Johann van der Merwe wrote:
> It is not that difficult to be "original" or "novel" or "innovative" (says he
from the >safety of his office). The only trick is to teach yourself, as well as
you can, how others >have done it, how it works now, what in the past made it
work as it does, and when you can do >it as well as most you deserve a masters.
If you can use this platform to make "new" >connections (alliances) in order to
create something "original" from "everything that has >gone before", then you
deserve a doctorate.
IMHO it is very, very difficult to be A. creative, B. original and C. consistent
at the first two.
I say this in the actual practice of design where marketing and bench marking of
competitive products restrain these two essential (dare I say?) talents.
Is a talent something that can be studied as research by the person with the
talent?
Does that same study compromise the ability to create?
Can I think with a clean sheet of paper with a head full of research
methodology?
The ability of advanced numerics in some children is later lost through
education and this fact worries me in light of the ability to retain a talent.
Design research might have paradox at its fundamental core.
Glenn Johnson
ID Mgr
B/E Aerospace Inc
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|