Creativity
II. Creativity
March 30, 2009
The visibility of architect Louis Sullivan’s well-worn maxim “form follows function” says nothing about its truth. The words come from a time in America where utilitarianism–the idea that something is valued by its potential contribution to our needs–and the Modernist search for the truths–especially aesthetic truths–were the reigning themes. Thinking about the phrase “form follows function,” you realize that it requires there to be few acceptable forms to follow every function. Indeed at the time, 1896, there were only a few possible forms that could function in the context that Sullivan was most familiar with: sky scraper construction.
Now, in the mass-consumer Ikea, Internet, and Adobe Illustrator age, it is becoming ever so clear that function follows form. A quick search for the latest in chair design easily demonstrates this. The Loopita, by Victor Aleman, seen below, is a chair, but only because you can sit in (or on, it’s hard to tell) it.
Does the chair’s design emerge from the necessities of the function sitting? Not really, and if you were to judge the design by Sullivan’s maxim, the design would rate quite poorly. “Function follows form” is a new paradigm of design that breeds creative thought and brings us as designers closer to what Stuart Walker calls our “other half; the creative, the imaginative, and the spiritual” while keeping in mind the “rational, instrumental side” as well. This design entry is primarily dedicated to that “other half.” What is creativity? How do we best utilize our creative tendencies with regards to innovation?
Defining Creativity
To preface any definition of creativity, it is important to note its relevance to innovation and design. “Innovation” and “creativity” are intimately linked in everyone’s minds. Even scholarly publications draw little to no distinction; the Academy of Management Review’s index entry for “Creativity” is “See innovation.” This is perhaps because within the process of innovating creativity is used at every step of the way. Creativity could be considered, to an innovation researcher, as the successful completion of each phase of the innovation process (Ford).
But, to the point, there are many definitions of creativity. Within a single paper, “A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains,” Cameron M. Ford gives us three–from the incredibly obscure: “attribute of a product by an actor. Subjective judgment about value and novelty. Assessments are domain specific” to the inadequate: “ a mental and social process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or concepts,” to this:
Wikipedia gives us yet another variant: “a mental and social process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or concepts.” To be sure, creativity is one of those concepts that is extremely complicated, but for the purposes of this entry and to the horror of academics, we’ll accept Wikipedia’s definition.
Being Creative
So now that we can tell ourselves we know what creativity is, how can we be creative? Why are some more creative than others? Ford proposes that being creative involves constraining habitual tendencies and facilitating creative ones in every step of the creative/innovation process.
His paper goes into great detail (and his chart is above) but for our purposes, only a few examples are needed. His “Theory of Creative Individual Action” says that, in the realm of “Behavioral Abilities,” for example, communication skills facilitate creativity, while low social competence facilitate habitual actions. While motivating creative action, anger and boredom are preferable to, say, anxiety and pleasure. Being creative involves identifying your own impulses and figuring out which ones facilitate your creative tendencies, and which ones facilitate your habitual tendencies.
Creativity in Innovation
If innovation, as Ford maintains, is the product of successful creative actions in each step of the design process, then it might be important to figure out what that process is. Unfortunately for you, academics and innovation researchers spend a large amount of time making many varied and complex graphs. Below are a few examples.
Though the terms and graphs vary, the rough, iterative process, as described by Godwin et. al, is
- ideas/problem-formulation
- synthesis/solution
- exercise/evaluation
- implementation/prototyping
When thinking about how your designs follow this form, it is important to realize that this is not a “law” of creativity, according to Godwin, “all of these activities are present in the design process, but the focus shifts from one type to another as the design develops” (321). I have read that graphs vary in complexity to find a balance between two poles: accuracy of information and ease of use. I’ve spoken to professional designers about these graphs and the design process and they offer a warning: don’t think about it too much. For the purposes of scholars accuracy of information may be very important, but to us budding designers, the information can inhibit action. An important part of being an effective designer is learning think about your process when you need to and acting on your natural design tendencies otherwise. There comes a point where you think about your process so much that you end up not getting anything done. So remember to weigh process with pragmatism.
Source
A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains, Cameron M. Ford, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 1112-1142, Published by: Academy of Management, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259166
Objects in Transition: A Spatial Paradigm for Creative Design, William Godwin, Päivi Mäkirinne-Crofts, Sohrab Saadat, Source: Leonardo, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1997), pp. 319-325, Published by: The MIT Press, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576479
Action Research and the Practice of Design, Cal Swann, Source: Design Issues, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 2002), pp. 49-61, Published by: The MIT Press, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1512029
How the Other Half Lives: Product Design, Sustainability, and the Human Spirit, Stuart Walker, Source: Design Issues, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 52-58, Published by: The MIT Press, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511929
