Language (of the artist, creator, designer, human...)

I've come to realise that trying to say what creativity 'is' might be quite a futile goal in itself. There are just so many different ways of understanding what it might be, and a whole list of frameworks from which it may be defined.

It is much like language in this regard - meanings shift and change. More than that, however, it is a concept which breaks out from the words which attempt to define it. Everyone has a sense of what creativity is, even if they cannot put it into precise words. It is evocative and emotional, in the same way that a particular word might have a sense of power behind it.

I know that mayn't make much sense. I might revisit this later and try and express this ill-defined thought a little better!

work!

When is a work finished? Can it ever be finished? (what is a work?)

Or is the initial inspiration for its creation simply exhausted?

Is the first design generated and made for a collection something of a template, from which
branching ideas are then expressed as the remainder of the collection?

(did that make sense?)

jtk;r tirius;i utr;elwkejt gfjgker

Sometimes I wonder if the creative process (particularly relating to the design process) is anything like one of the basic tenets of quantum theory: the idea that observation alters the outcome.

That is... well, I often feel as though there is a weight of expectation placed upon me as designer - that there are certain motions I am expected to go though (inspiration, generation of ideas, initial sketches, toiling and prototyping, resolved idea...) when developing something new.

Of course, these 'motions' are nothing but labels that have been identified and quantified from what is generally a very fluid, flexible process. Thankfully this has always been taught as such during my study at RMIT - though it was initially hard to break away from following these processes in a linear fashion as they were taught to me during high school.

Despite knowing all this stuff intellectually, it can be difficult to break away from the idea of what I 'should' be doing, or to stop thinking about what I am doing in terms of these processes. I know that if I were creating anything outside of a university environment that I would go through the same motions (pretty much), but perhaps with a little less self consciousness and (a lot) less angst.

The fact that I know my work and processes will be assessed leads me to approach my work differently, though I can't really tell you exactly how because I'm not to clear on that point myself. Am sure, however, that we all as students make the effort to make certain processes clearer, and pivotal decisions more obvious so that all our 'angsting' does not go unacknowledged.

So... to come back to my original point. The fact that work is being observed by assessors impacts the final outcome to some degree. I wonder if the same holds true for creativity itself. If all the processes comprising creative thought were recognised and labelled, would knowledge of them impact upon creative thinking? Would understanding these mechanisms in a more precise way make them more... well, mechanical?

Creativity and Skill

Really interesting essay on the link between creativity and skill by Berys Gaut - essentially an argument that the two are intrinsically linked. Possibly I thinking it's so fascinating because I agree with this premise wholeheartedly.

After four years of undertaking a design degree, and spending a good deal of my life making things, I personally would deem my most creative works as those stemming from an understanding of the techniques I was using at the time, and perhaps outcomes utilising a technique in an unexpected way. This has evolved over time, however... when learning a technique, such as beading or embroidery, I wasn't doing anything but following a pattern or instructions from a book - I might have been creating something, but the act of simply producing something was not 'creative'.

The argument that "the core capacity involved in creativity is skill", writes Gaut, is a "long philosophical tradition, stretching from Plato to recent times." From Plato's Phaedrus:

'if any man come to the gates of poetry with out the madness of the Muses, persuaded that skill alone will make him a good poet, the shall he and his works of sanity with him be brought to nought by the poetry of madness, and behold, their place is nowhere to be found.'

...Or if you prefer, works that are deemed creative by their very nature (such as poetry) are not able to be generated using a formulaic approach and have any value as a highly creative work. There was (is?) a belief that creativity is something requiring a spark of inspiration, perhaps a touch of madness. But is this perhaps the distinction between skill and genius, 'genius' somehow encompassing the ability to generate something original, inspiring, and able to stand the test of time.

I've yet to re-read the essay, so there's a lot of thinking, understanding and interpreting to still do. But the concept and opening quote really grabbed me, and I think a study of the interplay between creativity and skill is extremely relevant to looking at creativity in fashion design. It is an industry which relies heavily on skills, such as pattern drafting, draping, sewing, etc... At one extreme, there is no creative thought associated with the skill of being able to copy a design and produce a pattern from it. But at the other end of this spectrum, a deep understanding of a skill (eg. embroidery) might allow it to be utilised creatively, in a way that has not been done before.

More on this later (much more, probably)...

width, depth...

Something that is deemed creative is often given this label because it draws upon inspiration and references from seemingly unrelated areas. So am I narrowing my research too much by restricting it to fashion design (or design)? The creative techniques a writer may use, for example, might prompt the creative processes for a fashion designer...

I'm glad I picked this topic for my thesis...

...because it is just so interesting! Am actually a little excited at the moment, so let me back track and explain why.

First up, my sister Jessica is an incredibly creative person herself. She's a talented author and musician (her debut novel is out very soon, along with accompanying soundtrack!), and I'm sure she could tell you all about the hard work being creative actually entails!

Anyway, a few hours ago she mentioned me and my research journal on her blog - mentioning in particular my question as to why design hasn't been explored as a way of looking at the creative process in the same way art has.

So far, there have been some really interesting comments left by her followers. I'd like to share one in particular left by Stephen Parrish... and thank him for taking the time to share his thoughts!

Hi. I don't really understand the distinction between art and design, or at least the need for a distinction. Both are obviously creative, neither less than the other. I don't think the typical person sees a fashion designer as anything less than very creative.

My background is cartography, and most people don't think of mapmakers as graphic designers. After all, you have no control over the shape of the continents, or the layout of a city. Yet cartographers must make a myriad choices as they work, in every aspect of graphic design: balance, contrast, figure-ground, etc. My advisor and mentor went so far as to use the word "euphoria" to describe what he felt when he designed maps.

I can well understand how a fashion designer would feel the same, when all elements come together, and the project just clicks. Funny, I also draw and paint as a hobby (i.e., traditional "art"), and although the creative process is satisfying, as is nailing down something I'm depicting realistically, I never feel anything like "euphoria" when I work---as I did when making maps. Design not only deserves equal footing with other creative endeavors, there's something about it that sets it apart, and if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's because the designer is always restricted in some way (the clothes have to fit the model, the continent has to look like Africa). That very restriction is what releases a powerful creative drive and results in, well, euphoria.

The idea of restriction benefiting the creative process has intrigued me ever since I took on this topic. A few posts back I related the idea of inspiration to constraint, a concept that has featured in a couple of the articles I've written as well.

I would say that designers (fashion designers or cartographers) have to be creative in their approach to a design problem so that functional or innovative solutions can be generated. Without that restriction, the possibilities are endless and I doubt any designer would know where to begin.

Having said that, art can have a function too... to provoke, for example, or to make a political statement. Perhaps art is considered more 'creative' because of its seemingly emotional, intuitive nature? But... if restriction is the guiding point, maybe the restriction in art is that a work is directed by a particular emotion, or a desire to make comment on a particular issue. Then again, fashion designs can be spawned from exceptionally emotional origins, and also make the wearer experience emotion in how the clothes make them feel.

Anyway, it has been a long day and I'm probably going to start talking in circles if I don't stop here. Thanks again to my lovely sister and all of the comments left by her followers!

Inspiration or Insight?

Is it a sudden flash of understanding that we are in fact experiencing, when we talk about getting a sudden flash of inspiration? I has this thought just before as I was making coffee – and quite appropriately it hit me quite suddenly, too.

I rather like the idea (whether this is completely wrong or not), that when we study something, or ponder upon a particular concept, that all the information and associated thoughts just… sit in our brains for a while, as it tries subconsciously to sort out.

Then... those sudden flashes are akin to someone jumping up and down with their hand in the air, going, ‘Me! Me! I know!’ Because we have in a way hit upon an answer, or a new way of looking at something – we have achieved clarity that feels absolutely inspiring.

Combinations and Permutations

If creating something is simply a matter of selecting different combinations - choosing colour, fabric, texture, shape, pattern - then why would we say that a machine making these selections was not creative?

Thinking about this last night, I pondered upon the idea of writing a computer program that could 'design'. In my daydream, all that would need to be done would be to select a few inputs such as fabric/colour/garment type, or perhaps even a theme... and design options would be generated.

Of course, there would be millions of permutations of each design, so there'd need to be a filter to draw out the less successful ones. Maybe you could set it to present designs that would cost a particular amount to manufacture... or were judged against a certain aesthetic (perhaps picking out ones that conform to the proportions of the golden ratio?)

Because here is where it gets tricky. What makes a design more successful or not? A group of designers looking at the range of options generated would invariably have differing opinions on what the better designs were.

All designers undertake a process that at least vaguely resembles this computer program, I imagine. As I wrote the other day, we select 'inspirations' in order to narrow down our choices when designing, so that we're not creating every garment there ever was or ever will be. So what drives the design decisions we make? Why put a seam in a certain place and not another? Why choose that particular print?

The only thing I can think of at the moment is that there is a deep seated emotional response, or a recognition of 'yes, that's what I wanted to create'. We pick things that we like, that please us aesthetically. Machines are not (or should I say, 'not yet'?) capable of making these choices rapidly, at what we would call an instinctual level based on emotion or personality. The human mind is excellent rejecting anything it deems to be irrelevant.

Yeah, that's all I've got right now. Also, this has set me off on thinking about what determines an individual's aesthetic sense. Hmmm...

PS. Would the process of creating this 'computer program' be deemed creative, even if the outcomes are not?

Sometimes

Sometimes I wish that I could record my thoughts, simultaneously grasp all the various tracks along which my mind runs, and be able to articulate all the fuzzy edges and fleeting thoughts with clarity.

Questions, Questions, Questions...

Questions that are forming the background to my thinking are...

- What is creativity?
- What is an idea?
- What is inspiration?
- What does it mean to be innovative?
- What does it mean to be innovative in the fashion industry?
- Who are the innovators, and in what way?
- How important is creativity to well-being and social progression?

If being creative is a necessity in the fashion industry, this leads to...

- How do we make the most of our creative dispositions?

...I propose a study of methods, exercises and techniques (and the theories behind them). I would love to include primary sources - interviewing students and staff about their thoughts and experiences of being creative.

In terms of presentation...

I would love to deviate away from a typical essay/thesis format, and produce perhaps a small book that students can actually use as a reference. This could include a combination of written theory and exercises/techniques which students can undertake. Depending on what my research actually throws up, I want the presentation to help students engage in their design process and prompt their thoughts... perhaps even provide inspiration..

Working title...

Maybe something like: "The Fashion Designer's Brain: A User's Guide"?

Video: Edward de Bono on...

...a number of things, actually. All of them about thinking, creating, creativity and how to think originally.

Here is the video in question. Some notable points are:

at 0.37 - "...on creative thinking"

I find the distinction between talent and skill at making the most of your talent to be most intriguing. In fact, I am brought back to being interviewed for this degree, and being asked whether or not I considered raw talent to be more important than perseverance and hard work in the fashion industry.

To this day, I am not entirely sure what my answer was. From what I can remember, I said that to be operating in industry, there is surely talent somewhere. But only by truly pushing yourself, your business ideas and your processes can you be successful. (There was actually a lot more rambling going on, but I try not to dwell on it.)

However, I digress. The point is that this short little segment of video left me wondering as to how we as designers should best go about making the most of our talent. It is a reminder, too, that a creative mindset can't simply be just switched on. We have to work, and sometimes work hard, at being creative. If 'creative thinking is a skill', then how do we refine this skill to become better at generating creative and innovative ideas?

at 1.21 - "...on being different"

An interesting way of looking at the creativity: by considering its opposite. In this case, being truly 'creative' means generating ideas that 'have value'. Of course, 'value' is extremely subjective, and perspectives upon what has worth are driven by social, cultural and economic factors which change over time.

I suppose the root of this idea is that, if something only exists because it is different to what has gone before, then there is no true value or use and the process of thinking that lead to its existence was not creative. There was no innovation; no necessity. In regards to the fashion industry, I am now pondering upon how the 'non-creative' thinking contributes to unsustainable practices. If something has no value, it is much more disposable...

at 1.57 - "...on making mistakes"

I love this section to bits. So much so that I have to directly quote:

"... a big deficiency in language, certainly the English language, is we don't have a word which says fully justified venture, which for reasons beyond your control did not succeed. So anything that did not succeed is called a mistake, and people don't like mistakes..."

Well, I happen to love mistakes. Some of them, anyway. Throughout my training at RMIT, I have slowly learned to embrace the 'happy accident' - where the outcome of a trial was not expected, but lead to interesting results that were further explored. I believe this says a lot about how the ability to reflect upon and consider something other than the expected is integral to a successful, creative design process.