Okay...

... honing in on the field of fashion design is probably the way to go - the more specific, the better. That's not to say that there is no merit in looking at approaches to being creative that are not fashion related, but being too broad will probably do my head in.

Common to just about every definition of creativity is that the work produced is valuable, that an idea has been generated that no-one else has ever had before.

As Margaret Boden writes in Creativity: How does it work?:

"What different people regard as interesting varies, so new ideas can be valuable in many different ways. Encyclopedia writers, gallery curators, chemists, sculptors, property developers, entrepreneurs, and advertising executives focus on different sorts of creative idea, different sorts of value."

Essentially, depending on which field a work is being evaluated for creative merit, different aspects will be seen as having value. If I'm to focus on the fashion industry specifically, I need to evaluate what is of value in terms of creativity within this field as a means of contextualising my findings. My predominant interest, however, is in identifying methods by which a fashion designer may be able to generate ideas with greater ease - to take apart the creative process so that it might be better understood.

So....

Am still trying to decide if I will refer all my findings re: creativity back to the area of fashion design. Does it need to be contextualised that way? Or should I just use a variety of examples from different design (or 'creative' fields)?

Obviously I need to have a specific focus, and part of me wants to write about creativity in fashion design simply because there is hardly anything written about it at all. Of any study focusing on creativity, fashion design and the processes employed are never mentioned as a way of illustrating the different approaches to being creative.

However, I don't know if trying to limit everything to fashion will make my research... well, limited.

I guess I'll just have to see what I come across; see what develops. One solution might be to take my findings about approaches to creativity to fashion designers/design students relate to them...

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!

In the back of my mind...

Summary of the things in the back of my mind as I have been researching, was well as a 'where to go from here' list of things to still do....

• First up... of all the reading I've done into what creativity is (or different ways of approaching the creative process), there seems to be a lack of writing relating to design (specifically fashion). Many of the articles use either art or science to illustrate how breakthroughs are made when creating, or how inspiration might strike. Articles written from a neurological perspective in particular seem to use art as a point of reference, with expositions into how the brain interprets colour, line, etc, and how this is a fact of biology.

• This leads me to wonder why design hasn't been explored as a way of looking at the creative process in the same way art has. Has design somehow been deemed to be less creative? Or perhaps less 'accessible' to the reader of these articles?
  

• On a related topic... might be good to really define/highlight the difference between art and fashion design. At a superficial level, I suppose it would be easy to say that design concerns itself more with function and practicality, and perhaps even with considerations into production/mass production. Yet there are overlaps, too... some fuzzy edges. Fashion designers might occupy themselves with the creation of distinctly unwearable pieces, so the functional aspect (at least in the sense of it being a body covering) is rendered a moot point. Hmm... yes, definitely need some clarity here.
  

• This brings me to definitions, of which I still need more. In particular, explanations for particular steps in the design process such as inspiration, theme, concept, prototyping... See earlier posts for more terms that might need defining.

• Given the need for design specific definitions, it might be beneficial to look at textbooks to get a distilled view of the design process from a teaching perspective. These could then be evaluated from the viewpoints of different creativity theories, to see if the approaches in teaching design are in fact making the most of creative potential in students.

• I need to start asking questions to people - to get different perspectives on their creative processes. I feel as though practicing designers, students and lecturers will be able to offer invaluable insight. Given that I want to focus my project on how designers might make the most of their creative dispositions, and on techniques that might assist the creative process (with what creativity might be as a background), featuring interviews with such people might be the best way to illustrate various approaches to being creative.
  

That's all for now. I'll probably be back in 5 minutes having thought of something else to add!

Where does creativity hide?

Interesting video of Amy Tan talking about her own creative procees. It's certainly very entertaining! As she put it, her talk is about "Nothing out of something, and how we create."

Some of the points/questions she raises are:

• Are we innately equipped with something in our brains that cause this muse like effect? (Nature vs. nurture. An argument that never gets old, I suppose. Certainly, when it comes to creativity, this argument has not been settled. While some posit that creativity has much to do with how the brain functions (Einstein's brain was said to have a visible structural difference which assisted in the movement of thoughts/ideas from one hemisphere to the other), others (such as Edward de Bono) will insist that creative thinking can be taught to anyone. Though maybe there needs to be a distinction between creative thinking and creativity. Hmmm. Anyway, gone off on a bit of a tangent here.)
  

• Creativity might be a function of neurological quirk, or a byproduct mental illness.

• Creativity as a link to sense of identity.
  

• Skill is different to creativity. Tan mentions being good at drawing as a child, but drawings were copied from book. (I do believe that skill is vital to being creative, however. If you are a skilled patternmaker or machinist, you can take your knowledge and be more creative in its application - perhaps developing a new system for drafting, or a new way of finishing a hem. Personally, I believe that you have to know the rules before you can break or bend them. Having said all that, maybe a new way of patternmaking might be viewed as innovative, more than creative. Bugger, another tangent.)
  

• Reasons for creating: "looking for the about". What do you want to achieve by creating? If you try too hard, you will only discover the about, discuss the about and it will be boring. (I guess this is about openendedness and the offering opportunities for interpretation... that creating something of a journey.)
  

Also, the joy of related videos... Sir Ken Robinson: do schools kill creativity? and David Lynch - consciousness, creativity and the brain both look interesting. Will check them out later!

Reading: Serious Creativity

Oh, the idea of the different coloured thinking hats really tickles me. I'll be going into more detail on this article later. Right now the thing that is standing out to me the most is I might need to make a distinction between creativity and creative thinking. This raises a number of questions, too!

Edward de Bono proposes that anyone can think in a more creative way by using lateral thinking skills. But can you make someone more creative? Are there certain dispositions - genetic or otherwise - that make one person more creative than the next? And could these thinking techniques be of use to those already out there being creative and creative?