Hi Keith,
You hit the nail. I'm suggesting the focus of 'educating for "creativity"'
needs to pay much more attention to the 'chemistry that just does stuff'
like causing 'creativity' to happen and managing how humans 'do' it. That
indicates a move away from traditional ego-based foundations of design
education. That is, moving on from traditional design education that assumes
that it is the person calling themselves Keith or Terry that are
magically they are doing 'creativity' via their thoughts and feelings.
This shift has worked fine in the sociological world where it is assumed
that 'social factors' involved in group behaviours shape individual
behaviours. The suggestion is to do something similar in design education
and move from individual self as the focus to a biological basis of creative
activity. It's a simple epistemological shift, compared to sociology
substitute 'chemistry/biology' for 'social factors' in design education and
use to replace current ego-based education theory of 'creativity'.
Warm regards,
Terry
====
Keith wrote:
I call myself Keith - my chemistry just does stuff.
|