 |
 |
Hi Francois, There is indeed 'confusion between Design and Fine Arts'. This is not my own confusion, however. I think it is inherent in the discourse of a 'creative economy'. As I understand it, the agencies and practices associated with this discourse position creativity as imperative to the development of a knowledge-based economy. The Cox Review definitions of Creativity, Innovation and Design are part of this, as others have indicated on this list. 'Creativity' is the generation of new ideas - either new ways of looking at existing problems, or of seeing new opportunities, perhaps by exploiting emerging technologies or changes in markets. 'Innovation' is the successful exploitation of new ideas. It is the process that carries them through to new products, new services, new ways of running the business or even new ways of doing business. 'Design' is what links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers. Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end. This is all very well, but I think that creativity is still generally understood through the social category of Fine Art - we see plenty of evidence of this in the sponsorship of art/science collaborations, even though the artist is often called a designer http://www.stillliving.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/pages/artists/index.htm http://www.stillliving.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/pages/artists/index.htm It is not surprising that creativity tends to be understood as art, as historically, the institutional arrangements and training associated with the arts were where creativity was 'attached' to particular persons. I've been documenting how this is working out in my own institution, where fashion design is becoming more 'creative'. It used to be a polytechnic course focused on design and technology. Now it is engaging with Fashion Theory and the fine arts. I'd like to think that art is finally becoming a civil democratic medium (Weibel, 2005). But I'm not holding my breath. Regards, Amanda Weibel, P. (2005). Art and Democracy: People Making Art Making People. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making Things Public - Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe, Germany: MIT Press and ZKM. Amanda Bill Lecturer, Fashion & Textile Design College of Creative Arts Massey University, Wellington Telephone 644 801 2794 xt 6886 -----Original Message----- From: Francois-Xavier Nsenga [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2008 11:47 a.m. To: Bill, Amanda Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: Design - Innovation Dear Amanda, You have just written: " My interest (...) is in the way properties such as creativity, which under the conditions of the social contract were assumed to reside in the person, are now being understood to be able to be organized externally. Whereas it used to be that design was the tradeable commodity, in the 'creative economy discourse', design disappears and it is creativity that becomes the commodity." Please check if, again, there isn't here confusion between "Design" and "Fine Arts". Yes indeed, artistic creativity resides within the person. Whereas, in my understanding of Design, this is and should be an externally based activity, of which the designer would be the chief organizer. True, in Arts&Crafts type of production as well as in the traditional Manufacture commissioned work, the artist-designer used to - many are still procceding this way - sale HER/HIS "designs" as treadable commodities. But now the design working context has changed. The new production context no longer requires us to trade our "designs" within the bounds of an exiguous local - one to one - market place. Rather, our abilities are being called upon to orchestrate multiple requirements, from all concerned stakeholders/users. Thus, it is creativity that is being - and should be - socially "contracted" instead, in a wider - now worldwide - market context. A bon entendeur, salut! Francois Montreal