Creativity
What even is Creativity? I mean, we can usually point it out when we see it, but do we really understand how this abstract concept can manifest? Neri Oxman proposes the following map to guide us in the search for an answer.
You probably noticed that the ASED letters correspond to the diagram. I will use this framework to guide the rest of the posts and hopefully show how most of the revolutionary ideas traverse the entire plane.
It's not immediately obvious what we're looking at, so take your time studying it. Here are some explanations if you want to explore further:
Neri Oxman proposes this visual representation of an abstract concept that ‘entangles’ the four cornerstones of creativity: Art, Science, Engineering, and Design. The diagram can be seen as a Clock, akin to Krebs (Citric Acid) Cycle, a Microscope, a Compass, or a Gyroscope. I highly encourage you to read Oxman’s full paper to grasp the magnitude and utility of this visualisation.
Creativity is learnable
The second we accept that we can train it just like a muscle, we allow ourselves to roam around this clocko-microscopico-gyro-thingy. Many bright and talented people say that they are just "not a creative person" and that’s that. However, most of the time, these people have a very particular and limited understanding of creativity. Once we allow the definition to encompass any position on the map, we notice that everybody (there might be some exceptions) manifests some form of high creativity. Awesome! This realisation is often enough to spark the desire to broaden one’s form, either by exploring different areas or by enriching their current one.
So, we can become better creative people!
Art to Science
The vital step in the KCC is appreciating/accepting the bridge between Art and Science. Oxman writes beautifully about the common perception that separates the two. But ultimately, it is a false perception. We have seen clear examples creating this link. As a starting point, you can have a look at Oxman’s work.
领英推荐
I believe the step from art to science is also the final one. Once we close this gap, the cycle can repeat itself, yielding increasingly better results. The problem is that all the main areas on the map are tribal. Self-reference mechanisms trap people into a narrow understanding of creativity and life. Let me elaborate:
Most engineering students I talk to bore me to death with their overly technical perception and their lack of empathy. Almost everyone around us talks like this, so what can we expect? At the same time, whenever I listen to world-renowned architects, I cringe hearing all the jargon and superfluous vocabulary. Why can’t we behave like normal people, speak clearly, and open our eyes to more aspects of the human condition? Why can't we pay more attention to the transitional areas rather than becoming sPecIaLisTs?
Let's get our heads out of our butts and look beyond our chosen fields.
Questions
I'll leave you with some questions. I'd love to hear your answers, but I'd be happy even if you ponder on them for a few seconds.
Inspiration
Alright, see you on the next one...
-Berni
MEng Civil Engineering
3 年The last time I posted about Krebs Cycle of Creativity I got some great responses to the questions. I encourage you to check out the proposed resources: - Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction - Winch G. M., (1998) - https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096132198369751 - Institutional reform in British construction: partnering and private finance - Winch G. M., (2000) - https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096132100369046 - Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction - Liedtka J., (2014)