 |
 |
Hi again Kerstin, (and All) Many thanks for this reply Kerstin, and, all excellent points you make. (And, I don't disagree - except only on one small point -- namely - about "the Existence of Domain Problems, in all Creative Domains" - please see my long and boring explanation, further down below.) Also, before I talk about that - I think, we are (well, some of us -- maybe) talking/thinking about `Theory' and `Practice' in much the same terms that Steven (Maras) also so astutely pointed out, in his (excellent) /Screenwriting/: /History Theory & Practice/ (2009), ie - Thinking about it, as 2 `separate' things: 1. "Conception" (Theory, Screen-writing, Thinking up an idea/story) and 2. "Execution" (ie Practice, Screen-making, `Doing'). We often want to reduce them to two separate `parts' (which is very `reductionist' thinking, in a way) but, they are 2 `parts' of a (holistic) synthetic whole (as, people [cast & crew] are obviously still `Thinking / re-writing', while making a screen idea, in production)... But, Kerstin, just to reply to your (just in my view, brilliant) questions: /And JT, don't you think it is great that some aspects can't be defined complete for ever and ever? // /// - Yes, I do agree; I am also a fan of `Evolution' (ie: Change, over Time). And in fact am eternally-grateful to Charles Darwin for inventing Evolution, in 1859. (That was a joke.) Even the consensus on `the meanings of individual words' changes over time. So - the Evolutionary perspective seems inescapable, somehow? (As, most things do indeed appear to: change, over time.) I also can't seem to escape Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. In what seems outrageous, he says (and, I happen to agree): `*Definitions are not important. And quibbling over words is a menace*… We can assert the truth, attain the truth, often enough. But we can never attain certainty… Science is the quest for /truth/, not for /certainty/. Scientists, like all organisms, work with the method of trial and error. The trial is a /solution to a problem. /In the evolution of the plant or animal kingdom, error, or, to be more precise, *the correction of error usually means eradication of the organism*; in science it usually means *eradication of the hypothesis or theory*. The process is thus one of /Darwinian selection/. (Popper, /All Life Is Problem Solving/, 1999, p.38) And - in the domain of screenwriting, it also seems to mean, the eradication of: 98% of screenplays, from the group of scripts that might get made (...!) (...Ouch.) So, Karl Popper’s philosophy of science (i.e., critical rationalism, or `post-positivist critical realism') - which I also can't seem to escape from - is not particularly concerned about `definitions'. Rafe Champion (2013) actually says it much better than I could: `/Driven Mad By Words/ – Popper’s third decisive break from the mainstream of philosophy is his rejection of conceptual analysis. This error in method is widespread in the mind industry. “First define your terms” is one of its slogans, also the belief that it is important to find answers to “What is…” questions; what is /the state, democracy, justice, freedom/? Karl Popper labelled this error “essentialism”. It consists of a cluster of theories and practices which deflect discourse from matters of truth and falsity, or whether to pursue this policy or that, into /arguments about the meanings of terms… /The shocking conclusion is that essentialist methodologies destroy the critical faculties of people who are inducted into them, and generate anti-intellectualism among people who refuse to play the game. The “house of intellect” loses both ways, by the corruption of its inhabitants and the distrust aroused among outsiders. As a result of Popper’s break from conceptual analysis and the quest for justified belief, there is limited interaction between Popper’s followers and the mainstream of academic philosophy. Bartley wrote that if Popper is on the right track then many, if not most, academic philosophers are wasting a lot of time.’ (Champion 2013, p. 3 <#_ENREF_22>) I think maybe, this is part of the reason many in `the mainstream' (or, `industry', or "distrusting outsiders") sees "academia" as an ivory tower - or, divorced from the realities of practice. (Which, I think, is what Hugo was suggesting, by a separation between `Theory vs Practice'. - Though, I also may be assuming too much there. Words! Argh.) /The aspects you are counting are as difficult to define as love and as documentary, like Nicholson put it already (in: introduction to documentary). // /// Yes - "Love" is indeed a hard (general) term to define... "Documentary" is even worse! People (including me) keep creating new, hybrid forms of it. (I blame: Creativity.) (i.e. Love is a nightmare to define. By the general term/word, `love', do we mean: romantic love, or patriotic love, or family love, or brotherly- or sisterly- love, or sexual love, or, admiration for an academic discipline, or the love of a boy for his dog, or, some other very-specific instance of love? Or do we just mean: Altruism? - etc.) So - I think, maybe Popper was right. Definitions of words are a menace, you can so easily get lost in them (and, getting lost in definitions doesn't solve any problems - and, I suggest, is a huge waste of time). Speaking also, as, someone who has made a living as a professional writer (with: words) for over 20 years, to my horror, I think Popper was right; /words are a menace./ They are a very clunky, old, and imprecise technology (but, Language was also a Communications Technology invented by cave-people, and also, even some other nonhuman-animals since as well, so, I suppose we can't expect too much from Language-- even though, it seems to have evolved somewhat, since its emergence...) But, Kerstin, which aspects (that I'm counting) are you specifically referring to? Do you mean "The Less-Than-1% Problem?" ie This one? http://storyality.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/storyality-115-the-less-than-one-percent-problem-in-the-domain-of-movies/ (Or, something else. Sorry - I am unsure which part, you refer to.) /What do you understand as 'good' topics? What about important topics? And that depends of the individual and her circumstances. // /// Yes, absolutely agree. By `good' topics, I exactly mean, `important' topics. (Words really are so vague; they're a menace to society, in my view.) By that, I only mean "important topics to anyone - and everyone - in the Screenwriting field." (eg: Problem #1 - /Women are held back, in Screenwriting/Film//./) And yes, absolutely agree - each Problem always depends on the Individual, and their Circumstances, and the (creative) Problems they are aiming to solve. (eg How do I best tell `my' specific story? How do I get `my' specific screenplay made, as a movie?) But I also think when we look at many or even all individuals (taken as a whole, ie - the Field), there are common problems that emerge: e.g.: /- How do I get my movie (screenplay) made? /(There are many different ways to solve this problem, and, any and all are `right', if they actually work.) And: /- How do I stop my movie screenplay from being in the "99.6% of screenplays that are presented to producers - but then don't break even, when they are made, as a movie?"/ (The only reason this may be a Problem is, if you want to make more than one film. Also, it's not always even a problem. Many people made a 2nd film, even /after /their first one lost money. But, it's usually less-difficult, if, your first one didn't lose money.) Obviously - If your first film loses money, and, you also need investors [eg Economic Capital] for your second (and subsequent) film/s (and, you may not), your creative life is often, then harder (ie - more problems) if your first film didn't break even - as, most investors tend to be risk-averse. (It's a horrible situation.) I understand that, around 80% of Australian filmmakers, only ever make one feature film (i.e. despite wanting to, they are unable to finance their second film. - That is a shame, and I think is a serious creative Problem, that most filmmakers want to avoid.) My thinking on this is also shaped by 20 years working in the screen industry, as a story analyst (professional script reader/assessor), noticing that indeed, 98% of screenplays get rejected (by, people like: me), and also, 20 years as a professional screenwriter (film, games, TV, etc). Also, very much influenced by David Bordwell's (2008 etc), Brian Boyd's (2009) and Csikszentmihalyi's (1975, 1996, etc) (and, Karl Popper's 1963, 1999) "problem-situation" model, in creativity. (But - only because their model also appears to be, `How it works' in industry. - If I ever find a better/more accurate model of `how industry works', then, I will certainly use it!) So, yes - Kerstin, I do think, we are agreeing? Everyone indeed faces unique problems (and also, every film story is unique) but, it appears that some very serious problems are shared, by all of us as screenwriters and as academics/scholars). (How can those be solved, so that, Life is also easier, for all of us?) I think the same thing happens in biology: the `problem' there is, survival - but there are many solutions that work (eg: everything that survives). Same goes for career-survival in a creative industry (there are many different solutions that work. In one sense, all that matters is that: they do work. Well - except once we bring in ethics. ie - Not everyone has them - some people have some ethics, and not other ethics. But, we had a fantastic discussion on this earlier on the list... ie `Ethics in Screenwriting' so perhaps enough said. - Hugo is a great Question-Generator!) /There is and can't be a global hit-list for scientists or researcher or artists to become famous, what ever that means... // /// Yes - Kerstin, this is the only point you suggest, on which, I would choose to perhaps disagree. I think, the evidence is to the contrary? (Though of course, I could be wrong.) I think - In each Creative domain (eg: physics, chemistry, biology, maths, sociology, anthropology, culturology, etc) the Field certainly arrives at some kind of a consensus, on "What are the key Problems in the domain?" (and, these are also, usually - what the most highly-cited journal articles, and books end up being on, in each domain. eg say, in biochemistry: Watson & Crick's 1953 journal article on the structure of the DNA molecule.) eg: In the Domain of Biology, Darwin (in 1859) finally solved the very-difficult domain problem of How Biological Evolution Works (although - only partly, as it also took `The Modern Synthesis' in Evolution, in the 1940s, to integrate: Genetics, into Evolutionary Theory), and, this is also one reason that Darwin is `famous'. Einstein also solved (among other things) the Domain problems (in the domain of Physics) of both Special and also, General Relativity, and this is mostly why he is "famous". (For many more examples, see "Creativity in Science: Logic, Chance, Genius and Zeitgeist", Simonton 2004, and also "The Act of Creation", Koestler 1964 - which talks about both the Sciences and the Arts). Also I see Csikszentmihalyi has a lot to say on this, (in /Creativity/, 1996): `Artists find inspiration in real life – emotions like love and anxiety, events like birth and death, the horrors of war, and a peaceful afternoon in the country. We shall see in a little while that *artists are also influenced in the choice of their problems by the domain and the field. *It has been said that every painting is a response to all previous paintings, every poem reflects the history of poetry. Yet paintings and poems are also very clearly inspired by the artist’s experiences.’ (Csikszentmihalyi 1996: p. 85 <#_ENREF_1>) So - it would appear that - if there were not `important problems' in each creative Domain, and it was not important that they were solved (so that everyone in the Field can then get onto new / deeper / other, important problems) I suggest, we wouldn't know the (famous) names we know: "Darwin", "Einstein" "Popper" (eg `falsification', etc.) " "Marie Curie" "Picasso" "Mozart" "Virginia Woolf" "Kathryn Bigelow" "Kubrick" etc (This not my idea, by the way. This is how it appears to work, across all Creative domains.) e.g. There is also one other quote i like: Csikszentmihalyi (/Creativity/, 1996) notes that there is a difference in `presented’ and `discovered’ problems in any given domain. (for e.g. the domain of: screenwriting) `PRESENTED AND DISCOVERED PROBLEMS: Problems are not all alike in the way they come to a person’s attention. Most problems are already formulated; everybody knows what is to be done and only the solution is missing. The person is expected by employers, patrons, or some other external pressure to apply his or her mind to the solution of the puzzle.These are “presented” problems. But there are also situations in which nobody has asked the question yet, nobody even knows that there /is/ a problem. In this case the creative person identifies both the problem and the solution. Here we have a “discovered” problem. Einstein, among others, believed that the really important breakthroughs in science come as a result of reformulating old problems or discovering new ones, rather than by just solving existing problems… The theory of evolution answered a great number of questions, ranging from why do animals look so different from each other from where do men and women come from. But perhaps the most remarkable feature of Darwin’s accomplishment was that these questions had not been stated in an answerable form before, and he had to formulate the problem as well as propose a solution to it. Most great changes in a domain share this feature of Darwin’s work: They tend to fall towards the discovered rather than the presented end on the continuum of problematic situations.’(Csikszentmihalyi, /Creativity/, 1996: 95-8 <#_ENREF_1>) So - this "Domain Problems" idea is not `my' idea; this is rather, the evidence presented from all Creative domains (ie - as you know the domain of Psychology has formally been studying `Creativity' since JP Guilford's speech to the American Psychological Association in 1950, and has published a lot of literature on it). It appears many people in the Screenwriting Domain are still unaware of this knowledge. (If it is helpful to them, I suggest that people use it in their own creative practice. And - if not, then, by all means - ignore it.) Also - in 20 years of listening to people in the screen industries (film, tv, games), it appears to me, that people in Screenwriting keep individually mentioning (ie: individually "finding") the same exact common Problems - over and over and over. But, they don't realize, others have solved some of these problems... If we (as a Field, ie the Academic Field of Screenwriting) don't communicate about the recurrent and frequently-encountered (`big') Problems, they are indeed, unlikely to be solved... Or - the very few people (ie 0.06% of screenwriters) that do manage to solve them (either by accident, or by genius or by good management) often keep the answers to themselves...! (Screenwriting is after all, highly competitive. ie - a `Struggle for Survival', of each: Story / Screenplay / Film... etc) - So - that sort of makes sense. Also, I certainly don't mean to imply that "becoming famous" is a good thing. `Fame' brings with it many deep problems, including, a huge invasion of personal privacy (for example), and also an expectation to come and give talks, media and public appearances at random places, and signing autographs, etc. - In my own personal view, it is much better to be famous, only after one is dead. (But - that is just my personal idiosyncratic view; some people do like `fame', or - what they assume and imagine fame will be like, once they have it. It therefore can - sometimes - provide a motivation for /some /people, to solve hard problems in a Domain... eg - Young, ambitious people - who want to `make a name for themselves' in their chosen field, etc.) I do like science / research and the openness of thinking this is offering. But where I do completely agree - mixed teams of man and women are more effective and more creative. Thus, we should get a better balance in all levels of industry and academic work. Yes, absolutely agree - and, I also like RK Sawyer's work on `Group Creativity' (again, from the scientific research on Creativity, in the domain of Psychology). And - sorry Kerstin if you already knew all of this, or, if I misunderstood anything / everything... (Words are always such a problem...) And I also think it fantastic, that the SRN is 50/50. Hats off to the SRN. Best, JT -- ----------------------- JT Velikovsky Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst http://storyality.wordpress.com/ and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics Transmedia Writing Blog:http://on-writering.blogspot.com/ Free Screenwriting TextBook:http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel:http://am-so-as.webs.com/ Email:[log in to unmask] Also:[log in to unmask] Skype: joe.tee.vee Twitter: @joeteevee Imdb:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/ YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee aka: JT Velikovsky Research Student & Filmmaker Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting School of Humanities and Communication Arts University of Western Sydney http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please [log in to unmask] This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses On 4/07/2014 7:06 PM, Kerstin Stutterheim wrote: > Hi > > that's really an odd discussion - to split practice and 'theory' again > and again and to set up fronts against each other. Thank you Steven > for your well thought and written mail on that! > I totally agree that we should - especially in research on > screenwriting - try to work together close and ignore that gab, old > odd disapproval..., this gap makes us less powerful and is hindering > creativity. > > To the other part of the discussion about gender and identity in > movies and audiovisual media - it is not most of all a problem of > writing and writers, but much more due to a male dominated and power > as well as money related production and distribution world, what makes > good female writers and directors less visible or what gives them less > chances. What about a screenwriting department with 100 % male Profs > for 50/50 students? Or a production department with 100% male profs > and few female lecturers in addition. There it starts. > > Also in film history some important women are often forgotten to > mention, like Alice Guy-Blaché, Maya Deren... to name just the > better known ones. > thus, please check your sources by counting and writing statements... > > here a book I'd like to recommend to you, most of you will already not > that and say I'd come out of the "Mustopf" = mush pot, like we say in > German; > http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9111041-the-woman-in-the-story > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_eZAtVJxVk > > And JT, don't you think it is great that some aspects can't be defined > complete for ever and ever? The aspects you are counting are as > difficult to define as love and as documentary, like Nicholson put it > already (in: introduction to documentary). What do you understand as > 'good' topics? What about important topics? And that depends of the > individual and her circumstances. There is and can't be a global > hit-list for scientists or researcher or artists to become famous, > what ever that means... I do like science / research and the openness > of thinking this is offering. > But were I do completely agree - mixed teams of man and women are more > effective and more creative. Thus, we should get a better balance in > all levels of industry and academic work. > > Let's continue with a 50 % male / 50 % female board of our network. > Thus we, SRN, are ahead! > > see you soon in Potsdam, at the now upgraded Film University > Babelsberg /Konrad Wolf/, and continue to keep an eye on our postings. > > best > Kerstin > > > > JT Velikovsky<[log in to unmask]> , 04.07.2014 1:29: > > Hi Hugo, and, All, > > In my view - one way to bring Theory and Practice together is, > pick a real-world important Domain Problem, and solve it (or, > solve a part of it). > e.g.: Say a real-world problem like /- Women screenwriters being > under-represented/obstructed/held-back, in industry/ (as Susan > just mentioned) > > - It's good to have a `Big List of Unsolved Domain Problems', in > any Creative Domain (that Field agrees on, as: being Problems). > (Say, in Physics, or Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Social Sciences, > Arts, Music, History, Humanities, ... or even Screenwriting, etc) > That way scholars can also know: "What are really good topics to > pick for PhD's?" Or, topics to publish a book - or a journal > article on, (etc). > (And, if they manage to solve a `hard problem', they might get > famous, or rich, or, something. And, not just in academic circles...) > > eg: > - In Philosophy, it's a scandal they haven't solved the problem of > Free Will (ie - Do we have it, or not?) [so, Neurobiology is > solving it, instead, for now...] > - In Sociology (and even Anthropology), it's a scandal that > there's no Standard Definition of the word `Culture'. (There's > about 200 definitions of it, and no consensus on what, exactly, it > is. That Domain is a complete mess... Part of the problem is: > no-one's scientifically defined the Meme, the unit of culture.) > - In Maths, `Problem #8 - The Riemann hypothesis' is still > unsolved, after 100 years of people trying. No scandal, it's just > really hard to do. > - Also, in Science, Maths and Engineering, women are also very > under-represented (ie, held back). > > Best > JT > > ----------------------------------- > > /*And - The Long & Detailed Version*/ - of The Above > > So, in rambling email-essay form, I'd suggest, there's also one > other way that `Theory and Practice' can work together. > Pick a real-world important Domain Problem, and solve it (or, > solve a part of it). > > Also - I'm afraid it may sound insane, at first. > > *This is the insane-sounding part:* > - If you go here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_problems > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems>) and scroll > down (about halfway), you'll see a Table, of "Hilbert's 23 > Unsolved Domain Problems", (and, you can see exactly which of > those Problems have now been solved, and in which year, they were > solved.) > ie - He presented a list of `23 key Problems' at a Conference, and > it gave the entire Creative Domain (in that case, the domain of: > Mathematics) a focus. > (Some of the `23 Problems' are still `too hard to solve' as yet, > and - have thus, still not yet been (re)solved by that creative > Field, even 100 years on -- as you can see from the `Table' there.) > [And, Apologies for a Wikipedia link, but - it's the only place > with, an easy-to-read Table] > > *And - This part (slowly) gets slightly-less-insane, the more you > read on:* > So, with that in mind, I actually created 2 x Surveys a few years > ago (one short, one long), to find out (from the Academic Field of > Screenwriting) what: /The Biggest Domain Problems in > Screenwriting/, are. > (Mostly, inspired by Ian W Macdonald's excellent 2004 PhD thesis, > which I think, identifies about 20 x of the Problems). > eg: The 2 x Surveys are here, if it's of interest. > http://storyality.wordpress.com/surveys/ > (But I don't suggest anyone takes it, as I haven't gotten Ethics > Clearance for it yet, so, I couldn't conduct it in academia nor > publish the results academically until then, anyway. Though, > seeing the actual /List of Problems /may be inspiring. - Or, not. > It may also be: super-depressing. Maybe, these are all the > problems you face every day, as a Screenwriter.) > > So - It's sometimes good (ie helpful) to see a big list of the > "Key Domain Problems" (as voted by, the consensus of: the whole > Field). > That way, people (eg - researchers, students, independent > scholars, or anyone) in that Field (the People) and Domain (the > Knowledge) can see (and, perhaps agree): /What are perhaps, some > good topics for a PhD, say./ > Or, what anyone might want to try solving, if they're crazy enough > to try. > (And - likewise, what are `very hard problems' - maybe, to avoid - > if you maybe don't want to make life, too difficult for yourself.) > > Ironically, in many Creative domains, often, it's "newcomers" to a > field that solve key problems mainly as, they don't know what > `rules'/conventions they are `breaking', or /doxa /they are > accidentally ignoring - by thinking so radically `outside the box'. > Also, combining ideas - /from another Creative Domain/ - very > often results in, a creative breakthrough. > > eg: Csikszentmihalyi in /Creativity/ (1996), p88-9: (a consilient > survey of nearly 100 x eminent `big-c' Creative people) > / > “An intellectual problem is not restricted to a particular domain. > *Indeed, some of the most creative breakthroughs occur when an > idea that works well in one domain gets grafted to another and > revitalizes it. *This was certainly the case with the widespread > applications of physics’ quantum theory to neighbouring > disciplines like chemistry and astronomy. *Creative people are > ever alert to what people over the fence are doing… A large > majority of our respondents were inspired by a tension in their > domain that became obvious when looked at from the perspective of > another domain. Even though they do not think of themselves as > interdisciplinary, their best work bridges realms of ideas. *Their > histories tend to cast doubts on the wisdom of overspecialization, > where bright young people are trained to become exclusive experts > in one field and shun breadth like the plague.’ (Csikszentmihalyi > 1996: 88-9)// > / > > So - I suggest, /Solving a `real-world problem' in a Domain,/ is > one way to: Bring Theory and Practice, very much, together... > > Usually, even some of the General Public can vaguely understand > it, when `A Very Big Problem' has been solved, in a creative > Domain. (Science, the Arts) > (It usually changes the Domain for the better somehow, and then > the Field can all move on, to work on: other, `deeper' - or, maybe > just `different' problems.) > > - Of course, in a very-highly-structured creative symbolic Domain > like, say Maths, (or, Physics, or Chemistry, or say Biology) > where, there's often /only one solution/ (or else, most experts in > the Field, can usually easily tell, if it's a "wrong" solution) -- > it's a lot easier to tell if the problem is solved. > ie Someone `curing cancer' in the domain of Biology is: > Newsworthy. (And also, even Nobel-Prize worthy.) > > Though - in less-highly-structured creative Domains, like say, The > Arts/Humanities (eg: Movies, tv, games, screenwriting, novels, > songs, poems, painting, comics, theatre, history, philosophy etc) > the Domain problems are often firstly, trickier to identify --- > and, tricky for others to actually understand/agree that, these > are, actually, a Big Problem. > (Not everyone experiences /all /the exact-same Problems in their > career.) > But, there certainly are a few things that many people tend to > agree on as Problems, moreso than other Problems. > > Anyway - I have an article that I submitted to a journal, on this > (still being reviewed.) > In it, I suggested a list of `32 Key Problems in the Domain of > Screenwriting'... > But, /in theory, /anyone in the Field could suggest a number of > Domain Problems. > Problems they either have experienced, or, can clearly see, are a > Problem for others. > The trick is to find out, what the Field in general sees (and, > agrees) are, the Key Problems... > > As - Creativity (at least -- according to the scientific research > in the domain of Psychology) involves the Creative: /Person, > Process, Product, Place, and Persuasion/ (maybe even > /Potential//)/... > (For a reference see the chapter: `*/THEORIES OF CREATIVITY/*, pp > 20-48, here: > /The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity /(2010) > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1EBT3Qj5L5EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) > (see also specifically: "FOUR OR SIX P's of CREATIVITY", on p24) > > Also - If `the majority' (at least 40%, oddly) of a Field is not > persuaded that a certain Problem is indeed, a Problem, then - for > the Field, it's not... > (they ignore it - or, just don't worry about it, as a whole) > > But - I'd certainly add to the list (of "32 Key Domain problems in > Screenwriting, and also - a Key Domain Problem in Film"), the one > that Susan just mentioned: /The under-representation of > Women/Females, and, all the obstructions they can face... // > /That `Very Big Problem' can be `broken out' into a list of > smaller `component problems' (eg Specific problems, that women > face, at each stage of the creative process, in screenwriting/film.) > Then, once identified, each Problem can potentially, be addressed. > (- Whether it is later, /solved/, is another matter. The point is, > to try.) > > - If someone solved that Big Problem (eg - under-representation of > Women screenwriters) it might well be a major `breakthrough', that > (1) made (creative) life easier for a lot of Women, and (2) > probably would also make more Men, feel less-guilty, about the > whole situation... (for example) > > Anyway - that's one way to - perhaps - bring `Theory' and > `Practice' closer together: > *ie - Have a `big list' of Key Domain Problems (derived from: > Problems, in practice.)** > And also, have the Field all vote on, which of the listed Problems > they feel are important (or even, `easy', or `hard' or: > `impossible!'). > *(And also, add in any `new'/discovered/`found' Problems that come > along as time passes, and as things change and evolve.) > > Also, if you have a Field/Domain where, just a lot of people > (scholars) are `working quietly away, and not talking to each > other, much', then two or more of them might be trying to solve > the same Problem, without even knowing it; > If they know (communicate about it) - they also might decide to > /co-operate/ instead of (even, unknowingly) /compete/. > And thus, might solve it together, much quicker... > (But then they have to "share the glory evenly", like say Watson & > Crick discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. Or, Darwin & > Wallace, even though they independently `discovered' Evolution...) > > So - `Problem-Finding', and, `Problem-Shaping' comes into it when > making: > */A Big List of Problems That Somebody Really Ought To Solve To > Make Life Easier For Us All, In Practice. /**/(eg As > Screenwriters, Filmmakers, etc) > /*So - that's actually 90% of finding an Answer/Solution (ie - > Posing the right, or at least, a `good' question.) > > For more on all of that -- see Csikszentmihalyi's work on Creative > Problem-Finding & Solving; Eva Novrup Redvall's work in that area > of screenwriting; and Ian W Macdonald's PhD thesis, for > essentially, a huge list of well-identified `Domain Problems in > Screenwriting'. (That 2004 research was conducted in the UK - but > having worked in both Hollywood and Australia, I can say many of > the problems Ian identified are `universal' in screenwriting; not > all of them are nationally, or culturally-specific. - Then again, > I don't know about: non-native English speaking European cultures. > Am sure they have their own Culturally-specific problems.) > > Anyway, so - it sounds crazy, when you talk to Screenwriters about > Maths. (and how the `Domain problems' are similar.) > (But - Koestler showed how Creativity works the same in: the Arts, > Sciences and even Humour, in, 1964: /The Act of Creation/) > And Professors Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1996) and Simonton (2004, > 2011) did the same (more or less, in Koestler's footsteps), with > the DIFi systems model of Creativity... > > So (in broad view) it's just looking at another Creative Domain - > and, seeing how they solved their own problems, early on, in their > Emergence/Evolution as a Field, and as a Domain. > Given that the /First International Maths Conference /was in 1900, > and, that by comparison, the first /International Academic > Screenwriting Research Network /conference was in: 2008... > As a Creative Domain, in terms of our Cultural Evolution, we're > about: 100 years `behind' the Domain of Maths... > > But - now have the internet. (Thanks to: Creativity/Innovation) > If we blatantly steal any or even all of their Creativity > `shortcuts' from Maths or any other domain - /ie - > //shortcuts//that actually worked /- it might just work, in this > Domain too... and we might even catch up, or even overtake them, > in about 10-20 years. (Who knows.) > > Or - of course, it could be a bad idea to look at other Creative > Domains across History, and see how they solved the same Problems... > But, there seems to be a general trend in The Academy towards: > Consilience/Interdisciplinary thinking, at the moment. (I hear > those words a lot at conferences...) > So - Who knows - It might have some benefits... (Crazy, but it > just might work, etc etc) > > Anyway so - that's - maybe /- one /way, to bring `Theory and > Practice' together. > eg - If `Theorists' solve a Big Problem (or even, many Little > Problems) that then, helps a lot of `Practitioners' in "the real > world". > (Whatever that term, "real world" means.) > > Cheers > JT > > PS - And then, there's lots of other ways, of bringing Theory and > Practice together, too -- that are all just as important. > eg - Everything Steven (Maras) just said... (all just in my > opinion, though) > > -- > ----------------------- > > JT Velikovsky > Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst > http://storyality.wordpress.com/ > > and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: > Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics > > Transmedia Writing Blog:http://on-writering.blogspot.com/ > > Free Screenwriting TextBook:http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html > > Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel:http://am-so-as.webs.com/ > > Email:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Also:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Skype: joe.tee.vee > Twitter: @joeteevee > > Imdb:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/ > YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee > > aka: JT Velikovsky > Research Student & Filmmaker > Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting > School of Humanities and Communication Arts > University of Western Sydney > http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/ > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > If you have received this email in error please [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses > > > > > On 3/07/2014 10:57 PM, Vercauteren Hugo wrote: >> But theory and practice should become a team… to overcome >> internal conflicts. Not easy. Easy to say. Difficult to do. >