“We make programmes, not products”
February 24, 2007 – 10:57 pmThere has been a lot of very positive feedback about Crossover from the participants. Michael Cordell described it as “one of the most enjoyable creative and learning experiences I’ve ever had”. But there were times during the week when there was considerable scepticism about the value of the techniques that were introduced.
The most intense debate occurred over an approach derived from the innovation, or ‘value creation’ methodology developed by SRI which suggested that ideas for projects can be developed from an analysis of user-need. The debate went to the heart of the culture clash between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media and at one point, one of the mentors turned to me to assert quite forcefully: ‘I don’t make products, I make programmes’. There was a clear implication that the artistry of the film-maker was in some way superior to the creative problem-solving of the product designer.
Despite the cynicism they all agreed to do the exercise which involved developing personas and then developing ideas based on their needs. When the teams came back to tell their characters’ stories and describe the projects they had devised for them, it was clear that the process had worked. They’d developed the one-dimensional pen portraits which they’d been given with considerable empathy. Discussion of two of the personas, a married couple, resulted in an idea for a project which was pitched on the last day of the Lab. It was developed by a team containing three of the people most sceptical about the value of personas.
4 Responses to ““We make programmes, not products””
it’s interesting how people can be initially negative about learning experiences and they become deep converts. Perhaps our initial fear is based on the challenge these new ideas give to our sense of expertise, the very expertise that we use to define ourselves.
Frank, do you think that creativity is innate, or is it something that can be taught?
By Julian on Feb 28, 2007
We are all creative. There are people who have exceptional, natural talent, but we can all use language, make metaphors, solve problems. And much of the brain’s creative processes are unconscious: ideas occur in dreams or unexpectedly when we are thinking of something else entirely. But there is a lot we can do consciously to enhance creativity and foster an environment in which it is easier to generate ideas and implement them.
I’ve always been passionate about de-mystifying creativity, liberating it from an elitist view in which it is the god-given gift of a lucky few. We waste so much potential by focusing on and valuing quite a limited sub-set of human abilities in education and training.
By Frank on Mar 2, 2007
I think that’s a good argument. I agree that we shouldn’t mystify the creative process, but i do feel that there is a certain spark that maybe cannot be taught - although as you imply, it can be nurtured.
By Julian on Mar 2, 2007
I’ve often heard the saying “you can’t teach taste”, which relates to this discussion. Creativity is inherent in humankind as a species, otherwise we wouldn’t have devised tools and lit fires. If there is a creative spark, it relies on the fuel around it to create fire.
What is often used to judge the value of creativity is its impact on a given society. “Taste” defines if an edgy bit of art or an innovative design is valid enough to be shown or marketed. The eltists Frank refers to often act as arbiters of good taste, and therefore what artist or designer is worth supporting.
History is full of enourmously creative people who were ignored by their community at the time, only to be recognized as great influencers of art/design/invention decades after their deaths. Did they lack the spark, or was it simply bad timing?
By Dan Thorsland on Mar 3, 2007