August 15, 2006

logic + emotion

888888920brain.jpg
Digi­tas’ David Armano’s most popu­lar link on his blog, “Logic + Emo­tion” has been his write-up on the “evo­lu­tion” of crea­ti­vity. Basi­cally he advo­ca­tes for crea­ti­ves to become more gene­ra­li­zed, and for “non crea­ti­ves” to become a part of the pro­cess etc.

With con­su­mer beha­vior evol­ving toward a more empo­we­red sta­tus — the defi­ni­tion of crea­ti­vity has shif­ted from one-dimensional skills to a four-dimensional type of crea­ti­vity that blends logi­cal thin­king with crea­tive pro­blem sol­ving. Indi­vi­duals pos­ses­sing this “New Crea­tive Mind­set” blend Analy­ti­cal, Expres­sive, Curious and Sen­sual qua­li­ties into their thin­king pro­cess. The result is a holis­tic approach to crea­ti­vity that is effec­tive across mul­ti­ple touch points and expe­rien­ces.
Can an Infor­ma­tion Archi­tect embody this kind of mind­set? What about an Account Direc­tor? I think as human beings we are all capa­ble of thin­king like this. But as desig­ners, com­mu­ni­ca­tors, mar­ke­ters and crea­tors of expe­rien­ces — for us, it’s even more cri­ti­cal to become multi-dimensional crea­tive thin­kers and pro­blem solvers.

One of the trou­bles we “crea­ti­ves” seem to suf­fer too much from, is over-specialisation. We get really good at something– making TV com­mer­cials, wri­ting comedy etc– that we for­get the big pic­ture. We like doing “Crea­tive Stuff” for our client, but we have genuine zero inte­rest in their actual core busi­ness. We’re too busy flying off to LA on filmshoots etc etc.
Those days seem to be quickly coming to an end…

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

15 Responses to “logic + emotion”

  1. Sheamus says:

    How do I link to your blog? It seems that such links affect Gaping Void’s ran­king on Tech­no­rati and I want to do my part toward advo­ca­ting your car­toons and your originality.

  2. Hmmmm. Dif­fe­ren­tiate your­self by beco­ming a gene­ra­list … after all, you’re uni­que. Just like every­body else.

  3. John Dodds says:

    The asso­cia­tion of crea­ti­vity with purely crea­tive arts always bug­ged me — I came bot­tom in art class two years run­ning and yet I am very crea­tive in terms of thought and what might be ter­med art direc­tion. Isn’t the artis­tic side for want of a bet­ter word just a “tech­ni­cal” exten­sion of the crea­tive thought, albeit a highly ski­lled one?
    As for gene­ra­li­sa­tion — the goal is to be a deep gene­ra­list, so that for exam­ple one can talk the finance direc­tors lan­guage. The best rea­son for doing an MBA that I ever heard came from a crea­tive who said he did it so he could tell the FD to fuck off.

  4. I didn’t read it as saying we should just become gene­ra­lists — the spike in the T is about deve­lo­ping knowledge/talent in depth, with a dis­tinc­tive cha­rac­ter. The wings at the top of the T are about branching out into an unders­tan­ding of other dis­ci­pli­nes. So you can have an idiosync­ra­tic talent or niche know­ledge, and/or an ori­gi­nal com­bi­na­tion of com­ple­men­tary disciplines.

  5. Andy says:

    Hmmmmm.
    Seems to me that one of the pre-reequisites for being crea­tive in your field is to be become a mas­ter of your sub­ject, and of rela­ted sub­jects, to such an extent that unu­sual solu­tions pre­sent them­sel­ves to you.
    ie — before you can be truly crea­tive, you need to have wor­ked bloody hard at it. Other­wise you become a ‘Young Bri­tish Artist’, trying to pass off unmade beds and pic­kled goats as art.

  6. Shazz says:

    Cate­rina Fake (http://www.caterina.net) has a post about the book that most influen­ced me about crea­ti­vity. It’s ‘Crea­ti­vity’ by Mihalyi Csiks­zent­mihalyi. He agrees with some of the com­ments above, such as the need to be deep yet broad, as well as exa­mi­ning crea­ti­vity outside the crea­tive arts. Anyone to whom I’ve recom­men­ded this book over the years has been chan­ged by it in some posi­tive, affir­ming kind of way.
    Just a note on the gene­ra­list com­ments: lear­ning the ‘voca­bu­lary’ and basic pro­ces­ses of the indus­tries to which I’ve con­sul­ted in mar­ke­ting (energy, tele­com, tech, fashion, govern­ment, etc.) has been an essen­tial part of my crea­tive life and has tur­ned around some clients’ poor views of con­sul­tants. When I actually unders­tand the dif­fe­rence bet­ween, let’s say, geophysics/geology or ROI/ROCE or jupe/jupon … the eyes tend to light up in the room. :-) Plus, it’s come to be more authen­tic and inte­res­ting work for me.
    Shazz

  7. Being crea­tive has abso­lu­tely nothing to do with being a spe­cia­list at anything, Andy.
    I know way too many “crea­ti­ves” (and so-called artists) who aren’t crea­tive at all. (That applies to crea­tive agen­cies as well, by the way.) Abi­lity and talent don’t neces­sa­rily denote crea­ti­vity.
    Five years ago, I knew nada about fau­cets or fau­cet design. Inside of a year, I was mana­ging inno­va­tion pro­jects for a fairly large fau­cet manu­fac­tu­rer. Three years later, my team and I had com­ple­tely rein­ven­ted a num­ber of plum­bing pro­ducts that you’ll pro­bably soon start run­ning into. In that case (as in most), it took a fresh pair of eyes and an outsider’s mind­set to bring inno­va­tion to a tired, unins­pi­red industry filled with hard wor­king “spe­cia­lists”.
    More often than not, being too much of a spe­cia­list gets in the way of chro­nic, sus­tai­na­ble crea­ti­vity. To a great extent, truly crea­tive pro­fes­sio­nals are way too curious about the world around them to ever want to be cate­go­ri­zed as specialists.

  8. veedub says:

    i couldn’t agree more hugh. the “gla­mou­rous” days of being a “crea­tive” are over. ideas can, and should come from anyone who is crea­tive. the very idea of iden­tif­ying spe­ci­fic peo­ple as “crea­tive” is ludic­rous when you think about it.

  9. Daniel says:

    Hi… just found this… http://computerpioneer.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/logic-or-emotion/
    …and thought you may be inte­res­ted in kno­wing about it. Keep up the great work… and btw… where do I get Stormhoek in the Bay Area? I’ve loo­ked for it but couldn’t find it.
    cheers,
    –d.

  10. Daniel says:

    Hi… just found this… http://computerpioneer.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/logic-or-emotion/
    …and thought you may be inte­res­ted in kno­wing about it. Keep up the great work… and btw… where do I get Stormhoek in the Bay Area? I’ve loo­ked for it but couldn’t find it.
    cheers,
    –d.

  11. Hugh MacLeod says:

    I loathe both the word and con­cept of the word “crea­tive”, when used as a noun.

  12. David Armano says:

    Wow, some really good thoughts here. Part of the ratio­nale behind this post is to get peo­ple thin­king. I’m with Oli­ver in many ways. I believe that inc­lu­sive crea­ti­vity will trump exc­lu­sive or “elite” crea­ti­vity.
    The 30 second spot, ego dri­ven, pri madonna “brand” of crea­ti­vity will be de-emphasised while teams of diverse “gene­ra­lists” pool together their talents to come up with the future Google’s and Flicker’s of the world. Many of these peo­ple will not even be con­si­de­red “crea­tive“
    Talent will still be talent. But like Oli­ver said, a great idea can and should come from anywhere. Keep in mind, this is all con­tex­tual. Take a look at Hugh, his car­toons have his fin­ger­prints all over them. He pre­sents a uni­que pers­pec­tive. Then take a look at Nikewomen.com which blends a fluid com­merce expe­rience with inte­rac­tive enter­tain­ment. As Hugh put it, the indi­vi­dual who’s only con­cer­ned about flying off to the next photo shoot is not best equip­ped to direct that kind of intri­cate expe­rience which has a lot of moving parts. Unless that is – they think about the shop­ping expe­rience, brand, inte­rac­tion, all in the same breath.
    Someone once said that you hire and Ad per­son and you get adver­ti­sing. All I’m saying is that we need to look outside of the “crea­tive” ways that have wor­ked for the past 40 years in the tra­di­tio­nal Adver­ti­sing model. So be curious. Be very curious.

  13. Andy says:

    Oli­vier, I take your point…what I was trying to say was that the ‘hard wor­king spe­cia­lists’ you refer to may be good at their niche, but don’t know/haven’t explo­red enough around the frin­ges neces­sa­rily to be able to see the wood for the trees.
    I’m per­so­nally not a ‘creative’…however my father is a pro­li­fic research scien­tist who comes up with dis­co­ve­ries while sit­ting down for din­ner, because he has an insa­tia­ble curio­sity about not just his area of exper­tise, but others as well…to the point where there are pro­bably only a hand­ful of peo­ple in the world that have in-depth know­ledge and exper­tise in the areas that he does.
    But that know­ledge and unders­tan­ding isn;t something that came overnight…he wor­ked damn hard to build it up, and the ‘karma’ of that hard work is that solu­tions often just pre­sent them­sel­ves, like bub­bles from his sub­cons­cious.
    So in a sense I do agree with you…I pro­bably didn’t make my ini­tial point very clearly…its not enough to get good at your own area only.
    I ima­gine some peo­ple have ideas like Hugh, and some peo­ple can draw like Hugh, and some peo­ple can blog like Hugh, but not many that can com­bine all three into something that is grea­ter than the sum of its parts.
    Andy
    p.s– Hugh, I accept cash as well as che­ques ;-)

  14. Andy says:

    In fact John Dodds hit the nail on the head — one way to beco­ming crea­tive is to be a deep gene­ra­list, a mas­ter of all trades…a renais­sance man.
    Although at the other end, I also accept that a fresh pers­pec­tive can be brought by someone who isn’t bound by the rules of the game…but that isn’t neces­sa­rily true crea­ti­vity, more the abi­lity to observe the truth through unfil­te­red eyes and see things for what they are.
    Crea­ti­vity requi­res going that step further…to bring together dif­fe­rent dis­ci­pli­nes to obtain insights or make dis­co­ve­ries, that haven’t been done before.

  15. jDez says:

    Expect gram­mar error, im tired from lack of food or sleep. Email me if you would like to know more.
    All Life from the cell to the ani­mal are born with a main pur­pose that they all able to figure out on there own. All before ani­mals, Were dri­ven by a force power­full enough to live and mul­tiply until death. Ani­mals posess the same drive to live and mul­tiply until they die, But ani­mals have an accom­pa­ni­ment of inte­llect as well. The inte­llect is gran­ted emo­tion to bring logic(lifeless) to life to own its own Pre­cise mani­pu­la­tive ability(logic(dead thought/Boring to a human:How many peo­ple will sac­ri­fice being happy for A cal­cu­la­ting machine!!??any one?!?!How many of you have always wan­ted a pet or a friend??!??!). There is no (logical)Reason to live, want friends, com­mit sui­cide or try create something uni­que from all else before it or do anything. It is the NATURE of cell life to pro­ceed fore­ver with limit­less abi­lity to create that which never pre­viously existed(Originality grows as the spe­cies grows). Evo­lu­tion’ newest inno­va­tion is the com­bi­na­tion of it’s limit­less power and an inte­llect. The power is to great for the inte­llect of an ani­mal. Sur­vi­val is Pro­mi­nent over a dechiphe­red solu­tion.
    The Human inte­llect is power­ful enough to dis obey its own ins­tinct to sur­vive, Hence Sui­ci­dal ten­dency. Why are we blind to the truth of what we are? Because we are not simply logic(true logic does not regis­ter to a humans(even while using a com­pu­ter). Human emo­tion or the source of sur­vi­val ins­tinct is depen­dent on the Cal­cu­la­ted deci­sion of the inte­llect. Intellect=problem solu­tion. Life gave itself inte­llect, because life has a pro­blem, the effect of a brains exer­tion of abi­lity is morality(The Ans­wer). Of all of our self dec­la­red wis­dom we havent per­fec­ted mora­lity. Why? Because we say logic pre­vails because its based on out side sti­muli. We see emo­tio­nal sti­muli as illogic(which is true). Emotion(life) is not logic, so how can they become one? The logic deciphers life must be pos­si­ble because it exists, and exis­tance of the illo­gi­cal crea­tes the unans­we­red question(purpose). Exam­ple if inte­llect is exer­ted with out emotion(passion) boredom(Urge to do something, Anything but what you are trying to do right now) Logic is the des­tro­yer of life because its func­tion is to create an end to the pro­blem sol­ving pro­cess. Our Source of ins­pi­ra­tion to Create legend is powe­red by the infi­nite Force of nature. Pre­vails. Life is cons­tantly self adjus­ting which can be sim­pli­fied to an easier solu­tion. If the inte­llect plays along. Mora­lity is the key to for­ming TRUTH. What is truth(That which applies to ALL LIFE) Logic is lifes sworn emeny but life con­ti­nues to reign supreme over all. Life the Dri­ving force behind phy­si­cal, Inte­llec­tual, and all else that unders­tands nature. The only way to unders­tand nature is to be nature. This is why the dog becomes(huMAN’s best friend) A best friend is some one who unders­tands more than logi­cally com­prehen­da­ble. What expe­rience as we feel emo­tion is the limit­less force of infi­nity. Infi­nite Drive with limint­less pos­si­bi­lity goal= sum of both EQUAL inte­llect and emo­tion. The Design of our minds is supe­rior, But our wills are left weak in action lac­king pur­pose. I’ve logi­cally deciphe­red what ins­tinct is made of and whether or not it can be trus­ted. I vei­wed nature. I have lear­ned the all power­full mea­ning. By the way dogs can love, Humans may har­ness true love after mas­te­ring the art of morality(the most pre­cise form of natu­ral selc­tion in exis­tance) Can we out smart a com­pu­ter? Always! Is the T.v. worth love and devo­tion? haha . Does Nature and all life its self hold more mea­ning then anything life­less?
    A mea­su­re­ment of evo­lu­tio­nary process(only aplies to humans)is the crea­tion of Something True to all humans.
    Art is the human spirit(life) given to that which logi­cally should not posess life.