Dear Charles,

I like what you say about creativity and I am all for keeping the process open - my concerns are ALL transactions are inherently "creative" and ALL acts of consciousness are intentional. We culturally prescribe "creativity" in our descriptions - if we treat all texts as poetry then our willingness to "read" newness into things expands to the point of post-modern joy.

As a poet I don't mind this - mostly I find other "readers" stop following the pathways of difference and possible difference long before I do. So lonely Keith watches the different dawn while much of the world is happily asleep.

Added to this is the range of people who see the opportunity for difference and take it - some people are disposed to change and the location of change. This may lead to the notion of creative types and the objects that creative types make.

Sustain the difference - structure the difference - eschew the type (creative).

all the best

keith russell
OZ newcastle

>>> Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> 09/21/03 01:02 AM >>>
Dear Keith, Alan, Ricardo, Ranjan and all

It seems to me that trying to assign creativity to
people or artifacts misses the nature of creativity
which lies largely in relationships and their
perceived (or acknowledged) value or delight -
transactional relationships between events
(compositions, juxtapositions, etc.) in the world and
some reaction to them (as Keith's remarks also
suggest). Making an "ism" of transactions defeats our
ability to grasp what is happening both within us and
the relationships we experience.

Creativity, it seems to me, is the making(or
recognition) of new meaning in the truest sense, as
Duchamp taught us long ago. It also seems to me that
the entailments of the business word "transaction" are
not as limiting as the media word "interaction". In
fact it may be more indicative of the idea that
something of value to those involved results. We now
understand that "those involved" may be people or
artifacts, and that either may carry away something of
"value" to them (i.e. the software agent obtains code
it can process, the house gets painted and becomes
more durable, the form becomes more appealing, etc.
contributing to their persistence and/or evolution.)

I personally believe that formative thinking is where
both creativity is expressed and meaning is
determined. It is mediated by intent, background and
context and made operational and meaningful through
communication, negotiation and interpretation
involving all other modes of thought and their
content. Establishing relationships (relational
thinking) is where the potential for creative
expression is structured but its recognition or
expression must be mediated by background, intention,
etc.

We seem caught in our desire to make creativity an
absolute rather than a relative thing. It isn't.

Best to all,

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alan
Murdock
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Creativity


Dear Keith,

I don't think anyone on this list is encouraging cute
observations about objects, but I agree with your
criticism of transactionalism.  One of my largest
conundrums is how to apply this form of thought
without coming off as some form of techno ecstatic who
places feeling or experience before analytical
research.

In terms of transactionalism, though I think there are
some important possibilities in relation to
creativity.  I often give my students the concept of a
hallway, a room and a stairwell.  I ask them to
consider what each is for, how each is used, and
socially appropriate behaviors in each area.  Then
they consider which is private and which public.
Sheetrock, cement and steel are relatively simple
technologies, but they have the ability to act on us
through their form.  We then talk about ways of
altering action in a given space that leads toward
performance theory and ways of altering the space to
change the kind of interaction that occurs there.
Examples like the Telanor building in Oslo or Vito
Acconci's Island in the Mur are interesting examples
of altering space for the purpose of altering human
interactions.

So the question is still there - does this kind of
mediation of space show examples of "creativity"?  For
me, upon close inspection, creativity dissolves into
other things such as discipline, knowledge and skill.
Thus the creative leap is less important as a subject
than the larger process that surrounds what is
perceived as a creative leap.  When people focus on
the moment of the creative leap they end up ruminating
in as mystical a fashion as with your example of the
breathing imac.

Am I misinterpreting the intended goals of a study on
creativity?

Best,
Alan Murdock
The Art Institute of Portland


Dear Ricardo

I don't mind the questions - but for me, none of these
"objects" rates the term "creativity".

Can artefacts be said to evidence, of themself,
creativity? This is a similar issue to the long
running issue on this list about whether artefacts can
be research.

I am confident that it is possible to offer accounts
that justify our desire to claim creativity or
research knowledge of artefacts.

I resist offering the account because it is too easily
taken up by people who do not understand the argument
but want the result.

I don't mind all the transactional psychology - indeed
the general absence of design psychology is one of the
biggest scandals of design practice/research.

However, a much more sophisticated account of the
status of the object  as a mode of mediation needs to
be offered. While object-relations psychology can take
us deeper into this than transactional psychology, we
end up in some warm Italian kitchen with Allessi
rather than in a world of cute observations about
iMacs as if they drew breath.

Now that might start a few fires in the belly of the
designer?

creatively
keith russell
OZ newcastle