David’s post dated 15 February 2003, worries me enough to stick my neck out on
a subject that I know little. Here are some thoughts that I hope are taken as
sincere rather than negative.
Firstly, as described in David’s post, the personality traits that are found
associated with creativity include, ‘dominant’, "hostile’ and ‘impulsive’.
These traits seem to be so incompatible with our current thinking on
co-design, participatory design, user-centered design where designers are
expected to be collaborative.
Secondly, among the many contemporary definitions of design, creativity is not
really the only or even a central concept. These working theories on design
can direct research without us going through the 45 year thick of creativity
research.
Thirdly, 45 years of research sounds very impressive, but the results of the
45-year efforts, as described in David’s post, are a lot less impressive than
the conviction of the researchers. Is this a promising research route design
researchers should take?
Fourthly, the image of the term ‘creativity’ invokes in us worries me too.
Prototypically or stereotypically, a creative person is imagined as
idiosyncratic, lone, difficult, and anti-social. Is this an image we want to
associate design with? I think the image of a creative designer perpetuates
the outdated idea of the ‘designer hero’?
And finally, from the very little reading that I have done on creativity,
creativity is endorsed in all people, with various degrees of power. In brief,
it is universal. And this power to create is strengthened or diminished by the
interactions one has with the socio-cultural environments. Creativity in its
natural form is similar among people, but its manifestations, its social form,
are very diverse. So a designer and a prostitute can be equally creative, but
their creative outputs are more different. The differences are socio-cultural
rather than natural. And it is differences rather than similarities that help
us to claim that she is a designer and he is a prostitute. Thus research on
creativity to inform us of designing, in my view, is quite misguided if it
focuses ONLY on the natural form of creativity. If there is any understanding
of creativity form a design perspective, it is a socio-cultural understanding.
Best Regards
Rosan
Rosan Chow
Sessional Instructor
University of Alberta
Department of Art and Design
3-98 Fine Arts Building
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|