On 05/11/2014, at 14:10, Beth Koch wrote:
> an art school and having spent some ten years teaching in them, I can say
> with some confidence that artists do not want the imagination quantified
> (perhaps thus my colleague’s visceral response). The mystique of innovation
> and artistic creativity is a powerful force—it is all that separates
> artists and designers from skills that can now be replicated by machinery
> (I note the Facebook announcement that Photoshop will now “draw” me a
> picture from any photograph.). People are fascinated by creative types, and
> to say that there may be a science that underpins creativity is plainly
> blasphemous.
Absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me how people are blinded by their taboos (to use M P Ranjan's terminology).
And these taboos are falacies:
1) The notion that all science is deterministic;
2) The notion that science cannot study creativity;
Creativity, for some people, is still a misterious flame. They want it, but they don't want to steal it, lest the wrath of the Gods falls upon them. I understand: we haven't yet managed to design an eagle-proof replacement liver.
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|