Presentation from a KIK-Seminar (Creativity in Creative Media)

1. Teodor Bok

2. - Background
• Creativity as a problem in
education
• Creativity as a floating
designator
• Generic Models (Micro
(Settings)), Meso (Designing
design), Macro (Social diagnostic
– Political)

3. Von Trier- Distiction
• ”In my opinion, creativity is
completely involved with limitations.
For instance, even in our childhood,
when we want to draw something, there
is a limitation concerning the paper.
All sorts of creativity are concerned
with the specification of our
limitation. Drawing, writing or
whatever.. . . Creativity is our
limitations.” (Ozcan 2004)

4. Beyond understanding
“On the relation of analytic psychology
to poetic art,” Carl Jung (1933) leaves
open all definitional possibilities:
Any reaction to stimulus may be
causally explained; but the creative
act, which is the absolute antithesis
of mere reaction, will forever elude
the human understanding.(p. 23)

5. History
• Romanticism vs rationalism
• ” I want to be a machine”

6. Creatio?
• The concept of creativity is difficult to
grasp. The etymology of the word refers to the
act of divine creation – that is creating
something out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).
Often, creativity has been associated with the
“divine inspiration” that artists in particular
are gifted with. Such use of the concept is a
construction of 19th Century romanticism.
However, it remains a part of our everyday
understanding of what creativity means.
Typically, creativity is seen as something
special; deriving from inspiration, and
constrained by rationality.

7. Post War
• In the years following World War Two, there was an
increasing interest, especially within American psychology,
in identifying creativity traits and to developing
measurements for individual creativity. Growing criticism
from the fields of psychology, management theory, and also
learning theory of this notion of measurability has opened
up for a number of alternative understandings.
• Firstly, they tell us that creativity is a term that is
used to describe how novelty is generated.
• Secondly, that the understanding and hence the definition
of the term is a product of history and culture. In
consequence, it is difficult to define creativity in a
general sense. Rather it has to be understood in the
particular socio-cultural context where it is debated and/
or where it occurs (Sawyer 2006).

8. Definition:
• Nonetheless, venturing a general
definition of the concept of
creativity, a tentative bid could
be:
• Turning potentials into accepted
new form(s).

9. Explained
• Meaning that we do need to have something (potentials),
which should be given form – This form should be new
otherwise it might be appropriate but not creative. This
form should then again be accepted. Accepted means not
necessarily accepted as – but that this very form will be
considered.

10. Csikszentmihalayi & Co
• In a slightly different but also more
operational model the generative socio cultural
model suggested by Sawyer with references to
Amabile and Csikszentmihalayi defines three
elements: Person, Field and domain. The creator
develops new ideas. The field then again decide
whether this is first of all appropriate and
then whether it is “new”. These gatekeepers
then allow for the product to enter the domain
– or it is rejected (Sawyer 2006).

11. This Model

12. The interesting part would then be
to observe – how this is happening
• How does creativity take place?
• ”A Micro-Case Study”
• We will move back to the sixties

13. 1969 - Den eksperimenterende
Kunstskole 1961-69

14. Imposed Contraints
• Four Steps
• Role setting
• Objects
• Reality
• Viewer
• (No post manipulation)
(Morell 2009)

15. Result
• Rubbish
• Lack of Competence
• Mastering

16. Tentative Components
• Mastery (ANDERS K ERICSSON)
• Estrangement (Koestler)
• Programme (Idiosyncrasy vs.
isomorphic pressure)(Alvarez2005)
• Double double competence (Helms)

17. Four Micro Cases
• Ålen and von Trier Dogme/Zentropa
• René Redzepi and Claus
Meyer :NOMA
• Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Sean
Parker :Face Book
• Olafur Eliasson and Einar
Thorsteinn : Eliasson Studio

18. Cases
• Ålen and von Trier • Mastering
Dogme/Zentropa
• René Redzepi and
• The
Claus Meyer :NOMA estrangement
• Mark Elliot • The programme
Zuckerberg and Sean
Parker :Face Book • The
• Olafur Eliasson and organisation
Einar Thorsteinn : • Double
Eliasson Studio
competencies

19. How does these four set ups
avoid the isomorphic
pressure
• Mastering
• The estrangement
• The programme
• The organisation
• Double competencies

20. Back to the definitions
”I define creativity as the emergence of
something novel and appropriate, from a
person, a group, or a society.” (Saywer
p.33)
A product or response will judged as
creative to the extent that (a) it is
both anovel or valuable response to the
task at hand, and (b) the task is
heuristic rather than algortimic
(Amabile p. 35)

21. And Innovation?
• Innovation is another phrase that is widely used and
almost as widely defined. When engaging in
innovation, one deals with the process where novelty
is transformed into a new practice. Or as Theodore
Levitt (1963) put it: “Creativity is thinking up new
things. Innovation is doing new things.” However,
the two terms creativity and innovation tend to be
used interchangeably, and therefore they can be
difficult to differentiate. This may be explained by
the evolution of the two terms; creativity primarily
being related to art and to scientific areas as
psychology, art studies and to some extent
philosophy; and innovation being an offspring of
social science, economics and management.

22. And
• Just as is the case with the concept of
creativity, it is possible to identify an
evolution in the understanding of innovation
from being the achievement of a heroic
individual, and to a present day focus on more
organic and combinational models (Tuomin,
2006). Analytically, it is also possible to
identify a progression from a stage where
innovation results from specific knowledge
regimes (science or development departments) to
more horizontal models such as user driven
innovation (Hippel, 2005), open innovation and
broad-based innovation (Chesbrough 2003).

23. So..
• In short, we may characterize
innovation as turning new forms
into accepted new practices; or
to put it more simply: innovation
is turning creativity into new
practices.
•

24. So..:

25. Research Questions
- Hylo-Morphic Models
- Temporary Settings (How does
creativity take place)
- Materiality in Creativity

26. References 1
Alvarez, Jos´e Luis (et al.). 2005. “Shielding Idiosyncrasy from Isomorphic
Pressures: Towards Optimal Distinctiveness in European Filmmaking”, in:
Organization 12 (6): 863–888.
Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and
Constraints. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Ericsson, K.A. Prietula, M. J. and Cokely, E.T. (2007). “The Making of an Expert",
in Harvard Business Review, July–August 2007.
Frank, S. 2010. Mød verdens bedste kok, http://www.aok.dk/restauranter-cafeer/
artikel/verdens-maaske-bedste-kok
Fischer, G., (2001): “Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of
multiple knowledge systems”, 24th Annual Information Systems Research Seminar
In Scandinavia (IRIS'24), Ulvik, Norway, pp. 1-14
Guilford, J.P. (1950). “Creativity”, in American Psychologist, 5 (9).
Gleerup, Jørgen (2007): ”Behovet for en ny praksisepistemologi”, Alexander von
Oettingen og Finn Wiedemann: Mellem teori og praksis, Syddansk
Universitetsforlag.
Gleerup, Jørgen (2009): ”Fra simpel til kompleks og emergent kausalitet”, Dominque
Bouchet: Forandringer af betydning, Forlaget Afveje.
Helms, N.H.(2010):”Kan vi lære af Kunsten”..
Hjort, M. (2008): “The Five Obstructions”, in Carl Plantinga (ed.): The Routledge
Companion to Philosophy and Film Paisley Livingston. New York: Routledge.

27. References 2
Ingold, T. 2010. “The textility of making”, in Cambridge Journal of Economics 34:
91–102.
Lave, J., E Wenger. (1991). “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Morell, L. (2009). Broderskabet - Den eksperimenterende Kunstskole 1961-69
Ozcan, O. 2004: “Feel-in Touch!: Imagination through Vibration: A Utopia of Vibro-
Acoustic Technology”, in Puppetry and Multimedia Art Leonardo, 37 (4): 325-330.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Philipsen, H. 2009: ”Spilleregler i filmskabelse behjælpelige begrænsninger”, in
Mathieu & Pedersen (red.): Dansk film i krydsfeltet mellem samarbejde og
konkurrence. Stockholm: Ariadne förlag.
Røjel, T.2010: ”Verdens bedste”, http://www.information.dk/231390
Suchman.L, (1987): “Plans and situated actions : The Problem of Human-Machine
Communication.” Cambridge University Press, New York.
Zetterfalk, P. (2008): Inter Esse, Det skapande subjektet. Norén och Reality
Gidlunds förlag. Stockholm.