Solving the new paradigm problem

Ok, so I admit that I let this blog slide after graduate school--too many excuses but basically I was trying to implement some of what I learned while at UVA.

Now, I find this multitasking creature is the paradigm shift of student attention--too late for an intervention--they wouldn't notice it anyway. Students are perpetually distracted, stimulated, influenced by media, programmed, re-programmed, and then rebooted again the next year with a new operating system just in time for the latest educational supertrend...I don't know how they can possibly get through it all... The real question is how do we "edutainers" manage to penetrate this web of mis-attention to try and re-arrange the neurons of this person so that they will "Understand, Know, and be able to Do" (UKD) some fossilized list of "knowledge" and "skills" that have been gloriously brought down from the mountains of politicized pundits who have plenty of poll numbers to back up their "statistical analysis".

What to do?

Three parts--oh, it's quite simple you say...
1.  Eliminate the distractions...hmmm...might work...OR might it just drive them to be MORE creative in their methods to hide the distractions from the distraction "police"?
2.  Make the knowledge and skills more "interesting"...hmmm...well we could add bells, whistles, flashing lights, explosions, and even a reference or two to a teen idol...but still must compete with all of the "noise" of the other distractions.
3.  Make the distractions PART of the lesson or knowledge/skills---Whoa!  How would that work?  We could USE the distractions to our own advantage...BUT that will require MORE  work and a steep learning curve for the "edutainers"...hmmm...Who could we tap that would have the knowledge of how to use these distractions in this new way?...AHA!

Should we then ask some of the STUDENTS to DESIGN a method to USE the distractions--as MANY of them as possible to EXPLAIN the concepts/knowledge/skills to their PEERS?...Wait a minute...This just might work!  But again, it requires the "dinoeducator" to evolve quickly into a Distraction facilitator--this sounds a lot like selling out?...OR is it? 

I often wonder if I am meeting my students "halfway", but I think I should be asking am I meeting their FUTURE needs in terms of what I am really emphasizing in knowledge/concepts/skills?  So, I have to find ways to be creative in plugging in the "required" content into a world that drowns it out.  Why not enlist as many allies as possible in this?  Some of the students will naturally be interested in the concepts/material, so we MUST identify these students and let them be the leaders in suggesting methods to create the NEW versions of the "learning tools" that will best meet their peers on their level.   This, however, is not as easy as it sounds...for, students also have social status, etc. that they must maintain, so the trick here is to find the best synthesis between the content and the digital, social world that the students inhabit.  Naturally, I would prefer to study this problem in detail, but the shift in digital social media is happening faster than I can conduct a research study...so, I propose a compromise.

What do we need?
A system that will PROJECT into the future what may REALLY be necessary to UKD...(remember it) in order for students to be successful. 
A system that allows student leaders to be the bridge between the semi-relevant content and this newly envisioned future.
A system that has significant FLEXIBILITY built in so that it can adapt (i.e. evolve) as needed fast enough to meet the changing needs of its' inhabitants.

Otherwise...our educational "system"  will go...well...extinct (Sound familar?) 
The new paradigm shift is solved only by adapting and shifting ourselves...
A "kaleidoscopic" system...what will the next picture look like?

Heisenberg and Origami puzzles

Group creative processes, ah what fun. Compounded impulses layered upon a tapestry of stretched possibilities permeating the sublime nature of a shared creative construct. Yet somehow, the whole kaboodle never seems to function quite right and we can never definitively describe that perfect storm of shared illustrious productivity. Individual creativity is difficult enough, but with a group it is perhaps even more so. Our prey shifts and shimmies, gyrates and slides, always eluding the grasp of any one member of the creative “team”, in its’ nature imitating the proverbial electron. When we try to pin it down, Heisenberg explains that we can never know with absolute certainty its position and velocity at the same instant. Group creativity seems to relish such ethereal existence.

However, group creativity is even more enigmatic, because not only is it factorially elusive, but also inherently as multi-faceted as an over folded origami puzzle. We can probe and bend it and it changes and rotates. We come at it from different angles and not only does it appear different, but since each team member is pulling and stretching on their own, all are doomed to failure in attempts to pin it down with descriptive darts. Our creative puzzle is folded by one, unfolded by another, turned, rotated, shoved together, and finally ripped and torn, yet somehow it survives in some form to emerge victorious not only in its complexity, but in its continuing ability to resurrect itself in a new form.

So, if I was in sales, I would now advocate an advertisement for the Ronco group creativity stretcher, guaranteed to insert every team member’s best creative input into a final group product with just a turn of the dial. However, since said creativity stretcher is currently backordered, instead we must all trudge along in the age-old method of putting heads together and working things out through brainstorming, conversation, and, yes here it comes…talent! Yet, each person’s experiences must also be filtered for each group product as well as their “team” collaborative skills, how old school is that? Call on the technology hero, he can save the day, you say? Well, wiki’s can be sticky when everyone is picky. Use email and the web, you say, well, okay, but I still want to see my group’s faces some day.

The pitfalls of illness and a fourth-quarter change, wreck havoc making our schedules necessary to rearrange. Varied pace and constraints may be quite essential, but more structure is often to our taste preferential. How to sort out what is internally or externally supplied, gives us pause to exclaim much more must be supplied. It is an origami puzzle with chocolate frosting, an enigma that too much time, it is costing. So, much as Heisenberg, we seek a method to describe how a creative product can come from a tribe. As elusive as all this, we cannot deny, that regardless of the odds, we’ll give it a try.
So, as we come to the close of our group project debate, we see that we still have much thought on our plate. We’ll exclaim as we ponder these with our new found delight, happy creativity to all, and to all a good night.
Smiles!

String Theory and Creativity

String Theory and Creativity

I’ve been pondering the infinite trying to expand my brain with divergent ruminations and I found that my thoughts not only collided, but sometimes merged into something entirely new. No, I wasn’t using any type of chemical enhancements, but I did catch a glimpse at something that might be of use: a string theory of creativity.
In a recent interview with a creative person, the idea of boundaries needed for creativity kept creeping up. Structure, by nature, may be considered by some as anti-creative, but I would argue that without some structure, creativity has no canvas on which to spread its colors. So, in combining this with the idea of string theory, we have the possibility that creativity happens in a set of vibrating “strings” based on the nature of the structure of the string and the divergent creative vibrations induced by one or other factors. These factors could be willful, in terms of a person, as well as environmentally influenced and passive, in terms of the available patterns of the physical universe.

So, here is how this could work: A string of any sort is defined by its structure, including length, composition, overall shape, and perhaps “color”. These attributes are all inherent in the string, but could be influenced by the string “player” as needed. For example, a string player could have shorter strings, with fewer possible vibrations (less experience) or could have longer ones that may have been frayed or cut (too many divergent “activities”). The strings could have different thicknesses (the amount dependent on the person’s fluency or ability to collect them.), as well as be arranged in different shapes or patterns (dependent on the space in the environment as well as the skill of the string player to arrange them in different ways.) The strings could be “played” in many different ways (creative products), and produce “waves” (influencing factors that could induce additional vibrations) depending on how “loud” ( the big “C” creative vs. little “c” creative) each string’s vibration composition may be. The string “player” could choose to play one single vibration (one work of creative impulse) or could create many successive vibration waves (many prolific creative ideas/works). Some strings may resemble others or be completely different. Nuances of the strings themselves may include color or even “flavor” which could influence both the nature of the vibration creative waves that they produce as well as the possible amount of creative product that could be produced with them alone. Some strings may combine in ways that produce more “resonance” , go a greater distance, and have more “influence” on other strings than other strings. In this way, a group of artists or creative people with repertoire’s of creative impulses tend to produce a “resonant” choir of creative vibrations. However, this is not always necessary, as one string or set of strings could be assembled by a string “master” that could out-vibrate the combined efforts of many others. (like Mozart, Monet, etc.)

I would invite others to explore this idea of strings as a metaphor for creativity theory and how it works. I feel as if I am just learning to pluck my own strings, and in expansion for my next thought, how could these vibrations of strings be combined (converge) to MANIPULATE something in the environment itself! (i.e. like a Marionette puppet!) Think Shakespeare here…”cutting my strings”, etc. Tune in next time and I’ll expand on this some more.

Destination Imagniation

A quick tour through the ideas of Destination Imagination.
Destination Imagination is a student team competition that involves creative pursuit of a challenge or set of challenges that the students have to problem-solve in order to complete. It is a successful student extra-curricular “competition”, but could its principles and programs be utilized in other ways? As a former sponsor of student teams such as Odyssey of the Mind, Science Olympiad, Science Fair, Technology fair, Drama conferences/puppetry competitions, robotics fairs, and several others, I think that I have a good perspective from which to review Destination Imagination. Much of the program is very well done, but a closer analysis may help to see where it stands in relation to current educational goals and where it may be able to go in the future. Here are some of my observations and ideas about the DI program.

Commendations:
1. Team approach, seven members is the right number for good group dynamics. Also, cognitive abilities are not the most important factor for team member participation. (Unlike some mathematics competitions, etc.)
2. Open-ended challenges offer greater room for creative or original solutions than some other similar competitions with a “kit” available to use to “do” the challenge.
3. Encouragement of fluency in certain content areas.
4. Offers an output for certain creative impulses for kids that may not be served anywhere else.
5. Competition is present but not stressed at a high level.

Questions:
1. Authenticity? Always a question with regard to many of these extra-curricular or enrichment activities. To what degree are these challenges addressing the types of problems or challenges that students may face today or in the future? This is not exactly clear. Further thought to why each challenge is presented may be needed. How is it related to possible future skills/content/learning? How are these challenges tied to the community, country, or the world of today or tomorrow?
2. Alignment with Learning Standards. Many are “listed” in a document on the DI website, but it is not clear how or if any particular standard will necessarily be addressed by any particular challenge. Due to open-ended nature of some of these, it may be difficult to align these in any specific way with learning standards. This needs careful consideration before it can be said that any one challenge definitely does address a specific standard of learning. In a sense, the educational “objectives” of what students should Know, Understand, and be able to Do are not clearly articulated, but this is inherent in the open-ended nature of most of these challenges, so it may be rather difficult to make these connections within the design.
3. Twenty-first century skills. Some of these do address the new skills needed in this century as identified by several educational groups. However, are these skills TRANSFERRED or connected from the DI activities to other areas of the curriculum or needed learning? What type of research should be done to determine whether any of the skills, knowledge, or ideas generated through DI are being utilized in other content areas, or if the students involved are able to transfer these skills to other disciplines?

How DI could be implemented within the school day: (pros/cons)
1. As a Separate class. One teacher only needs training. Easier to schedule, but may not be feasible for one teacher to coordinate all activities. However, this also may not be possible for all students to have equal access if they can not fit this class into their schedule.
2. Within one class. Again, easier to schedule, but it will take away time and resources from the current teacher/class. What should be done to insure that DI does not adversely affect any other parts of the curriculum?
3. Integrated approach across disciplines. This may be the best approach of all. Teachers share responsibility for team groups and their challenges. Schedule may be an issue depending on how it fits within the existing curriculum. Requires all teachers to be on board and work together in the challenges (this may or may not be an issue in some schools). Requires training of all teachers in DI, which may be cost and time prohibitive.
4. Only some elements are stressed or utilized. Some may be easier to use than others depending on the nature of a school’s curriculum. However, the entire program may have a greater impact than piece-meal approaches. In addition, could a team compete with other groups without doing all parts of the challenges?

How DI as curricular component could change school:
1. Nature of learning—student centered, constructivist, instead of didactic. Students and learning take the center stage (literally).
2. Standards of content—some pure “content” may be stressed less over thinking and making the “next best solution” the goal rather than the grade or passing a specific test on content.
3. Assessment—the nature of the assessment process may have to be adjusted. Tests that require students to think in unusual ways to solve a problem may be needed to assess how well this program is working.
4. Cooperation instead of competition between classmates. Working together is always preferable, although some competition can also be a good motivator.
5. Celebration of success in thinking and original ideas rather than skill or perceived ability. Levels the playing field in some ways in that higher cognitive ability may not necessarily translate into higher achievement in DI.
6. Social nature of group problem solving may change the way students view school itself. In my view, anything that can “de-institutionalize” the school system and make it more student-friendly is a virtue.

What about the Creative Problem Solving model and DI?
CPS in a nut-shell:
1. Objective Finding. Situation, Brainstorm goals, Consensus choice of one.
2. Fact Finding. Brainstorm related facts, rank relevance, all perspectives given.
3. Problem-Finding. Brainstorm-re-statements of problem. Get best consensus definition.
4. Idea-Finding. Diverge—brainstorm all possible solutions to problem, then Converge—Sort/rank these.
5. Solution-Finding. Brainstorm criteria of best possible solutions. Rank these and then choose a best solution based on matrix.
6. Acceptance-Finding. Implementation issues are brainstormed and implemented into solution for best acceptance.

Now, this type of problem solving is useful in some areas specifically. In science, for example, parts of this would work well for a group trying to design something in engineering or trying to get a good idea for a science project. Destination Imagination could offer some of this type of problem-solving through its challenges and CPS and DI would work well together as models for approaching group problem-solving. This skill set might be transferrable in this type of setting. However, with students choosing the goals and objectives in DI, there would need to be some careful supervision and guidelines to insure that the process would work properly and the group would not get distracted by alternative possibilities. The pre-set parameters of DI challenges including limited time, space, and materials help to constrain certain tangents, while encouraging others. This same approach could be used in more general terms for the entire program, but must be carefully adjusted to the developmental level of the group. Balancing the right amount of constraint with the right amount of freedom of creative expression would be critical. From the aspect of “Flow”, the right amount of challenge and potential success from previous skills must be balanced such that the group will have the maximum possibility for growth and learning. If DI could be designed for level-specific feedback and control loops for groups, such that it could be adjusted appropriately as groups gained skills and needed greater challenges, then it could possibly show through research how it not only could encourage creative thinking, but actually teach it! This would be important for addressing some of the questions such as alignment to SOL objectives and transfer of the new 21st century skills.

Two General Ideas:
1. The overall system of public education must become more balanced towards constructivist approaches and creative expression in terms of its goals, philosophy, and objectives. This is asking the system to move towards DI some.
2. Programs like DI must adjust some of their parameters and implementation options such that they can be utilized by schools as part of their curriculum. In this way, they may need to move a bit towards the “system”. However, they can maintain their mission, but just plan to offer more streamlined “options” for those systems that will want more potential structure or specific content addressed through any program used within their schools.

Destination Imagination is a good program worth pursuing right now as either enrichment and/or extra-curricular as well as potentially meeting many of the 21st century educational goals. We need more programs like this to explore alternatives and encourage our future creative thinkers.

Creative Scavenging

Creative Scavengers
So, what makes a product creative? Hmmm…perhaps if it makes your eyebrows raise by even an imperceptible amount or maybe it elicits an emotional response beyond that of the usual environment. To what degree does initial shock value or novelty factor into classifying a product as creative? On my journey to find creative products, I stumbled across a variety of ideas. I submit, to consider the following:

1. “The Foreigner”, a play I attended recently the UVA drama department’s Culbreth Theater, written by Larry Shue and directed by Richard Warner. The set design was by Rachel Witt. The late Larry Shue was from Shenandoah, VA and wrote several plays including this one for a Broadway production back in the 1980’s. This production was interpreted through the lens of local director Richard Warner and illustrated the method of creative interpretation of a product through a more modern viewpoint. The play follows the mis-adventures of an introverted English man who is distraught over the illness of his wife and is taken to a lodge in the Georgia hills to get away for a few days. In an attempt to make sure his friend is left alone, the members of the lodge are told that he cannot speak English and that nobody should talk to him. However, in the best of southern traditions, they soon begin to talk to him, educate him, and even get him involved in their lives. As a “fish out of water”, this character learns how to grow in many ways through being someone other than himself. I tended to think about how ironic it was that a play was tackling the theme of how we all tend to need to get out of ourselves sometimes to find ourselves, which is exactly what actors IN a play do. In this way, I thought that this was a very creative idea for a play and very well interpreted by the actors, director, and set designer. It illustrates that often a good creative product not only provides a surface level of interest, but has a bit of depth to it that can elicit a creative response FROM the audience or people viewing or experiencing the product. The more people who develop responses, the more varied the interpretations. In addition, a creative performance is interpreted through the lens of the director, actor, and scene designer in that any singular performance gives each audience member an opportunity to connect to the themes and ideals of the play in a unique way. A creative product should present such depth of expression, skill, or innovative thought such that it can be viewed from multiple perspectives and at multiple “angles” by many diverse individuals. The thought of each person “projecting” his or her own set of experiences onto the canvas of the performance is what allows each to really assemble their own set of themes from both the nature of the performance as well as the prior experiences now connected to it. In essence, this type of creative product CHANGES THE MIND…in some way and MAKES one assimilate and accommodate something new into the current schema.

2. The Monticello Visitor Center. The recent addition to our local historical presidential home was designed to look ancient, but function as a modern visitor center. Now, normally one might think these to be crossed purposes, but this structure illustrates many of the creative ideals of not only Thomas Jefferson, but also such architectural styles as those of Frank Lloyd Wright. The structure appears to grow out of the landscape and then to have elements from an old mountain cabin. However, when one enters, there is an amazing amount of natural light through a specially designed skylight system. The unique COMBINATION of many elements to make this structure function aesthetically as well as practically, make it a creative product.

3. U2 Stage! I had to include the recent stage and set of the U2 concert in this list mostly because it was an amazing feat of creative construction! The shape and dimensions of the stage as a giant claw as well as the incredible amount of innovative engineering to get all aspects of this production to work in so short of a time make it a quite creative product. It provided the backbone of inspiration and setting for an amazing show. In this case, the product is creative because its function goes BEYOND what one would normally equate for such an item. In a sense it does MORE than an ordinary stage of this type. Watching people respond to just the stage was quite interesting…much pointing and questioning as well as the “awesome” factor of the size and complexity of this structure made it quite a conversation piece. A unique combination of previous ideas and items, along with the sense that it provides aesthetic as well as functional fuel to the musical performance, make this a creative product.

4. Three bear puppetry at the Old Michie Theater. Although, I have worked with OMT before, I had not seen this particular show. It goes through the classic tale of Goldilocks, but with a bit of a happy ending. The puppets show remarkable artistry as well as providing a unique view of the appearance of a “bear”. In addition, the sets and scenery, scaled for these characters, was often the source of fascination by many of the young audience members. They connected with the story (like in the Success method), as well as the simplicity, unexpectedness, concrete puppets, credibility of the story, and the emotional responses elicited by the music and the puppetry. In many ways, this type of show illustrates much of the SUCCESS method from Heath’s book, “Made to Stick”.

5. A glass violin! On a recent trip to Williamsburg, Va, I had the privilege to view a performance by an artist who uses glass instruments including a glass violin! It is quite a rare item and very difficult to design and craft such that it will not break and so that it will produce the proper sound as a violin. In this case the rarity and difficulty in terms of artistry, skill, and craftsmanship required to produce this type of item make it remarkably creative. The material and nature of it are definitely outside of what one would expect for this type of instrument which also makes it quite a creative product.

Now, I can’t go forward without showing at least one example of something that I consider to be “not creative”. Downtown there is an unfinished hotel building that has been standing for almost a year. It was proposed as a way to draw tourists to the downtown area, but due to many factors has remained an unfinished eyesore and stalwart of traffic and progress. It illustrates that even the best ideals of a creative impulse can go awry when not conceived properly. This project was not properly supported or funded and stands not only incomplete, but it’s very future existence may be questionable. Much expenditure of time and effort went into it, but very little of benefit has resulted. So, what makes something NOT creative? Perhaps the broken promise of greatness, or the underlying resolute pursuit of economic gain over purity of form comprise part of this disappointment.

So, in summary, the items viewed as creative did the following:

1. Shifted the mindset or schema of the audience.

2. Provided depth and breadth of interpretation and interest

3. Combined products or ideas in new or unique ways

4. Followed many aspects of the Success method

5. Were rare or unique in at least one aspect of their creation.

And, the “not” creative item did the following:

1. Had conflicting or alternative agenda related purposes

2. Was produced for a practical need that was not clearly defined

3. Was superfluous or just re-used many aspects of previous projects in the same way

4. Was incomplete in vision or scope

5. Expended much effort or resources for very little return.

Keep scavenging for creative stuff...

Sticky Creative Ideas

What makes an idea, creative product or other innovation "stick" or "go viral" or otherwise catch on? What is the relationship between popularity of the idea and the level of creativity?
There is a difference between creative product and a sticky product. Innovation recognition depends often on the societal “readiness” and culture in its willingness to embrace any new idea. This is also dependent on both the accumulation of culture as well as recent or present situations or circumstances. For example, any catastrophic event that affected a society or culture such as a large hurricane or terrorist attack would shift the societal ethos and “readiness” for any particular type of either creative or sticky idea. Furthermore, the familiarity of any culture with particular ideas, skills, or techniques, may make some ideas less creative or sticky than they would be otherwise. The classic example would be the glass beads traded to the early Native American peoples for food and other trade goods. To the European culture, they were commonplace, but to a different culture, their stickiness and worth was valued much higher.
As an example of how people often can mistake the sticky product from one that is creative comes from the popular home-improvement show, “Ask This Old House”. They run a segment each week called “What is it”, in which they ask some of their crew to try and imagine what some odd creative construction invention is used for. The answers are often absurd, humorous, or downright ridiculous, but always creative. Often the correct answer to this weekly puzzle is even more outrageous than the ones given by the crew. Now, even though this TV segment is obviously scripted, it is based on some of the impressions from many different viewpoints on how any particular item may be used. This, I think, is an excellent example of how any individual’s judgment of the “creativeness” of a product is very much colored by their individual perspective. Now, whether or not any of these items are “sticky” may yet depend on how they are received by the public, but first impressions in this case are not always on the mark, which leads us to consider society as a whole and how they view any types of new ideas.
Is there a bell curve to popular ideas? I often wonder if the general public places value on any product or idea based on how much it will appeal to the middle of the bell curve of use for living. If something has a use for enough people that they will go out of their daily routines to pursue it, then it is considered “creative”, however this may not always be the best indicator of whether any single idea is really creative. A so-called sticky idea that follows the SUCCESs method from Heath and Heath’s book “Made to Stick” would be Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and involve a Stories. However, not all creative endeavors produce simple or even completely concrete products. Some may involve some of the Success method and not other parts. For example, a good play or dramatic performance may not be simple. Take the Michael Frayn’s play, “Noises Off”, as an example. It is extremely complex, but incredibly hilarious and engaging. It also does not produce anything concrete except perhaps a spoiled plate of sardines at the end, so it may not meet all of the aspects of the Success method, yet I would argue that it is amazingly creative. In fact, I happen to think it is one of the best plays in its genre ever written.

So, what creative ideas, then do I think will “stick” in the future, (besides duck tape)? Here are a few examples:
1. How about holographic ultrasonic interactive images.
http://fusionfilter.com/?p=1702
Being able to feel a holograph might be a good way to interact with people from quite a distance apart. Ultrasonic compression wave emitters developed for some of this technology could have significant applications. Imagine tiny ultrasonic bugs that could take out real insects by zapping them with ultrasonic waves, or disinfect surfaces by zapping them with this type of compression energy. The right frequency could rupture cell walls and perhaps even explode the casings of viruses! However, this might be dangerous unless we could find highly specific frequencies of resonance for the size and shape of certain viruses. Who knows, a tune by someone like Michael Jackson played at a rate of 100 KHz might be just what is needed to eliminate H1N1 from a surface!
2. What about a pill or therapy to increase your “creative” genes/ mutations.
According to recent information, (http://fusionfilter.com/?p=2499) each person has between 100 and 200 mutations in his/her genes. This means that each person has the potential to derive some type of creative impulse from a different part of the nature equation in at least a slightly different way from any other person. In other words, no two people have exact genes AND the epigenetic factors of the environment both present and past contribute to differences that may be even larger in our lives than the genes or mutations themselves. Now, we have not as yet identified which particular genes may contribute to creativity. Is there a creativity gene? However, my question is whether or not any of these genetic mutations could offer us any particular benefit in our creative abilities? Is this something we should pursue? Can or should we engineer genetic mutations to move ourselves forward in the evolutionary ladder or will we, in the process, just turn ourselves into mere human machines? Could we possibly give ourselves gene therapy and make ourselves more “creative”? I think the jury is still out, but the potential exists for a great amount of stickiness here.
3. Here is a sticky one for our energy woes, the ultra-tiny fuel cell:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/02/19/sugar-cube-sofc-fuel-cell/
Imagine being able to power all of your devices in your house with a gallon of water! Solar energy could be used to electrolyze water, then a set of fuel cells turns the resulting hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity! It operates much like a NASA spacecraft! (And, by the way, we’ve had some of this basic technology since the 1960’s, but until recent years have not done very much to pursue its potential)
Now, ask yourself if you think any of these ideas are “sticky” today. Did you know about any of them prior to reading this blog? Do you think that the general public will find any of them “creative”? Is this, then, more about the timeliness of certain ideas OR whether or not a particular idea has POTENTIAL to have a large impact on society. We know that many creative ideas from the past continue to have influence today, but maybe not all of them. However, the criteria for many sticky ideas may not only lie in the psychology of current human experience, but in our own practiced skill at envisioning how any idea will affect our own future. I think we as a culture are getting better at a more divergent view of potential future directions, but unless you happen to be a Science Fiction buff (ahem…like me.), an artist, engineer, or technophile, you may not have a perspective that is farsighted enough to encompass the potential of a particular creative idea. However, some of these ideas have a way of sneaking up on us if we don’t keep our eyes open.
So, what should you do? (Shameless advertisement spoof goes here…) Why, get some future visionary goggles, they help you see into the future…just dial in the number of years and you can immediately know what’s hot and what’s not for the rest of your lifetime and many more to come…Just imagine how impressed your friends will be with your insight and vision, and you can even use them to help with future investing too. Now, due to the nature of causality, we can only offer them to a few select clients, so sign up now for your free home construction kit…You’ll wish you did.
Put yourself into the future, then look around, you’ll know what sticks then.

Creativity and Compulsive Dissonance

So, what to say about a cache of creative people? Are they similar or different in any describable foray? If we hold a mirror up, do they make a perfect reverse image, or do we get an even more bizarre recollection of them? I propose that what we see in creative people is a type of compulsive dissonance. Some may call it compulsive deviance, but I am not sure that this is correct, because deviance is dependent on a normal scale. However, dissonance exists within anything that has describable structure regardless of whether it is perceived as being outside of the normal by a particular group. Deviance is relative, dissonance exists, but must be manifested.
Creative people exhibit a type of dissonance that defies the usual efforts of a culture to marginalize it into submissive silence. From many of those recent creative people that have graced the stage of class and screen, we often see how they are drawn, pushed, or connected in some way to a type of dissonance with the status quo. Now, sometimes, granted, this is a structure imposed by a culture or society, but not always. In some cases, creative people create totally without regard to a culture or societal normalizing influences. They build or make or do something just because…They are often viewed as, well, just plain “weird”. However, the compulsion to DO something with this dissonant urge is where we see real creativity manifest itself.
So, does that mean that repression defeats creativity? Well, it may quell this compulsive dissonance urge in people, so it may stifle the initial buds of the creative flowers, nipping them into submissive silence. However, not all of them can be cut off so easily. Some find sunshine or a place to extend outward into the wider world. Those that have the resources both internal and external to flourish, will send their shoots skyward regardless of the established fences of repression. Now the enlightenment periods of history do seem to indicate that flowering of expression and potential for creativity happen when there is a shift and recognition of some type of dissonance. How, then can this be effectively described. Consider the following metaphor.
Consider the world existence as a large pond, fed by a stream on one side and a waterfall on another. Inside the pond, things appear relatively quiet, with only a few ripples that move toward the waterfall at the far end. Everything appears to be harmonious, only it isn’t. Small variations in the stream and water coming in will alter the ripples on the surface such that they will move slightly away from their normal pattern. In addition, any rocks or leaves, or other items temporarily caught up in the overall current will move and make their own ripples that may at times go with those of the pond, but at other times move away from them. However, they are still subject to the forces of the water moving them around on the surface. If they don’t then they sink and are no longer relevant on the surface of the pond. Now, if you’ve followed so far, then consider that the creative people are the leaves, sticks, and rocks, in the pond. Actually, everyone could be one of these. However, some are under the surface and, thus, currently irrelevant to the “conversation” on the surface. Those that are relevant are making ripples in their own way toward, away, or laterally in relation to the slow overall current. Larger objects or items, make either larger ripples or ones that move out farther. Smaller ones, make smaller ripples, but they still make ripples, nonetheless. This is, I think, a good metaphor for creative people. The so called small “c” creative people make small ripples ( or waves), and the big “C” creative people make larger waves or ones that have an effect over greater distances. Those that have come and gone are under the surface, but that does not mean that they are gone forever. Any of them could be dredged up to the surface by a change in current objects or a change in the overall flow of the water in the pond…If or when, this happens and more of them create a more interesting ripple pattern in the pond…voila, we have the renaissance! Well, maybe not always, but at least it gives us a relative metaphor for conversation.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. Those who make dissonant ripples in the pond, may even cause the overall current or flow of the stream to CHANGE COURSE, at least in some small ways. If a large boulder gets into the pond, making a big splash, it will cause a complete shift in the direction of the water on the surface of the small pond! This is what we may call a paradigm shift in society or its views. How does this happen? Either the current brings the boulder in, the water level changes, or the boulder FALLS into the pond from outside somewhere and makes a difference. So, there is no ONE way that this dissonance may occur, but many paths. However, the path of the water will have been changed by it and may not go back to its original pattern for a long time, if ever.
Now, the compulsion of this dissonance is the interesting part. What causes these items to move into their position? Gravity? Wind? Water currents? Or, is it a complicated combination of their size, shape, density, environmental factors and HOW THEY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER? So, the amount of dissonance may be relative, but it still exists, even in a small amount for each object! The overall conditions may favor or prevent full dissonance by any particular object at any time. However, with the right combination of design and environment…one stick can make a big splash in the pond.
Now, similarly, if a stick or leaf wants to make a ripple, but the water has pushed it up onto a rock, then it doesn’t have the chance to do anything in the pond right now. However, it may still have the chance to make ripples later, but the rest of the surface is not aware of it until, for some reason, it falls back into the pond. In the same sense, some creative people may want to remove themselves from the pond in order to prepare their ripple plan or wait until the conditions in the pond are more favorable to their type of ripple…
So, look at the people around you and ask yourself if they exhibit any compulsion for a particular dissonance. Do they feel a need to make waves? Do you feel a need to make a few for yourself? Keep your senses tuned and search for signs of dissonance. You may just witness the creative genius of the next era.