> Hi Laughlan,
> The key to understanding the gestation, illumination phases lie in a
> different arena.
I'm not really convinced of that . . . the stage model for the creative
process has been elaborated since 1897 (Helmoltz), and in its most famous
form by Wallas in 1926. It has been given empirical reinforcement time and
time again from surveys of the creative process in arts, science, industrial
design/invention, etc by a variety of people (e.g. Rossman, Hutchinson,
Plattand Baker and most recently in the 1990s by Csikszentmihalyi, surveying
the creativ eprocesses of eminent thinkers including Nobel Prize winners).
It is a model that for practical purposes is well demonstrated and tested.
I briefly review the history of the stage model of the creative process in a
blog article at
http://lauchlanmackinnon.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-new-under-sun.html
What I read you as seeming to be talking about is understanding the precise
cognitive and emotional processes underlying illumination experiences. OK,
but (a) that's much harder and (b) I don't see that it necessarily gets you
much further in understanding creativity in practice. The Wallas model is
already simple and . . . works.
> A designer does not do these things by thinking. They temporarily usurp
> the bodies homeostasis processes to represent complex dimensions of
problem
> and solutions physically in the body by small shifts in hormone levels,
> posture etc (secondarily represented in the brain).
So, this comes across from my perspective as being overly (un-necessarily)
complex / complicated. You have a much higher level of sophistication for
very little (if any) additional practical payoff.
That's fine if you just want to write papers about it (it's a legitimate
research subject), but if you want to work with creativity /. innovation /
design in practice - where do you see the extra value?
> This functioning is well
> documented and has been well known (except apparently in the design
research
> field) since the 80s.
Since the 1890s.
> Current theory models in the literature of design
> research about creativity, intuition, design judgement and problems
solving
> etc are 'fallacious' in that they do not align with what actually happens.
I don't know which literature specifically you are referring to, so I cannot
determine if I agree it's fallacious or not. ;)
Kind regards,
Lauchlan Mackinnon
|