Archives

Questionnaire for Organizing Creativity 2

It’s been a few years since I wrote “Organizing Creativity” and in the meantime I have learned a lot. I am also critical of the style of the book — I wanted to write everything I knew, I did and it shows. It contains a lot of information, but it is not exactly easy to read.

So, I am currently working on a new version, more concise and more useful for practical application. For this version I would like to ask you for your input. How do you organize your creativity? What skills and tools did help you? What gave you a boost in working. The questions are very broad and no matter how trivial or supposedly widely known it is, I really like to hear about it.

Which skills help you to be creative?

Which tools help you to be creative?

Is there anything else you think is important for creativity or its organization? If so, what is it?

In which areas are you creative?

If you want to, you can also give your name and eMail, but you don't need to. I promise not to abuse this information.

Your Name

Your eMail

Thank you in advance :-)

Daniel Wessel

What are you doing?


Cut from “The West Wing”

The cut above reminds me of something we often lose: Take a breath for a second, step back and ask yourself: What are you doing? Are you really doing what you want to do? What is important for your? What makes your heart beat faster? What motivates you to get out of bed with a smile?

Don’t get me wrong, no job, no matter which, will always be fun, always be great, nor will you always succeed in it. But there are two things that should characterize any worthwhile job, and I include creative work in the past time to this:

  • Over a medium time-frame (let’s say up to six months), the balance of the job in terms of enjoyment vs. dissatisfaction should be positive.
  • The job should have consequences that go beyond the work itself — be it people inspired, making the world a little less hostile or complicated, etc. pp.

If you are doing something that is not worthwhile, creating something each and every day that does not move your heart, then perhaps it’s time to stop and think — and find an alternative solution.

Drawing Digitally and the Aura of Artworks

#Nanoreplicator, #FAC20
Look at any photograph or work of art. If you could duplicate exactly the first tiny dot of color, and then the next and the next, you would end with a perfect copy of the whole, indistinguishable from the original in every way, including the so-called “moral value” of the art itself. Nothing can transcend its smallest elements.
CEO Nwabudike Morgan, “The Ethics of Greed” in “Alpha Centauri”

While the introductory quote can be discussed critically — after all, the artist didn’t touch the replicated atoms, didn’t put them himself in place — what about digital art?

Imagine Picasso had used an iPad and Autodesk Sketchbook Mobile (given that it would have been available) — what would we put in a museum?

We’re not talking about reproduction here, but about an artwork that is purely digital, never was anything but bits and bytes. There is no original. It would also make no difference seeing the same digital image on one’s PC at home (excluding the effect of the setting itself). So, what can you put on display?

Do you exhibit the iPad Picasso had drawn on, preferably with the image still in the graphic program? Something the artists has touched? Or does a museum loose its value? Does it become superfluous, because the work can be everywhere? Or shouldn’t real artists embrace digital, even though most writers readily accepted typewriters and personal computers? Should artists print out the work and sign it themselves on that print, to give it a unique touch? Or does it not matter and reproductions are still worthy of being exhibited, like works of digital photographers are exhibited?

What do you think?

Careful with Human Memory

#Neural Grafting, #TECH52
I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine, just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams, the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness: dark, rigid, cold, alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.
Commissioner Pravin Lal, “Man and Machine”, in “Alpha Centauri”

I’m very critical of just trying to remember ideas. Once a project has a certain size it becomes almost impossible to keep all ideas in mind. It’s also very difficult to quickly restructure ideas or get an overview of the strength of different parts of the project. It’s essentially the point I’m trying to make here — creativity needs organization and this usually means creativity needs tools.

Some tools use advertisement like “it stores information like the human brain does”. Why should this be a plus? It usually doesn’t mean that it forget information by itself, but that it uses a mind map/concept map like structure similar to a semantic network (few tools actually try to store information in neural networks). Apparently, this should help working with the information because it is familiar and “how the mind works”.

I’m also very critical of these tools. Why should it be like the human memory? It should support it. A digger doesn’t look like a hand, nevertheless it’s much better for digging.

Usually these tools are very graphic oriented and need a lot of screen size (to display the maps), become slow and buggy with increasing input, and often degrade into a superficial mind/concept map like structure with attached text files. And there’s another issue — they are often inconvenient to use. Give me a database/wiki or (for smaller projects) an outliner any time, but unless it seamlessly integrates with the human mind (like the quotation above), it shouldn’t be similar. It should have the necessary functions of an idea collection and allow me to remember, generate, find, add, and restructure ideas. Anything that deviates from that and reduces usability is disadvantageous, no matter the similarity to the human brain.

After all, we want to support the human brain, not copy it.

What do you miss because it seems ridiculous to you?

“State your name, rank and intention.”
“The Doctor, Doctor, Fun.”
Dr. Who

A few years back I stumbled over the series “Dr. Who“. I don’t own a TV, so it was mostly Wikipedia entries and some other references. Thing is, it confused me. What I couldn’t understand was, how someone could like such a series. It didn’t make sense to me. Stupid aliens, a box that’s bigger on the inside, story lines that seemed unbelievable. It kept nagging in the back of my mind until I decided (more or less on a whim a few weeks ago) to buy the first four seasons of the relaunch. I went to work somewhat sleepy for the next days because I watched the episodes whenever I could — usually until late in the night/morning. I now own seasons 1 to 5, including the specials.

Thing is, once you start watching the episodes you discover well thought out story lines — which discuss issues that go beyond the things you see (and, with the tenth doctor, someone with a stylish sense of dress).

I was reminded of the usual reaction as a child/teenager when I said that I loved watching Star Trek (TNG & DS9). For most people, Star Trek is just bad actors badly dressed with masks claiming to be aliens and some space battles. Only when you start seeing the topics they deal with — human nature, issues like prejudice, hate, fear, sanity and much, much more — it goes beyond deep. It uses the age-old trick of telling stories which are highly relevant in a way that makes dealing with the issues no-threating. Nobody is offended if “aliens” do something that everyone with half a brain recognizes immediately as playing on a common human trait or at the behavior of a specific country. And, seriously, the idea of illustrating the stupidity of prejudice based on skin color by having an alien race have either the right side of their body in white and the left in black or vice versa (actually a TOS episode) … brilliant. I learned more about ethics and morality from Star Trek than from anywhere else, including the years of “catholic religion”/”ethics” in school.
I don’t think that Dr. Who is similarly deep (sorry), but it has something — it’s very stimulating and raised questions and brought me ideas. And I nearly missed it, because I reacted with rejection when it made no sense to me at first.

So, what do you miss out because it seems ridiculous to you at first glance?

What are you gonna to photograph, worthy of me …?

J.J. Abrams once said:

So, that — you know, I love Apple computers. I’m obsessed. So the Apple computer — like those — the PowerBook — this computer right — like, it challenges me. It basically says, you know, what are you going to write worthy of me?
J.J. Abrams in a TED Talk

I think something similar happens — or should happen — in photography. Not only with cameras, but it starts there because they are easy to acquire. There are some really brilliant cameras and lenses out there, my personal dream would be the Leica M9 with a 50mm/f2 or f1.4, but it’s going to be a long way until I can afford one (then it’s probably the Leica M10 or M11 ;-) ), and I think they come with a responsibility to really use them. I mean, I’ve seen photographers with top-of-the-line equipment (usually Canon or Nikon professional level cameras) who thought that the camera does it for you. It doesn’t — and it shows if you think so. And in many cases, they make shooting harder, not easier. You have to see, to compose, to show something that is usually not seen. A camera might give you more options, but these options easily distract from concentrating on the technique … and the motif.

And that’s the second thing here … I think that a photo is comprised of essentially two different aspects: the technique and the motif (which should nevertheless ‘fit’). A beautiful motif is ‘easy’ to photograph in the sense that people will look at your photo and say: “beautiful model”, or “beautiful dress”, or even “whoa yur pict is hot! thanks for posting it. did the job. ;) “. But what does this have to do with creating a great photo? The person was beautiful or the dress was well made, where’s your contribution? For this reason, I think it’s hard to make a great photo if the motif is beautiful because it’s so easy to make a good photo. When you have a beautiful model its beauty — like the options with a camera — are a hindrance to a great photo, not a boon. You have to ask yourself: What can you do that really shows her in ways neither she nor the audience has seen herself? Or to put it differently, how can you top the beauty that is already inherent in the motif?

In a way, I think Heinlein said it best when one of his characters was talking about Rodin:

“Anybody can look at a pretty girl and see a pretty girl. An artist can look at a pretty girl and see the old woman she will become. A better artist can look at an old woman and see the pretty girl that she used to be. But a great artist — a master — and that is what Auguste Rodin was — can look at an old woman, portray her exactly as she is … and force the viewer to see the pretty girl she used to be … and more than that, he can make anyone with the sensitivity of an armadillo, or even you, see that this lovely young girl is still alive, not old and ugly at all, but simply prisoned inside her ruined body. He can make you feel the quiet, endless tragedy that there was never a girl born who ever grew older than eighteen in her heart … no matter what the merciless hours have done to her. Look at her, Ben. Growing old doesn’t matter to you and me; we were never meant to be admired — but it does to them. Look at her!”
“Stranger in a Strange Land” by Robert A. Heinlein

There are a lot of photos floating around of beautiful models, beautiful dresses and beautiful locations, but there are few really great photos.

So, if you got a camera and a model, what are you going to photograph, worthy of what you have?

Some literature tips to add some creativity to your sex life

Life without sex might be safer but it would be unbearably dull. It is the sex instinct which makes women seem beautiful, which they are once in a blue moon, and men seem wise and brave, which they never are at all. Throttle it, denaturalize it, take it away, and human existence would be reduced to the prosaic, laborious, boresome, imbecile level of life in an anthill.
Henry Louis Mencken

Some time ago I did a posting about creative sex. So, let’s talk about some inspiration. I think that the following books are really well-written and educative.

Note: People are curiously touchy about sex, especially those who shouldn’t have it, or only in special circumstance or for special purposes. If you have a problem with it, don’t blame me. Stop reading.

For Women (and especially for men)

I think people who do not find out what stimulates them miss out a lot. And there are a lot of women for whom creativity in the bedroom (or anywhere else) is lost because they do not know what stimulates them. If a man is not aroused, everyone can see it. If a woman is not aroused, well, I guess that’s a common scenario Saturday evening is a lot of households, but only one person knows, and nobody cares. So my first literature tip to enable you to add some creativity to your sex life is:

  • Sincero, J. (2009). The Straight Girls Guide to Sleeping with Chicks. New York: Fireside Book.

Not only interesting for (would be) lesbians or straight women who are curious, but also for men. And to all those women who do not know what stimulates them — please, please, please read this book. You can’t expect your partner to find out what stimulates you, even a mind-reader needs some kind of feedback. And that’s you. You have to care and take matters into your own hand. You have to know for yourself what stimulates you first. And this book is well written and very interesting … and educating.

Strength and happiness in (the right) numbers

I’m still unsure about polyamory — and the book that really got me thinking was:

  • Easton, D., & Liszt, C. A. (1997). The Ethical Slut. A guide to infinite sexual possibilities. San Francisco, CA: Greenery Press.

Very interesting ideas if you want to live an open relationship — and keep your standards.

It’s not real ‘pain’, actually …

There are a lot of misconceptions about BDSM. Some people think it’s abuse, others think it’s the only sex that really counts. In my opinion, both are far off. But it is hard to define, I’ve met people who think that vanilla sex (= non-SM-sex) includes handcuffs, blindfolds and teasing until you explode, but they are “not into anything SM”, and others who think their extremely ritualized and ‘anything less than the very extreme is pussy vanilla sex’ conception of BDSM is the sacred truth (never understood why vanilla sex should be irrelevant or inferior, but some seem to think so, strange). Well, I think it’s whatever floats your boat (and your partner(s)’s boat(s)). It’s what you make of it, what you and your partner(s) love to do, whether it’s an action or a situation or clothing or anything — as long as you and your partner(s) can agree on it. This said, the following books are kinda interesting:

For introduction:

  • Miller, P., & Devon, M. (1995). Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns. The Romance and Sexual Sorcery of Sadomasochism. Connecticut: Mystic Rose Books.
  • Wiseman, J. (1996). SM 101. A Realistic Introduction. 2nd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Greenery Press.

For tops (the one doing the dominance or inflicting the ‘pain’):

  • Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2003). The New Topping Book. Oakland, CA: Greenery Press.
  • Varrin, C. (1998). The Art of Sensual Female Dominance. A Guide for Women. New York: Citadel Press.

For bottoms (the ones who enjoy the incredible attention during a session):

  • Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2001). The New Bottoming Book. Oakland, CA: Greenery Press.
  • Varrin, C. (2001). Erotic Surrender – The Sensual Joys of Female Submission. New York: Citadel Press.

For spanking enthusiast:

  • Hardy, J. W. (1996). The Compleat Spanker. Emeryville, CA: Greenery Press.

And last but not least, some pointers on bondage:

  • Wiseman, J. (2000). Erotic Bondage Handbook. Emeryville, CA: Greenery Press.
  • German: Grimme, M. T. J. (1999). Das Bondage-Handbuch. Anleitung zum erotischen Fesseln. Hamburg: Charon-Verlag Grimme KG.

So, these were some literature tips regarding sex. BTW, if you live in Germany near the Stuttgart area, you might be interested in this course: it’s very well done and I can highly recommend it.

But I also have a question here, because I am curious and I’m interested in further improvement: Do you know any inspiring sources? If so, I’d be interesting to hear about the sources (persons, quotes, books, ideas) that gave you ideas. Simply leave a comment or write me an eMail.

App Art?

app_art

There are a lot of good apps for the iPhone. Yesterday I stumbled upon an excellent replacement for my default camera app, called Camera+. It allows you to shot photos really quickly by saving the image as a background process and not locking up the application like the Apple default camera app does. And it has a good suite of editing functions with filters like Lomographic and Borders like Instant that can give an ordinary photo a special look (see above).

Or can’t it?

I’m actually torn regarding the functions that Camera+ and other apps like Instagram and Hipstamatic offer. Can they really make a photo special? Is the photo above on the right side better than on the left side? Can you just click on an effect and get that special Ansel Adams style? Or is a crappy photo still a crappy photo, no matter how well the effect looks?

How much is in the camera, in the App that affects the photo, and how much must be in the eye (and mind) of the photographer? Photographers like Ken Rockwell would probably argue that learning to see, learning to decide what makes a good photo cannot be delegated to a computer program. But I wonder when the first Apps appear that will analyze a photo on the fly and offer recommendations for a second or third photo from a different perspective. Or when you simply move your camera around and the camera decides when you have found a good angle to capture the scene. But who will be the artist in this case? And is it still art if you simply click on a button to “enhance” your image?

What do you think?

Learning from Professionals in Courses

The internet has also been bad for the hobby, the way it’s bad for all hobbies, Hughes says — because it’s an attractive diversion. (Still a technophile, Hughes has been on the net since before the web).
“Police Call King Calls It Quits” by Kevin Poulsen

I am usually a friend of book learning (now more Internet learning) or learning by experience (except in those areas where a ‘wrong’ experience is also likely to be the last). Experiences with courses were usually … not so good.

The longest weekend of my life was an InDesign course that I took to get a cheaper license — the instructor could not teach me anything I did not know except two or three little things, and he had the annoying habit of repeating every sentence three times in slightly different words. After the first two or three hours, my brain wanted to commit suicide. My fault (I was too advanced for the class), but even the beginners were looking for ways to resuscitate their brains. In another course (Salsa), the dance instructor tried to use a method that might have worked in Latin America, but was a complete disaster with German university students. “I do not show you the steps, you must feel the steps.” Yeah, I felt each step I took as I left. And even when the teachers were really good, sometimes it was the topic itself. In a drawing class we only had a few hours — much too little time to learn the technique well. The course was good but it left me unsatisfied.

But this weekend I took an interesting course in another hobby. The course blew me away and changed my mind about taking courses. It was one of the best courses I have ever taken and I’m going to continue with this hobby, which hopefully offers another outlet for my creativity (independent of computers and the net, these hobbies are needed as well, see the quote of this posting). So, I think that in some instances, courses from professionals can be really great. What are these instances — I think these here are some criteria:

  • Big difference between reading about it and actually performing it. Some things are hard to describe in books and easy to misunderstand. Some things cannot be understood until you were in the situation. Some require others or an audience.
  • Very steep learning curve. The content must be small enough to quickly learn the skills. It’s more a “see how it is done and do it” than “repeat it again and again until you can do it”.
  • The instructor is an expert in the topic and knows how to convey the topic (two completely different aspects!). Sadly, most of the teachers in public courses (e.g., community colleges) are people who couldn’t get a job anywhere else. And even more sadly, some people think just because they know the topic, they also know how to teach it (more sadly, because this can be learned oftentimes more easier than becoming an expert in the topic itself).
  • The discrepancy between you and the instructor in skills is large enough that the instructor could ‘blow you out of the water’, yet the instructor is still motivated and able to help you advance your skills.

But I think the most important difference, which was really crucial in this case, is the following:

  • The professional has a vested interest in the quality of the course (e.g., your learning). This may be personal standards, perhaps because they work as a team and other professionals are educated this way as well, perhaps they hope to attract customers (if this does not compromise his teaching), but there must be an encouragement — other than the money you pay — for them to do a good job.

So, if these conditions, and especially the last, are met and you get the chance to learn from professionals, try it. I still feel a little giddy from the course and the day at the Spa to come back down again, so, do you have other criteria I forgot to mention?

Adapting to the world vs. keeping the necessary distance to change it

I often ask my students to scribble down in class the reason they want to write, why they are in my class, what is propelling them to do this sometimes-excruciating, sometimes-boring work. And over and over, they say in effect, “I will not be silenced again.” They were good children, who often felt invisible and who saw some awful stuff. But at some point they stopped telling what they saw because when they did, they were punished. Now they want to look at their lives — at life — and they don’t want to be sent to their rooms for doing so.
“bird by bird” by Anne Lamott

I met an interesting woman today, who told me that she wrote frequently as a teenager, but stopped writing when she lost the drive to do so. If I understood her correctly, this was due to the fact that her communication with others improved and she no longer needed to express herself in writing.

I think it makes sense and I was reminded of the quote above, but I am also … torn regarding a person adapting so well the world that she does not need to express herself in writing. Granted, not every written text is interesting, not every book has something worth remembering — or not every drop of ink makes people think (to misquote Voltaire). And yes, a world full of neurotic writers would be a terrible place to live in.

But thinking about it a little bit longer, I fear that perhaps a voice was lost. People who adapt to this world to use its imperfect systems perfectly might benefit personally and mentally, but they might also loose their ability to see the world differently, to change it for the better.

But I also see that keeping the right distance to the world and its systems is very difficult. You must not dive too far into it to adapt (or be adapted) to it, nor climb to high to loose contact with it. If you sink too deep, you are swallowed by the world, if you climb to high, you probably begin to think in the lines of Dr. Manhatten in Watchmen: “I prefer the stillness here. I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.“. It takes the right height to keep an attitude like: “I see and do things differently, but I am staying, because I love this world and want to change it.”

Perhaps it amounts to people not settling down, to people keeping their desire to deal with complexity, with conflicting viewpoints and pressures. People who see the “easy” or “comforting” option and say “No.“. Yes, perhaps, in a way, they might have to be masochists, or at least be able to handle constant pain, confusion and feelings of quickly varying distances.

I think it is very easy to sink into the world and loose that perspective. The advantages are high — you improve your efficiency in dealing with the world — but I fear that the disadvantage is that a voice is lost for changing it.

But I might be wrong. What do you think?