A Question of Research

неделя, 27 ноември 2016 г.

Architecture for our minds

After listening to a speech by Adam Price on using space to stimulate creativity, he had put some interesting thoughts in my head.
Price talks about modern workspaces, endless rows of desks and computers, and even compares them to Dante's Inferno- where everyone has an assigned spot and no privacy whatsoever.

Such environments are missing out on the three big factors he claims are most important for group creativity- comfort, openness, connection. After seeing that, I immediately thought of an opposite example, such as the work environment that Google offers to their employees in order to stimulate their creativity and keep them happy at work.

That is just a simple example on how environment can have a huge impact on our work.

Even though everyone's perfect work space is based on their own personal preferences, that keep an individual motivated, there are some creativity-encouraging factors that can be immediately spotted as a common point.

Environment stimulation

Creativity occurs in a social context and is a function of the transactional relationships between the individual and his environment—the creating individual is both affected by and affects his environment. (Morris Stein 1953)

In my previous post, we met Teresa Amabile's theory that creativity needs 3 components:
-the person needs to have learned sufficient skills in his own domain
-the person needs to have developed a passion for his work
-the person needs to be intrinsically motivated

(Intrinsic motivation refers to behavior that is driven by internal rewards. In other words, the motivation to engage in a behavior arises from within the individual because it is intrinsically rewarding.source)

Intrinsic motivation is sensible to environment- the same environmental conditions that increase motivation, also increase creativity. That means, the person needs to work in an environment that is not distracting them from the drive to create.

A personal safe space is key in stimulating creativity. Inspiration and/or motivation can be provided from a perfect environment/ studio space- this is why a lot of people prefer to clean and tidy before starting to work on a project. Tools. Sometimes "tricking" ourselves into inspiration by buying a new tool can help. Visual research - seeing great examples of artworks increases the inspiration and will to create.

I also stumbled upon a very interesting study by CKGSB Professor Juliet Zhu on how environment impacts creative thinking. Basically she conducted a series of lab and semi-field experiments to examine the relationship between environment and creativity.
A lot of the factors influence us on an unconscious level, so we don't really realise how they affect us. The first factor Professor Zhu explored is Noise. The results were that people are most likely to think creatively in a moderate noise environment which I personally did not find surprising as I always prefer it when I work. Next factor is Light- what she found out was that people are actually more creative in a dim- light room. She also conducted a Color test, in which people had to design toys, looking on either red or blue parts. The results were drastically more succesfull for the blue team- the reason is that blue generates associations with ocean or the sky, so people are more likely to reach a more open-minded mindset. And another one of the test was about Clutter. People in an organized room perfomed much better than those set in a disorganized one.

Components of Creativity

The environment a creative practitioner is in, has a great effect on their work. When I say environment, I mean both physical (location) and psychological. As an example, I can mention the story of E-Ink, which is the first electronic ink service, and products such as the Amazon Kindle use their technology.

The environment of the MIT Media Lab was highly conducive to the team’s work.Housing physical and social scientists from a wide array of disciplines, the lab fosteredcross-pollination of ideas. There was a high degree of psychological safety, where peoplespouted “wacky” ideas without fear of ridicule. Moreover, a range of resources facilitatedexperimentation. Finally, even undergraduates in the lab enjoyed a great deal ofautonomy to follow their hunches. (Source

Componential Theory of Creativity - Harvard Business School)

The document I just mentioned also offers us a glimpse into Theresa Amabile's theory on creativity.

The influences on creativity include three within-individual components: domain-relevant skills (expertise in the relevant domain or domains), creativity-relevant processes (cognitive and personality processes conducive to novel thinking), and task motivation (specifically, the intrinsic motivation to engage in the activity out of interest, enjoyment, or a personal sense of challenge). The component outside the individual is the surrounding environment – in particular, the social environment.

Expertise, or Domain-relevant skills include knowledge, expertise, technical skills, intelligence, and talent in the particular domain where the problem-solver is working – such as product design or electrical engineering. These skills comprise the raw materials upon which the individual can draw throughout the creative process – the elements that can combine to create possible responses, and the expertise against which the individual will judge the viability of response possibilities.

Domain- relevant skills are essential to critical analysis, decision- making and evaluating potential of eventual ideas.

Creativity-relevant Processes(originally called creativity-relevant skills) include a cognitive style and personality characteristics that are conducive to independence, risk-taking, and taking new perspectives on problems, as well as a disciplined work style and skills in generating ideas. These cognitive processes include the ability to use wide, flexible categories for synthesizing information and the ability to break out of perceptual and performance “scripts.” The personality processes include self-discipline and a tolerance for ambiguity.

Creative skills depend on an individual's personal practice and are key in project progression.

Task Motivation. Intrinsic task motivation is passion: the motivation to undertake a task or solve a problem because it is interesting, involving, personally challenging, or satisfying – rather than undertaking it out of the extrinsic motivation arising from contracted-for rewards, surveillance, competition, evaluation, or requirements to do something in a certain way. A central tenet of the componential theory is the intrinsic motivation principle of creativity: People are most creative when they feel motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself – and not by extrinsic motivators. Because, as research has shown, salient extrinsic motivators can undermine intrinsic motivation, their presence or absence in the social environment is critically important. So, too, is the presence or absence of forces that can support intrinsic motivation.

Motivation is important through the whole process of creation. It can be influenced my many factors.

понеделник, 21 ноември 2016 г.

the drive to keep creating

I just listened to incredibly inspiring speech by Elizabeth Gilbert about devotion and drive to creating. Long story short, she shares about her past, her multiple failures in writing, but also about her devotion that brings her to where she is now.

Failure sure is a part of every creative process. Not everything you would ever make will be great. Or even pieces you find good, after some time you will find horrible. Failure is always around the corner, but that is okay. It tests your passion, your drive, how committed you are about what you are doing. It might be harder to succeed and get recognition in the world of art than in some other fields, but that is part of the ride. Creativity is key, but keeping it alive is as essential. Striving for the state of mind that is "the zone", finding an inspiration and just keep creating and evolve is what can fight discouragement. What Elizabeth says in her speech about writing is that she loves it more that she hates failure, more than she loves her ego, more than she loves herself- writing makes her feel at home. This is where the drive comes from- exploring your passion.

вторник, 15 ноември 2016 г.

Creative Methods, Art in the service of the mind

There is a quote about art that I really like, and agree.

“Eleanor was right. She never looked nice. She looked like art, and art wasn't supposed to look nice; it was supposed to make you feel something.”
― Rainbow Rowell, Eleanor & Park

Which made me think of contemporary art. A variety of methods and experimentations. And then my mind jumps to Marcel Duchamp, and his mission to put art back in the service of the mind.

We've all seen his readymades.

Makes you think, right? Is it art, is it not, Duchamp brings up a revolution in the world of art.

“An ordinary object [could be] elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.” (Duchamp)

The readymade also defied the notion that art must be beautiful. Duchamp claimed to have chosen everyday objects “based on a reaction of visual indifference, with at the same time a total absence of good or bad taste….”²In doing so, Duchamp paved the way for Conceptual art—work that was “in the service of the mind,”³ as opposed to a purely “retinal” art, intended only to please the eye. (MoMA)

The object itself is not the art (or is it?), the fact that it makes you wonder, it makes you feel, this is the art. The experience of the interaction creates the artistic value. By putting a readymade in a museum or as a part of exhibition, Duchamp creates a shock-experience, which we can say is a method of creating an experience. While on the subject of putting art in the service of mind, I can't miss to mention another popular piece, Magritte's Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

The painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe,

This masterpiece of Surrealism creates a three-way paradox out of the conventional notion that objects correspond to words and images. Get's you thinking outside of the box, once again.

Some more about Technology and Creativity

After we have investigated the technology and creativity dilemma in its technological development sense, I wold like to explore another aspect of the term technology, being the process itself of creation.
There are a few aspects we can think of when it comes to creative process and how to stimulate it. Workspace, tools, inspiration... and they all come up to personal preferences. Some people prefer to work at home, or in a quiet environment, while other prefer to listen to music or interact with others in order to create better working conditions for their creative process. Tools- a topic we kind of touched in the previous post- there is digital media, traditional media, and both of them offer a range of tools. It's up to the creator to choose what they are more confident doing, or if they wish to challenge themselves using a new tool. And then we come to the inspiration part, the zone- that wonderful state when ideas are flowing everywhere and you just can't wait to make them reality, lose track of time and just let yourself get consumed by your own creativity. But there's the other end of the stick- art block. The exact opposite of the zone. When you feel stuck, nothing comes to mind, and creativity is a problem. You can't be in the zone all the time. The creative process has it's ups and downs, and it's all part of the experience, let's embrace that. Sometimes nothing seems to work out, but every creative practitioner has been there.We all know that at some point we'll get out of that state. There is an amazing video about that "rollercoaster" experience of ups and downs during the creative process, made by the filmmaker SoSonia, I advise you to give it a look!

Relationship between the terms of CREATIVITY and TECHNOLOGY

As we already defined, the terms of CREATIVITY and TECHNOLOGY are quite vast. Time to get specific and concentrate in one area. As we are creative practitioners here, I would like to explore the terms in the artistic field.
Technological development in art is a fact. We can take
the example of tools and materials. We have graphic tablets, mechanical pencils, artistic internet platforms, but canvases, paper and exhibitions still exist. That kind of technological development offers us quite a few options to make things easier, but is this necessarily something artists need or want? We are humans after all, and the need to touch or see a physical original of a painting keeps some artists away from digital art. But nonetheless, digital arts holds a lot of options to change and edit artwork, in ways that are not possible in traditional art.Therefore digital art becomes a method, alternative, another medium of creating artwork, not a better way to do so. It puts people in front of the dilemma tactile qualities vs. technological benefits. It all comes to a personal choice, the way kindles did not put the end of physical books, digital art is not the end of traditional creation.

I have put examples of two pieces I have done, a digital one (on the left) and a traditional one (on the right). I am not here to defend either one of those methods or to claim if any of them is better or not. Technological development definitely gives us a variety of amazing options, but at the same time lacks the feel of texture that traditional art has to offer. There are plenty of amazing printing options, but the fact that there is no physical original can be quite bothering. In the phylosophical and literary review La Liberté de penser (Paris 1848) we have some interesting reflections about art and original. Kant says that the soul of the artwork is essential for the artwork and its quality. But later then, pop art appears in the art scene, there are prints and collages and all this new mediums and art pieces that are distributed in multiple copies, all the same, no original. Does that destroy the soul of the piece? Does an artwork even have a soul without an original? That question seems to be a major problem on the art scene in France after the popularity of pop-art. Now illustrators don't seem bothered by that, but people still seem to have a prejudice about digital work, a massive part of the common audience does not support digital art for not being "real art", as it is assumed that "that computer does everything". Knowing this is not the case, we can say that digital art can still be assumed as misunderstood among non-artists.