I want to add these thinking processes up to get people to understand the need to express what they think. Learning is about making mistakes, so it is better to do that and learn, than do nothing. As Nike says so eloquently: Just do it!

Complex / Simple

2008-09-10T01:56:00.001-07:00

I am a great believer in the simplicity of line, of idea of look. Now, many of the failings of art and design is the notion that the more you put into an image, an icon, a design the better it is going to be. This obviously isn't correct, and there are testaments to this all around. The Nike logo, above, for instance. What does it mean? There are many simple elements to the design that have sustained its purity and simplicity. Nike is a Greek word for 'Victory'. There is a belief that the icon is simply a 'tick'. This is to represent the positive. It is true. The symbol is a representation of the tick, however, there is also a combined aspect that reverts back to the origin of the word. There is a connection that the symbol also is to represent the winged heels of Hermes. The messenger god.

So, in one simply image, but through a complex thought process a very clever idea has come about. There are hundreds of these examples around in the design industry. One of the things I teach on my creative thinking course is the need to implement the thought process as the most complex part of the entire design development. This is because, as previously discussed, there is a tendency in many people's minds to conclude on the first step of the process. What in fact should be achieved is a continuous reanalysis of the concept in order to streamline the ideas and to make the concept more simple. It can be a hard thing to do, but ultimately using the brain is the best approach to resolving any design flaw.

This complexity in thought carries on through into many aspects of the design word. I have a small challenge that I give my students related to slogans. Slogans for a company are very important. They can make a strong identity for a brand or company, and so for this reason should be memorable. Now, due to the way the brain works there are certain criteria that will make a slogan more memorable. This can be tested and is nine times out of ten correct. If you read many of my blogs you will know that I have talked on the aspects of cognitive thinking. This is what distinguishes us from animals: our ability to take in information and to process it and then to either store or disregard it. Now the last part of that statement is the main point to good slogan design, and the theme of this topic. Simplicity. With that, if you also add in the need to have a promotion to a product or company, so avoidance in negative words helps also then you have a formula. Negative and short phrases can work, take "Shit Happens!" However, this is a bumper sticker and not an advert for a company or product. This would not be so effective if directed to sell toilet rolls for example.

So, lets do a test. No need in cheating or researching. Simply post a reply with your answers. There are ten company names. I want you to write down their most famous slogan:
1) Audi
2) Microsoft
3) American Milk Board
4) Nike
5) Sony
6) Hewell Packard
7) Apple
8) Canon Photocopiers
9) Google
10) Heineken

I will post the answers in a week, and discuss this further. Think quick on these.

Perpetual Blocks

2008-08-26T22:30:00.001-07:00

It has been a long time since I wrote something for the Creative Thinking blog, and I was talking to one of my readers yesterday, and it inspired me to blog something. Some time back I wrote a post about "association blocks". As part of my teaching I actually list some seven different variations in mental blocks that can stop the free thinking process. I call it the 'free thinking' process as
ultimately the point is, is to have an open mind to allow better thinking.

One of the primary blocks that we encounter in the practice of thinking is what is referred to as 'perpetual blocks'. These are all self driven block. Things about ourselves that can hinder the thinking process. Now, some of these are genetic inflictions, some are socially induced afflictions and some are just ways we convince ourselves that we are entitled to be lazy in our thinking. What I will do here is go through the possible reasonings of the blocks and try to get a point of understanding across why they should be challenged.

The first and most important block that can be defined in this category is 'Laziness'. This does not necessary manifest itself in physical laziness. What it basically means is the process by which you use you brain and the method of skipping tasks and steps in the process of getting to the better result. An analogy would be being at a crossroad and having the long path (filled with beauty and knowledge and interest) and the short path, that basically gets you to where you need to get to, but quicker. Many people given this choice would opt for the short path. Why not? Saves time and gives more time for other things. Well, in reflective commonality to the Buddhist saying; "The journey of a thousands steps must begin with the first", there is also a conclusive point that the journey must also have 1,000 to finish that journey. Not less, because you took a short cut. Those 1,000 steps could reveal all that is necessary information that will help in the thinking process. Less could make you miss something.

One of the aspects that makes us mentally lazy in the thinking process is our healthy state of mind. I have talked about this before. The brain needs exercising, but also needs the correct nutrition. One of the best forms of brain nutrition is vitamins, and therefore eating fruit can stimulate the mind. Something in the adage about "an apple a day keeps the doctor away!"

Another aspect to perpetual blocks is attitude and health. For a start I will clear up the misnomer that people are born clever or born unintelligent. This is not true. We are all born equal in every respect. We all have the same amount of brain cells. Using another analogy; we are like computers and our brain is the processor and hard drive. We all have the same capacity hard drive, but if information isn't store and retrieved then the result is obvious. So, the only other aspects that can affect us regarding our physical state are inherent conditions. These can be obviously connected to the brain function or not. Having impaired eye sight could trigger the previous aspect of lazy short cuts, simply because your eyes get tired reading too much. Also, you could have incurred an injury that even though doesn't affect you physically can mentally promote extra effort in thinking. All these have to be things that are challenged. There is nothing that can really be done about them, but as long as you are willing to acknowledge their existence then it could give you reason to understand the approach you should take.

The next aspect of perpetual blocks is experience. This is going a little back to where I was with the computer hard drive and storage of information. It is an obvious statement that the older you get the wiser you are. The reason for this (hopefully), is that you take in more information and therefore have more information to retrieve from. On top of this however is the need to use this information. The brain is not a simple photocopier. The information will over time be archived and lost if not analyzed and developed. Read a book, say, on creative brain development and memorise it, but never understand it? What is the point of this? The whole simple fact is that we, as human's, have developed a cognitive centre in our pre-frontal lobe. This gives the ability to evaluate and understand and make decisions. That is the aspect that makes us more intelligent. The learning from information. Not the simple storing of information.

Several things make us more, or less, experienced. Again, some may seem afflictions, but are simply blocks. The main one for example is gender. Now, that could be seen as a sweeping sexist statement. However, it is true that certain aspects of our id (remember that?) kick in more appropriately when a gender related function is initiated. Other blocks on this line can also include lack of experience. Trying to do something without lack of prior knowledge is like climbing a hill with your legs tied. And finally, a common ailment to many of the students I teach. The simple lack of maturity. The funny thing on this level, is that the person may have knowledge on something. Maybe clever and able with this information. The lack of maturity simply comes out in the way they deal with it. Many students are unable to have an intellectual debate on something because their maturity status tends for them to become more emotional that subjective. That is a thing that realising what is said is more important than how it is said.

The final aspect of this block is the more more serious disability aspects. Not having the use of certain limbs that are paramount in the completion of a certain task. There are solutions. One thing that comes to mind is the work of Christy Brown. An artist without arms who managed to respectfully gain the world's attention by training himself to use this feet to paint. This was highlighted in the film; "My Left Foot", and is a testament to the power that the mind can have over such blocks.

So in conclusion, and not to say I am absent of any of these blocks, is that the brain is a continually working machine. It needs to be worked and maintained to work properly. What can happen, is a grain of sand will enter the works. If that sand is left then the machine will suffer. If the knowledge of that sand is used in a positive way then the problem will happen again, but the solutions will also come, and come quicker. The next post will be on another of these blocks.

The wrong answer

2008-07-27T21:42:00.000-07:00

I wanted to sit here this morning and drink my coffee and discuss the idea of answers. There is a statement I tend to point out to people who seem unwilling to participate in the process of putting effort into anything. That statement being:

For every problem there is a solution!

This can obviously apply to any given situation and to any degree of complexity on both sides of the mark, regarding the problem and the solution. What I mean there is that there could be a very difficult problem with a simple solution or a seemingly simple problem that generates a complex and intricate solution. Either way, there is a path.

Now that path is created by using the process. A process that can determine a very important factor in the end result. Whether or not you end up with the correct answer or the wrong answer. Now, you may ask yourself something here. How do you know that there is a correct answer? Especially when we are considering creative aspects of the thought process. Creativity is random right? So how can you say, for example "using red is correct and blue is wrong". In many respects this is where the process defines that there is no randomness to the path of the best, or correct answer. Like the butterfly effect associated with the theory of chaos, there is a relationship to all things and those things in tern are able to affect any other given thing, simply by having a defined association. I suppose you are all begging for an example at this point.

At Easter I was giving a seminar on the process of Creative Idea Generation. The point to this seminar was in fact to aid the students in being more creative and less obvious in their approach to designing artifacts to use in an Easter project. As part of the discussion I added a solution to the problem; "a clever Easter depiction". The answer I gave, before giving reason, was an old Roman coin. As you can guess (unless you are seeing where this is going by clever instant deduction) the students were perplexed by my solution. Two reasons for this. First and most obvious was the notion in their own heads that "Easter" was about Jesus, Crucifixion, religion or rabbits, eggs, and flowers. The second point is that they were unable to latch onto my train of thought in the same instance as it took me to think of the idea. Is that wrong?

No! There is no "wrong" involved in the aspects of creativity. At least in the extent of knowledge resource versus output. What the students were failing to do, even when presented with an answer, was to see the path to which it followed in order to be formed. so where was the path formed. Well, as I explained to the students and tipped upon in this last few paragraphs, there is an association to many things if the search for the answer is made more extensive. Now, the issue (before I tell you the association) is that with many modern day aspects of life, time becomes a factor. To get to a good answer rather than a bad (wrong) answer, then the process that is more important in this whole creativity thing, is not creativity itself but knowledge. By having knowledge of something I was able to see an association to one object from another and therefore create a clever and unique outcome to the problem. So, what has a silver Roman coin got to do with the celebration of Easter. Well, if it were not for Judas selling out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver then Easter would not actually exist. Funny really. Large elements overwhelm smaller and confuse the process of what could define a good solution. And therefore, maybe generating a wrong answer.

I've used a jigsaw as the icon on this blog to symbolize the interconnectivity of all things. A question is like a puzzle. Drawing elements together can create (like a jigsaw) a clear picture. Even without all the elements present the picture becomes a little clearer. And so that view (or knowledge) makes it progressively easier to come to a fuller image of the result. So to conclude. Is there a wrong answer? Not really. Can you classify an answer in being wrong? Of course. Taking the attitude that research and knowledge is an unnecessary process on the path of discovery will result in a weak and insufficient conclusion. So, to be creative is more about taking off the blinkers that constrict our view and to see association in all things.

Think different!

Creative thinking: try lying down

2008-07-25T00:37:00.000-07:00

Keep that pen and paper by the bed: new research by an ANU PhD graduate suggests it may be that our most creative thoughts come when we’re lying down.
Dr Darren Lipnicki, from the School of Psychology in the Faculty of Science at ANU, found that people solved anagrams more quickly when they were lying down compared to standing up.
"Solving an anagram often produces an "A-ha!" or Eureka moment ‚Äî the answer appears suddenly, often out of the blue. These "insight" moments are similar to what people experience when achieving creative breakthroughs," Dr Lipnicki said.
"Therefore, it might be that we have our most creative thoughts while flat on our back," he said.
According to Dr Lipnicki, whose results are to be published in Cognitive Brain Research, the reason this happens may involve differences in brain chemistry between lying down and standing up.
"In theory, there may be greater release of a chemical, noradrenaline, in the brain when standing up than when lying down.
"It"s suspected that noradrenaline inhibits the abilities to solve anagrams and to think creatively so we
decided to test the idea that lying down would actually help solve anagrams more quickly."
Dr Lipnicki asked 20 healthy subjects to solve anagrams in both a lying down and standing posture. There were 32 five-letter anagrams, such as "osien" (noise) and "nodru" (round).

For each subject the anagrams were randomly selected into two 16-item blocks, one block for lying down and the other for standing up. Half of the subjects did the task in the order of lying down, then standing up, while the other half did the task first when standing and then when lying down. The average time for solving an anagram lying down was 26.3 seconds, while standing up the average was nearly 30 seconds.
Subjects were also asked to solve arithmetic problems, but the study found lying down made no difference to solving arithmetic compared to standing up.
"Anagrams can be characterised as insight problems, in part because they are often solved in a moment of sudden awareness. Both anecdotal reports and experimental evidence suggest that insight can occur during, or be inspired by, sleep," Dr Lipnicki said.
"Our finding that postural condition affects how quickly anagrams are solved suggests that body posture may influence insight, which could be facilitated when merely lying down."
But Dr Lipnicki said his study was preliminary research, and that it would be premature for "companies to rush out and buy beds for their conference rooms".