Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Creativity Constraints.


Published on

Presentation from a KIK-Seminar (Creativity in Creative Media)

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

  • Be the first to like this

Creativity Constraints.

  1. 1. Teodor Bok
  2. 2. - Background•  Creativity as a problem in education•  Creativity as a floating designator•  Generic Models (Micro (Settings)), Meso (Designing design), Macro (Social diagnostic – Political)
  3. 3. Von Trier- Distiction•  ”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)
  4. 4. Beyond understanding“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)
  5. 5. History•  Romanticism vs rationalism•  ” I want to be a machine”
  6. 6. Creatio?•  The concept of creativity is difficult to grasp. The etymology of the word refers to the act of divine creation – that is creating something out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Often, creativity has been associated with the “divine inspiration” that artists in particular are gifted with. Such use of the concept is a construction of 19th Century romanticism. However, it remains a part of our everyday understanding of what creativity means. Typically, creativity is seen as something special; deriving from inspiration, and constrained by rationality.
  7. 7. Post War•  In the years following World War Two, there was an increasing interest, especially within American psychology, in identifying creativity traits and to developing measurements for individual creativity. Growing criticism from the fields of psychology, management theory, and also learning theory of this notion of measurability has opened up for a number of alternative understandings.•  Firstly, they tell us that creativity is a term that is used to describe how novelty is generated.•  Secondly, that the understanding and hence the definition of the term is a product of history and culture. In consequence, it is difficult to define creativity in a general sense. Rather it has to be understood in the particular socio-cultural context where it is debated and/ or where it occurs (Sawyer 2006).
  8. 8. Definition:•  Nonetheless, venturing a general definition of the concept of creativity, a tentative bid could be:•  Turning potentials into accepted new form(s).
  9. 9. Explained•  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.
  10. 10. Csikszentmihalayi & Co•  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).
  11. 11. This Model
  12. 12. The interesting part would then beto observe – how this is happening•  How does creativity take place?•  ”A Micro-Case Study”•  We will move back to the sixties
  13. 13. 1969 - Den eksperimenterendeKunstskole 1961-69
  14. 14. Imposed Contraints•  Four Steps•  Role setting•  Objects•  Reality•  Viewer•  (No post manipulation)(Morell 2009)
  15. 15. Result•  Rubbish•  Lack of Competence•  Mastering
  16. 16. Tentative Components•  Mastery (ANDERS K ERICSSON)•  Estrangement (Koestler)•  Programme (Idiosyncrasy vs. isomorphic pressure)(Alvarez2005)•  Double double competence (Helms)
  17. 17. Four Micro Cases•  Ålen and von Trier Dogme/Zentropa•  René Redzepi and Claus Meyer :NOMA•  Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Sean Parker :Face Book•  Olafur Eliasson and Einar Thorsteinn : Eliasson Studio
  18. 18. Cases•  Ålen and von Trier •  Mastering Dogme/Zentropa•  René Redzepi and •  The Claus Meyer :NOMA estrangement•  Mark Elliot •  The programme Zuckerberg and Sean Parker :Face Book •  The•  Olafur Eliasson and organisation Einar Thorsteinn : •  Double Eliasson Studio competencies
  19. 19. How does these four set upsavoid the isomorphicpressure•  Mastering•  The estrangement•  The programme•  The organisation•  Double competencies
  20. 20. Back to the definitions”I define creativity as the emergence of something novel and appropriate, from a person, a group, or a society.” (Saywer p.33)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)
  21. 21. And Innovation?•  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.
  22. 22. And•  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).
  23. 23. So..•  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.• 
  24. 24. So..:
  25. 25. Research Questions -  Hylo-Morphic Models -  Temporary Settings (How does creativity take place) -  Materiality in Creativity
  26. 26. References 1Alvarez, Jos´e Luis (et al.). 2005. “Shielding Idiosyncrasy from Isomorphic Pressures: Towards Optimal Distinctiveness in European Filmmaking”, in: Organization 12 (6): 863–888.Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressEricsson, K.A. Prietula, M. J. and Cokely, E.T. (2007). “The Making of an Expert", in Harvard Business Review, July–August 2007.Frank, S. 2010. Mød verdens bedste kok, artikel/verdens-maaske-bedste-kokFischer, G., (2001): “Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems”, 24th Annual Information Systems Research Seminar In Scandinavia (IRIS24), Ulvik, Norway, pp. 1-14Guilford, J.P. (1950). “Creativity”, in American Psychologist, 5 (9).Gleerup, Jørgen (2007): ”Behovet for en ny praksisepistemologi”, Alexander von Oettingen og Finn Wiedemann: Mellem teori og praksis, Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Gleerup, Jørgen (2009): ”Fra simpel til kompleks og emergent kausalitet”, Dominque Bouchet: Forandringer af betydning, Forlaget Afveje.Helms, N.H.(2010):”Kan vi lære af Kunsten”..Hjort, M. (2008): “The Five Obstructions”, in Carl Plantinga (ed.): The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film Paisley Livingston. New York: Routledge.
  27. 27. References 2Ingold, T. 2010. “The textility of making”, in Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 91–102.Lave, J., E Wenger. (1991). “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. CambridgeMorell, L. (2009). Broderskabet - Den eksperimenterende Kunstskole 1961-69Ozcan, 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.Philipsen, H. 2009: ”Spilleregler i filmskabelse behjælpelige begrænsninger”, in Mathieu & Pedersen (red.): Dansk film i krydsfeltet mellem samarbejde og konkurrence. Stockholm: Ariadne förlag.Røjel, T.2010: ”Verdens bedste”,, (1987): “Plans and situated actions : The Problem of Human-Machine Communication.” Cambridge University Press, New York.Zetterfalk, P. (2008): Inter Esse, Det skapande subjektet. Norén och Reality Gidlunds förlag. Stockholm.