Welcome to Organizing Creativity. Blog postings are below while the whole book about Organizing Creativity can be found under Organizing Creativity Book.

“I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin … sort of stretched, like butter spread over too much bread. I need a holiday. A very long holiday. And I don’t expect I shall return. In fact I mean not to.”
Bilbo in “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”

I started this blog as an add-on to the digital version of my book on organizing creativity on 31st of May 2009. Since then I have written about 125 blog postings. I even manged to write a posting a day for over a month recently.

But at the moment, I’m burned out and I need some time off.

However, even if there are no new postings here for the next few days/weeks/months/years, I strongly suggest to have a look at the book itself, which can be read (completely) on these pages (use the book navigation at the bottom of the linked page) or browse through the blog entries I have written so far. I especially like the book pages that creativity is more than one idea, how to organize creativity, the creative process (and that creativity needs hard work and time), and the different sections on capturing and collecting ideas (for the later especially using Wikis to organize personal creativity). Of the blog entries, the ones dealing with DokuWiki and Scrivener are very popular and I agree, they are helpful and very interesting:

Wikis

• Ferret Frame
• DokuWiki Adjustments
• Some major DokuWiki Adjustments
• Some nice structuring helps for Wikis
• Literature Reference Management with DokuWiki

Scrivener

• Scrivener — A perfect program for dissertation writing
• Circus Ponies Notebook and Scrivener for Writing
• Circus Ponies Notebook for Academic Writing (e.g., Thesis Writing)
• Circus Ponies Notebook: The Best Tool for Structuring Creative Writing Projects (esp. Research Projects)
• How to Write a Dissertation Thesis in a Month: Outlines, Outlines, Outlines

Well, I hope you have fun reading here …

Best regards

Daniel

It is perfectly easy to be original by violating the laws of decency and the canons of good taste.
“Over the Teacups” by Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1891

In most cases when people try to symbolize creativity, they stick to images of wild brushes and colors, colored boxes, and so on.

Is this first association of creativity right?

I don’t think so. I think this first association of creativity is dead wrong. I think it sends the wrong signal, like all you need for creativity is some colors and there you go — you can be creative simple as that.

But it neglects an important aspect: The knowledge and skill that is needed.

Anyone can draw a picture that has never been drawn before, especially with wild bushes where you cannot even be accurate. But that’s not creative. If it were, we would all be cherished artists — or rather, art would loose its appeal because anyone could do it. To be creative, you have to understand your trade, you have to be very skilled at what you do, to create exactly the vision you see in your mind, to convey exactly the emotions you want to convey, to get people think with a drop of ink (Voltaire, I think). As said, creativity is not madness, it is good for something. And you have to know the prior works to avoid merely repeating the past.

That needs more than a brush and some colors.

It’s similar with “conventionally” “creative people”. The prototypical creative, be it in art, in software design, or in science, has wild untidy hair and shows gestures and general behavior that would be regarded as childish and unacceptable in any other person. Sure, this person often breaks up the all-to-serious behavior of other people with his act, but how can any person that acts this way be creative? How can this person learn the necessary skills, gain the knowledge, that takes time and serious study?

I think in most cases these conventionally creative people are either extremely serious and devoted real creatives who wear a mask in public because they think it is expected from them (and over time, this mask becomes their second skin) — or they are false creatives that simply cover themselves with overt indicators of creativity but do not produce real creative works. Instead these false creatives bring a lot of confusion into groups and then integrate the results in the way that they come out on top. In the best cases their energy can bring a group forward, if the group is willing to pay the price that the creative takes the lead, in the worst cases the creative scoops up a lot of ideas and presents them as his own.

For some large projects this is needed, but in most cases I think I would prefer to work without the ‘help’ of these conventional and false creatives.

MISTAKES

It could be that the purpose of your life
is only to serve as a warning to others.

Mistakes Demotivator by despair.com

We are usually turned-off by bad design and what we consider as bad art. However, I think that you can learn more from bad (or even worst) practice than by best practice (and much more frequently).

So the next time you find something ugly, or useless, or atrocious, have a closer look. What is missing? Where did the artist or scientist did make a mistake? What went wrong? And how would you have done it?

You can learn a lot from other people’s mistakes — and in some places, it’s all you can do anyway.

There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged
to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
Nelson Mandela

Was there a time in your life when you did the same kind of creative projects over and over again? Sewing some dolls with only some minor variations? Drawing images of a common theme? And then you stopped and haven’t done them for a few years?

Then you might try to revisit these old projects and start new from scratch. It might lead to some pleasant surprises.

I noticed this a few days ago. For me, this kind of serial creative project was making calendars. During my time as a student at the university I would create a new calendar in december for the coming year. I designed the page templates once and then changed the content (there always were three quotes and one image for a day). I printed the pages myself and used a file folder to hold them. I did this for a few years and it suited me well, but then I did not have the time and stopped doing it.

Until now. After seeing Keel’s “Simple Diary” (it first looked like a nice idea, but I found it much to constraining — like a creative solution for those without creativity — and much too commercial) in a store I wanted to revisit the old projects and created a new calendar from scratch. I didn’t need to use the file folder system, given that there are book-on-demand services now. I actually began to design a calendar like I would design a book — and I think it turns out beautifully, and much, much better than I ever did them years ago.

So, I think that revisiting an old serial creative project can be very beneficial. Your perspective has changed, your tools have improved, so have your skills. You still feel at home in the area you worked in, but without attachment to prior themes or techniques you can actually start from scratch and do major changes and — in some cases — make huge improvements compared to your prior work.

And you might realize that it’s still fun to do.

He’s capable, but accident can strike down even the most capable.
“Dune” by Frank Herbert

We can become depended on our tools quickly — which is natural and beneficial. After all, tools enlarge our options, allow us to do things we couldn’t normally do — and the better the tools the larger this effect is.

But it poses problems when you loose the access to the tools. The one danger is that you leave the setting (e.g., work environment) and suddenly do not have access to the same tools or services anymore. The other danger is that a tool you use breaks.

I think there is no tool where you see the effect as dramatically as with computers. You see an artists studio who works with physical tools, e.g., paint, canvass, accessories, etc., and you can imagine the loss if it all goes up in flames. But in some cases you only see a 13-inch Mac Book Pro, a mouse and a power cord and you cannot even imagine the scope of the materials that this little computer contains. Vast archives of interesting texts or images as food for thought, whole studios contained within a single application like Photoshop or Illustrator, a printing press within InDesign, and much much more.

And within the split second of a lighting strike, or the slow and agonizing two seconds when you notice that the glass of wine is tipping but you are to shocked to do anything, it is all gone.

Given that being creative is the life-blood for many of us — and that nothing hurts more than not being able to be creative because the tools are missing — it is a very good idea to keep the money necessary for a replacement system. This does not only mean the about 2000€ for a new Mac Book Pro, but also investing the money in an infrastructure that makes a backup quick and easy: An external hard disc drive you use for time machine backups, burning DVDs of your data every month or so, and making damn sure that you have backups of all the programs you use including the license keys.

Not only will it save your creative life from a total loss if or better when the virtual studio goes up in smoke, it also allows you to take your notebook to places you would not normally take them. I noticed this with my DSLR camera. When it was “my precious”, it was very hesitant to take it to places where it might get damaged. But now that I have decided to replace it in the near future, I am much more willing to take it — for example — up a climbing wall to shoot some photos of people climbing from above.

Having the replacement money/infrastructure allows you to climb a steep rock, knowing that when you fall there is a climbing rope to catch you. Doing it without this replacement system is like doing a free solo — you might like the adrenaline, but like in climbing, even if you do not fail, your tools might.

“‘Let’s stick some arsenic into President Bartlet’s drinking water and see if he delegates responsibility to the World Bank then.’ ‘President Bartlet’. You reffered to me and to the office with respect. You’re a class act.”
President Bartlet in “The West Wing”

I have written about the difficulties of “telling truth to power”, but the older I get (BTW, I am still young, I’m at the breaking point when the vibrancy of youth meets the wisdom of old ) the more I am convinced that there is no real danger, as long as you keep the respect for the person you are talking to.

The reason is quite simple: A person who is willing to accept feedback will recognize the respect and accept the feedback. This person might not do what you recommend but what he or she thinks will solve the underlying problem. But a good person to work for will accept it.

However, if you give feedback with respect and the person does not accept the feedback but blames the messenger, that’s the persons problem — and it’s a very bad place to be. A place poisonous and stifling to personal growth. A place where the soul dies and you loose interest in leaving your beneficial impact in life.

And no matter how much you like consistency and really, really hate to switch workplaces, in that situation its the best that can happen to you, no matter how much you really, really, really loath it in that moment. It’s a kind of litmus test whether you are at the right place — and life is too short to be in the wrong place. And remember, people who like their jobs have often left jobs which they did not like. Good people can afford to do this — and they should do it.

Because no matter what you might learn from bad experience, without really positive experiences with your supervisors you may not get into the situation to apply the positive lessons you drew from the bad experiences.

So, in short, as long as critique is respectful and directed at the problem and not the person, it is okay.

“I know that we have grown apart and that’s as it should be. We learn what we can from certain people, then we move on after we’ve taken what we need. When we learn nothing new about ourselves in a relationship that’s when the relationship is over. Or it’s over the moment when we’re afraid to learn something new about ourselves.”
Garak in “A Stitch in Time”

In my life I have had some very good friendships. I’ve never been the one to have “lots of ‘friends’”. I’ve always had only a few, often times during my life only one or two real friends — or none. But if I had friends that I called that name, they were friends I could count on. It was the kind of friendship that was succinctly defined by Doc Holliday in “Tombstone”:

“Doc, why you doin’ this?”
“Wyatt is my friend.”
“Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends.”
“I don’t.”
Turkey Creek Jack Johnson and Doc Holliday in “Tombstone”

But unfortunately, some of these friendships are in the past — because I have ended them. The last time I did this was a double act. I have had two very good friends who were also friends with each other. But I ended my friendship to them, among other reasons, because one of them became very arrogant over time and treated other people disrespectful without reason, and the other one became very conservative. But the main reason was not the way they acted towards others, it was the way they acted towards me. And it wasn’t that they changed in their interaction to me. The problem was that they did not change — when I did change.

Both treated me in a way, sorted me into a category, I no longer did fit in. I changed, but they did not notice it — and this constrained me, held me back. While I did develop, changed and (in my opinion) improved, they did see me as I was years ago.

And I could not make them see these changes.

They reacted to prompts automatically without noticing that their old and well-oiled reactions were inadequate for the person they were now facing. I could either let them force me into an old mold that no longer fit me or I could leave.

And since I liked myself more than them — I did leave.

It was a hard decision and I have often been criticized by later friends because of this. I have also heard that I am overly strict and should be more forgiving. There might be some truth in that, but I still maintain that it was the best decision I could make under that circumstances.

I am responsible for myself, I liked them but I liked myself more.

I think that friendship should be in the present and improve the future — it should not use up the present to reminisce about the past and impede the future.

But it was a hard decision nonetheless, and I have spend some time thinking about them. I feel that I have abandoned them, that my decision to end the friendship came without warning and was extremely unfair — and I think it really was. But I still maintain that it was the right decision — for me. It might have been inconvenient for them, but it was soul-damaging to me.

People can change — and they can also change for the better. But they cannot do it if their environment always tries to force them to stay the same, simply because that’s what’s best for them, because it is familiar and safe — and does not require any effort of them.

Leaving my friends has destabilized me, there have been times when I would have needed them, their support, their advice. And friends are hard to replace, especially in my age. It’s very hard to meet people with whom you want to be friends again, because the standards are very high and we are not so forgiving to strangers than we are to friends.

But even if I might end up alone, it was worth it.

I’m rather living up to my potentials and enjoy my life, than cripple myself to make life more convenient for them.

“Science must be innovative. It brings change.
That’s why science and bureaucracy fight a constant war.”
Dune Vol. 6: “Chapterhouse Dune”

I’ve made my own experiences lately regarding the difficulty between creative research and administration.

We needed to buy a new mobile eye tracker at our institute. The science staff interested in working with it had a look at competing offers, and, after some long and intensive discussions, we decided for a model from a start-up company. The company is small but their product is — at the moment — the best one we could find. The proposed mobile eye tracker was discussed among the scientific leaders at our institute and we got the information that they had agreed to it.
We thought that at this point, the process was finished and we happily began to look out for the package containing the mobile eye tracker.

Unfortunately, the buy-order did not pass administration.

Administration was concerned regarding the age and future of the company. It is not uncommon that a young company folds after a few years — or even months. And they were concerned that the young company we decided to buy a mobile eye tracker from would die in its infancy — or at least, before the warranty was over.

So they vetoed the decision.

I can understand their standpoint — a mobile eye tracker costs about 30.000 € and that’s a lot of money. I write this with the vibrantly dark memory of conducting the experiments of my diploma thesis on then-stone-aged Pentium computers in a run-down department. So, yes, sure, administration has to justify the purchase before outside auditors and they need good arguments — even if the young company does not fold.

Consequently, over the next weeks, we were hard at work to provide administration with recommendations for the mobile eye tracker by other scientists (not an easy task, given that the company was young and had only sold a few models so far). When we got at least two recommendations, administration began to highlight their concerns in the recommendations.
Now, the recommendations were really good — within technological limits. But administration did not treat them that way. They treated a mobile eye tracker like they would evaluate a car. What was important for administration was not important for the scientists working with the technology, and even worse, what administration considered an asset, was a disadvantage for science.

For example:

• Duration of experience with the technology: Administration wants long term experience but that is not sensible with rapidly evolving technology
  The researcher who recommended the mobile eye tracker bought it “only” nine months ago. For administration this was too short for a real estimate of how dependable the technology is. But mobile eye tracking is a rapidly evolving technology, kinda like the hey-days of computing technology, where Moore’s Law actually meant something (Hz is like money, once you have a few billions, you loose interest). There should be a new hardware version every year or two, and incremental software updates every few months. Long term experience does not only mean that the technology is robust, it also means that it is out-of-date, i.e., worthless for research where the quality of the measurement counts.
• Finished development: Administration wants to wait until we can buy the finished version but there will not be a finished version
  There’s an old maxim that you always buy too early in technology. If you wait a few months, there will be a new model that is superior to the one you bought — and it might even be cheaper. When I was in my last year at school, I (privately) bought a Pentium Notebook for 6000 DM¹ (about 3000 €). Today, I would get three notebooks for the same price, and they would all be way superior to the one I bought then. But it makes no sense to wait, you have to jump in and buy one of those constant-beta versions. However, that the company “since then they have made many improvements” was considered a negative for Administration. They proposed to wait for the finished version. I guess there will be a finished version one day, when the domain is no longer interesting and all burning research questions have been answered — by other scientists.
• Prototypes: Administration does not want to be the guinea pig but for research a prototype means that we can get data no one else can and that the developing company accommodates to our needs
  Administration wants technology that works with proven reliability, that you can specify, plug in and it works. Always, reliably, and continuous. For administration, prototypes are not products but things you keep in research and development — and you never sell them to unsuspecting audiences. But in some areas, prototypes are actually beneficial. We are researchers, we work on the cutting edge of technology, of knowledge, of science. If we can get technology that allows us to capture data that no one else can (because they did not think about it) it’s a huge advantage. We are not doing off-the-mill production work, we define what production for practice could look like. If we can get a company to give us prototypes to accommodate our needs, we dance in joy. We are happy to be guinea pigs because our work is this anyway.

In short, it’s a matter of perspective. What is good for administration is not good for cutting edge science — positive long-term experience, unchanging technology, robust construction, no new developments in sight — we’re not talking about buying a hammer or a car that drives us from A to B. We are talking about doing research in a rapidly evolving field, which describes all sciences that are not dead. And scientists are used to work with tools that are evolving rapidly, there is the need for constant learning of new methods — and the best scientists are heavily involved in refining the methods they work with.

Like I said, I can understand the perspective of Administration. They have external auditors they have to answer and they need those answers before an irrevocable decision is made that could cost the institute lots of money. I don’t think they are evil for vetoing the buy, their decision is rational and right one — from their perspective. Their quality criteria are opposite to ours, but this way, they constitute a necessary counterweight for scientists who would otherwise run the institute into bankruptcy. Unchecked, scientists would be prone to spending all their money on fancy but unstable things they spend all day improving instead of gathering publishable data. Administration has to be extremely skeptical and focus on the negatives. I guess, if we had included Administration earlier, when we were debating the different options, they would have seen our point of view and retrieved enough arguments to justify the decision to buy from a young company to the external auditors. And next time I am involved in such a purchase, I will try to do exactly that.

For now, however, I have to find a way to convince some very intelligent and rational people to do something that is not in their interest but in ours, to invest in something that might turn out to be a waste of money. And I don’t think that addressing their concerns regarding the long term experience, the speed of development, or being involved in the development of the technology we use is going to be a problem. I think it stands or falls with convincing them to trust a young company, because I think that this is their main reason for vetoing the buy. And they are right, there is a risk that the company might fold. I have the same concern. But I want to do some studies and I can’t do that without a new eye tracker (I had originally planned to have done them by now). Sure, I cannot do that if the eye tracker malfunctions and the company is no longer in existence for support. But frankly, I’m willing to take that risk, because it’s an acceptable risk in research.

But unfortunately, it’s not an acceptable risk in administration.

¹ No, I was not brought up with a golden spoon nor do I own one now. I worked for two(!) complete(!) summer breaks (12 weeks in total) from 8 to 5 o’clock in a medium-sized company. I earned that notebook and I sacrificed much for it.

Stańczyk by Jan Matejko (from Wikipedia.org)

Given today’s behavior of some politicians and king-like businessmen (and women), I desperately wish we still had court jesters as feedback system.

I don’t mean the press in general, or even satire magazines or TV shows. They are too distant from the person in power and can too easily be ignored. They entertain the masses (and make life under some politicians bearable, e.g., they also prevent revolutions), but they do not give open, impartial, and honest feedback to persons in power that this person can also accept.

In earlier times, there were persons who could do this — who were close to the king, trusted, honest, outside the hierarchy (i.e., impartial), and who knew the king and how to make him think when his immense power distanced him too much from reality. Who prevents that powerful people stop even considering that they might be wrong. Frank Herbert brought it to the point with his quote:

“Power tends to isolate those who hold too much of it. Eventually, they lose touch with reality … and fall.”
“Dune Messiah” by Frank Herbert

Court Jesters could be instrumental in preventing this — and it must be prevented, because the unchecked rule of a disconnected ruler and his fall usually brings a lot of chaos and destruction to the people. They damage a lot of lives — in earlier times often physically, today the damage is often to the psyche or the career.

Unfortunately, the times of Court Jesters seem to be gone. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the damage can nevertheless be done until these checks and balances work.

I can only hope that at least some people, who have unchecked power in one area of life, cultivate a person with similar qualities to stay connected to reality. And I wonder what the modern day equivalent of such a Court Jester could look like.

I watched the TED Talk by Johanna Blakley about fashion recently and it blew me away. Which is surprising, giving that I always¹ wear black and I’m not that interested in fashion. But I like beautiful dresses on beautiful women and I thought it would be interesting.

It was, but not because it was about fashion, or beautiful women, — but because it was about copyright.

Apparently in the US, it’s very hard to protect fashion design. There is no copyright protection, only trademark protection, because dresses are too utilitarian to own.

And they profit immensely from it.

They have to be creative constantly, because their newest design will immediately be copied by other companies. It forces them to up their game, accelerates development and allows them “to paint with a broader pallet of design choices”. You can actually take from the best and ignore the rest — and get away with it!
Imagine if you could ignore copyright in other areas. The kind of innovation possible, the kind of creativity that would have to be done because the big players can’t simply rest on past successes.

It will not happen, of course, given that the big players have all of their processes adapted to the current model and could not cope with a need for rapid innovation. They’re heavy infantry that would be lost in the woods, while quick special forces like design project would outmaneuver them.

But it would be very nice.

You can find more information at http://www.readytoshare.org.

¹ Unless colleagues give me a green/black shirt for my birthday and I have to wear it at least once.