Creativity Bremen


Published on

Presentation at The CLAP Conference at the University of the Art Bremen.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Fargo Ex-skolen
  • Hvordan lærte de det?
  • Creativity Bremen

    1. 1. “ Form, constraints –new and old media Presenting a few reflections and a few projects ” Niels Henrik Helms Teodor Bok
    2. 2. - Background <ul><li>Creativity as a problem in society </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity as a floating designator </li></ul><ul><li>Generic Models (Micro (Settings)), Meso (Designing design), Macro (Social diagnostic – Political) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Von Trier- Distiction <ul><li>” In my opinion, creativity is completely involved with limitations. For instance, even in our childhood, when we want to draw something, there is a limitation concerning the paper. All sorts of creativity are concerned with the specification of our limitation. Drawing, writing or whatever.. . . Creativity is our limitations.” (Ozcan 2004) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Klee <ul><li>” Kunst gibt nicht das Sichtbare wieder, sondern macht Sichtbar.” Paul Klee: Schöpferishce Konfession – </li></ul><ul><li>“ Form is the end, death’” “Form-giving is life” (Klee, 1973,) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Beyond understanding <ul><li>“ On the relation of analytic psychology to poetic art,” Carl Jung (1933) leaves open all definitional possibilities: Any reaction to stimulus may be causally explained; but the creative act, which is the absolute antithesis of mere reaction, will forever elude the human understanding.(p. 23) </li></ul>
    6. 6. Definition: <ul><li>Nonetheless, venturing a general definition of the concept of creativity, a tentative bid could be: </li></ul><ul><li>Turning potentials into accepted new form(s). </li></ul>
    7. 7. Explained <ul><li>Meaning that we do need to have something (potentials), which should be given form – This form should be new otherwise it might be appropriate but not creative. This form should then again be accepted. Accepted means not necessarily accepted as – but that this very form will be considered. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Csikszentmihalayi & Co <ul><li>In a slightly different but also more operational model the generative socio cultural model suggested by Sawyer with references to Amabile and Csikszentmihalayi defines three elements: Person, Field and domain. The creator develops new ideas. The field then again decide whether this is first of all appropriate and then whether it is “new”. These gatekeepers then allow for the product to enter the domain – or it is rejected (Sawyer 2006). </li></ul>
    9. 9. This Model
    10. 10. The interesting part would then be to observe – how is this happening <ul><li>How does creativity take place? </li></ul><ul><li>” A Micro-Case Study” </li></ul><ul><li>We will move back to the sixties </li></ul>
    11. 11. 1969 - Den eksperimenterende Kunstskole 1961-69
    12. 12. Imposed Contraints <ul><li>Four Steps </li></ul><ul><li>Role setting </li></ul><ul><li>Objects </li></ul><ul><li>Reality </li></ul><ul><li>Viewer </li></ul><ul><li>(No post manipulation) </li></ul><ul><li>(Morell 2009) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Result <ul><li>Rubbish </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of Competence </li></ul><ul><li>Mastering </li></ul>
    14. 14. Tentative Components <ul><li>Mastery ( ANDERS K ERICSSON) </li></ul><ul><li>Estrangement (Koestler) </li></ul><ul><li>Programme (Idiosyncrasy vs. isomorphic pressure)( Alvarez2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Double double competence (Helms) </li></ul>
    15. 15. Four Micro Cases <ul><li>Ålen and von Trier Dogme/Zentropa </li></ul><ul><li>René Redzepi and Claus Meyer :NOMA </li></ul><ul><li>Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Sean Parker :Face Book </li></ul><ul><li>Olafur Eliasson and Einar Thorsteinn : Eliasson Studio </li></ul>
    16. 16. Cases <ul><li>Ålen and von Trier Dogme/Zentropa </li></ul><ul><li>René Redzepi and Claus Meyer :NOMA </li></ul><ul><li>Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Sean Parker :Face Book </li></ul><ul><li>Olafur Eliasson and Einar Thorsteinn : Eliasson Studio </li></ul><ul><li>Mastering </li></ul><ul><li>The estrangement </li></ul><ul><li>The programme </li></ul><ul><li>The organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Double competencies </li></ul>
    17. 17. How does these four set ups avoid the isomorphic pressure <ul><li>Mastering </li></ul><ul><li>The estrangement </li></ul><ul><li>The programme </li></ul><ul><li>The organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Double competencies </li></ul>
    18. 18. Back to the definitions <ul><li>” I define creativity as the emergence of something novel and appropriate, from a person, a group, or a society.” (Saywer p.33) </li></ul><ul><li>A product or response will judged as creative to the extent that (a) it is both anovel or valuable response to the task at hand, and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algortimic (Amabile p. 35) </li></ul>
    19. 19. And Innovation? <ul><li>Innovation is another phrase that is widely used and almost as widely defined. When engaging in innovation, one deals with the process where novelty is transformed into a new practice. Or as Theodore Levitt (1963) put it: “Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things.” However, the two terms creativity and innovation tend to be used interchangeably, and therefore they can be difficult to differentiate. This may be explained by the evolution of the two terms; creativity primarily being related to art and to scientific areas as psychology, art studies and to some extent philosophy; and innovation being an offspring of social science, economics and management. </li></ul>
    20. 20. And <ul><li>Just as is the case with the concept of creativity , it is possible to identify an evolution in the understanding of innovation from being the achievement of a heroic individual, and to a present day focus on more organic and combinational models (Tuomin, 2006). Analytically, it is also possible to identify a progression from a stage where innovation results from specific knowledge regimes (science or development departments) to more horizontal models such as user driven innovation (Hippel, 2005), open innovation and broad-based innovation (Chesbrough 2003). </li></ul>
    21. 21. So.. <ul><li>In short, we may characterize innovation as turning new forms into accepted new practices; or to put it more simply: innovation is turning creativity into new practices. </li></ul>
    22. 22. So..:
    23. 23. Cases: <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>User demand: </li></ul><ul><li>Financing: </li></ul>
    24. 24. Cases:
    25. 26. References 1 <ul><li>Alvarez, Jos´e Luis (et al .). 2005. “Shielding Idiosyncrasy from Isomorphic Pressures: Towards Optimal Distinctiveness in European Filmmaking”, in: Organization 12 (6): 863–888. </li></ul><ul><li>Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press </li></ul><ul><li>Ericsson, K.A. Prietula, M. J. and Cokely, E.T. (2007). “The Making of an Expert&quot;, in Harvard Business Review, July–August 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Frank, S. 2010. Mød verdens bedste kok, </li></ul><ul><li>Fischer, G., (2001): “Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems”, 24th Annual Information Systems Research Seminar In Scandinavia (IRIS'24), Ulvik, Norway, pp. 1-14 </li></ul><ul><li>Guilford, J.P. (1950). “Creativity”, in American Psychologist, 5 (9). </li></ul><ul><li>Gleerup, Jørgen (2007): ”Behovet for en ny praksisepistemologi”, Alexander von Oettingen og Finn Wiedemann: Mellem teori og praksis, Syddansk Universitetsforlag. </li></ul><ul><li>Gleerup, Jørgen (2009): ”Fra simpel til kompleks og emergent kausalitet”, Dominque Bouchet: Forandringer af betydning, Forlaget Afveje. </li></ul><ul><li>Helms, N.H.(2010):”Kan vi lære af Kunsten”.. </li></ul><ul><li>Hjort, M. (2008): “The Five Obstructions”, in Carl Plantinga (ed.): The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film Paisley Livingston. New York: Routledge. </li></ul>
    26. 27. References 2 <ul><li>Ingold, T. 2010. “The textility of making”, in Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 91–102. </li></ul><ul><li>Lave, J., E Wenger. (1991). “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge </li></ul><ul><li>Morell, L. (2009). Broderskabet - Den eksperimenterende Kunstskole 1961-69 </li></ul><ul><li>Ozcan, O. 2004: “Feel-in Touch!: Imagination through Vibration: A Utopia of Vibro-Acoustic Technology”, in Puppetry and Multimedia Art Leonardo, 37 (4): 325-330. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Philipsen, H. 2009: ”Spilleregler i filmskabelse behjælpelige begrænsninger”, in Mathieu & Pedersen (red.): Dansk film i krydsfeltet mellem samarbejde og konkurrence. Stockholm: Ariadne förlag. </li></ul><ul><li>Røjel, T.2010: ”Verdens bedste”, </li></ul><ul><li>Suchman.L, (1987): “Plans and situated actions : The Problem of Human-Machine Communication.” Cambridge University Press, New York. </li></ul><ul><li>Zetterfalk, P. (2008): Inter Esse, Det skapande subjektet. Norén och Reality Gidlunds förlag. Stockholm. </li></ul>