Jared Potter is in the process of creating flame-jet drills. His prototype ejects a jet of hydrogen at 3200ºF. When this prototype is used on a slab of solid granite, rather than melting it the temperature causes it to shatter as it expand along pre-existing micro-fissures in the granite. Following a brief exposure to this kind of heat it produces a perfectly smooth hole in the stone. A second prototype is designed to function in high-pressure conditions that would damage traditional drills. This burns at 7200ºF. The flame is used indirectly to heat a jet of water causing it to bore through the rock and at the same time flushes the fragments of of the hole leaving a clean hole.
The motivation behind this innovation is to drill into the core in order to garner geothermal power. These devices can drill up to 100 ft in an hour, before it requires a replacement. These prototypes could revolutionize sources of energy and bring geothermal energy to the forefront as a readily available source of energy. The prospect of easily accessible energy could provide an inexpensive and realistic green alternative to current fuel sources.
Potter seems to be intrinsically motivated in that he has continued his father’s work and despite the obvious potential for profit his incentive appears to be harnessing a cheap and clean fuel source. According to the Collins & Amabile article creativity is frequently accompanied with intrinsic motivation. The document sites Crutchfield who stated that “greater creativity would result when a person was primarily intrinsically motivated to do a task.” (Collins & Amabile 299). They also acknowledge extrinsic motivation’s role in the creative process. It is generally deemed a negative attribute because extrinsic inspirations distract from the goal of creating and leads to cutting corners and shoddy work. This does not seem to be the case with Potter, in video footage of him discussing his work he seems enthused about the design and is not daunted by the fact that there are still years before he would actually be able to put his product on the market.
Jared Potter collaborates with a number of other people on this project. He seems to be at the forefront of this experiment, but this field requires input from a number of different fields. Collaboration is required to a certain extent in creative projects but is not by any means universal. A number of creative people have difficulty functioning with others because they cannot eliminate work. It should be interesting to see the results of this experiment in the future and how this will affect society’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Brian Dettmer is a force to be reckoned with. One website calls him “part artist and part surgeon.” His sculptures are truly unlike any I’ve ever seen. While I am no artist myself, and am not always fond of ridiculously elaborate art made from recycled objects (I’ve seen far too many pop can sculptures at a high school level where kids glue random cans and hunks of metal together and call it “art”) I can honestly say that Brian’s work intrigues me. It’s unique, it’s different, it’s creative.
While I can’t argue exactly what problem Brian solves with his work, I can argue that just as other artists’ work is necessary, Brian’s sculptures allow those with analytical, detail focused minds, to be satisfied when looking at art. Art, especially, is always evolving, always changing, and artists are always being challenged to come up with new ideas on ways they can entertain and bring joy to onlookers world wide. And in my opinion, Brian does just that.
Maybe part of the reason I was so drawn to Brian’s work is because he got his start right here in Chi-town. He went to Columbia College, and a lot of his artistic knowledge and skill most likely stemmed from his education there. At first, his focus was on painting. Little did Brian realize that by working a part time job at a sign shop would most likely alter the course of his artistic career for the rest of his life. This little ounce of luck, coincidence, fate, or whatever you want to call it, sparked the idea of incorporating Braille, Morse Code, and other forms of coding into his work. “His work began to explore the relationship between text, images, language, and codes,” which eventually lead him into using newspaper as a type of media, and eventually, you guessed it- books.
Brian describes his creative process as he began to use this new type of medium: “As I began to use books, I would rip pages out, feeling somewhat guilty when I would have the discarded crust of a book spine left over. I began to look at the book itself as a material to investigate and would seal them up and carve holes and shapes into them. One day I can across a landscape and decided to carve around it, then a figure emerged below and I kept going, kept excavating.”
I can almost see him sitting there, almost playfully tearing out pages in books, seeing vivid images in his mind, having that distinct moment of insight, and beginning to piece his work together.
He describes the same moment in a different interview, saying: "I was playing around with a block I had made out of an old encyclopedia. As I carved down through the cover and into the text, I came across an image of a landscape. I left it in place and carved around it. A few pages down, another figure emerged."
It was almost as if the work made itself, and he was just there as a puppet. I’m sure he had no idea that his childlike instincts of ripping out pages of books would lead to a new form of art.
Brian's work; in the process.
Brian is intrinsically driven, with a deep love for language and a deeper skill for art. He says, “I want the work I do to push the book far enough to become something new. I want to expose, re contextualize and amplify the power of the original without canceling it out. At the same time, I feel a certain obligation to release as much power or energy from the material as possible to justify cutting up a book.”
His creative process has now extended to folding, stacking, and rolling paper. He sometimes melts down cassette tapes and uses them to make unique sculptures, as well. The media and those in his field seem to be responding extremely positively to his work; he has had exhibits world wide and his popularity is continuing to grow. And yet Brian still seems extremely modest and humble regarding his creativity. Clearly an intelligent man (he graduated from Columbia with a BA in fine arts in ’97; his intelligence undoubtedly adding to his creativity) in an interview, when asked what was next for him in, he wittily responded: “dinner.”
As Andreasen describes, “creative people do not crave the absolutism of a black and white world; they are quite comfortable with shades of gray. in fact, they enjoy living in a world that is filled with unanswered questions and blurry boundaries.” (31) As time goes on, I see Brian continually comping up with new ideas, painting the world all shades of gray, and pushing the boundaries of art just as he has in the past.
Education is something that we are all familiar with. We all walked into our kindergarten classrooms with book bags that were bigger than we were and continued for a seemingly extraordinary amount of time until we crossed the stage in our caps and gowns to receive our high school diplomas. The memories that come to mind about this time and experience are probably more similar than we realize. We all took the same tedious subjects and conquered similar, if not the same, standardized tests to get to where we are today. Should this be the way it is though? That everyone's experiences are so standard that we could mix them all up and no one could tell the difference?
According to Sir Ken Robinson, the answer is absolutely not. Sir Ken Robinson is an internationally-renowned expert in the field of creativity and innovation in business and education and according to him the educational system used across the world today is doing the children today a great injustice.
Robinson realizes that education is something that goes deep within people, it is what takes people to a future that we can not even being to picture. He also realizes that children have extraordinary potential that is being squandered in today's educational system and therefore also squandering the future.
He has made a revolutionary, and creative suggestion and is now promoting it around the globe. He feels that these "reforms" that many schools are undertaking today are just trying to adjust something that is broken beyond repair, and what he says we need is a transformation into something completely new for our educational system.
He suggestion is that the education system realizes creativity is as important as literacy. Kids need to not be told that the worse thing they can do. They need to not be afraid to be wrong like adults are. It is due to this that kids grow out of creativity into a mold that fits us into developing talents that are the most useful for work. The education system today all has the same hierarchy of subjects, math and science, humanities, and then arts due to their seeming correlation with success in the "real world." Robinson argues that this is not the case, however. Why shouldn't dance and drawing be just as important? What is being a dancer or being an artist also considered a job? This attitude in the schools needs to be changed because it is causing brillant, talented, and creative students to think their not any of things because the things that were valued at school was not what they loved. Their needs to be a new definition of intelligence beyond scoring well on standardized tests and acing a biology exam. He states that intelligence is truly three main things.
1. Intelligence is diverse. The world needs a community of different talents and skills and diversity of talent in order to run smoothy and become a better place.
2. Intelligence is interactive. Most creativity comes from an interaction of seeing things in a number of different ways. Just as we learned in class, Robinson states that, "Creativity is original ideas that have value."
3. Intelligence is distinct. People must be open to finding and discovering hidden talents within.
According to Sir Robinson the educational system needs to concept of human capacity. Robinson uses analogies frequently to get his point across, which is something we learned in class than many creative people do in order to help common people more fully understand the way they see the world or the domain they are creative within. One analogy he uses is that the educational system is mining our minds, like we have mined the earth, for things that are no longer going to be of value to us in the future. Schools need to start educating the whole being, because a crisis of human resources is upon us. People think they are not good at anything, they don't enjoy what they end up doing in their lives. They endure it rather than enjoy. People who truly love what they do are rare. The reason for this he feels is because education does not "mine" for the natural talents buried deep within a person, and he feels the way to correct this is to create circumstances within schools to allow these natural talents to show themselves.
Schools today are centered around two things that it should not be:
1. Linearity. It is start to finish. He feels however that life is not linear, rather organic and should be treated as such.
2. Conformity. Everything is standard, when it should be focused on each individual.
He uses yet another analogy that sums up his main idea quite well...
That education today is like fast food.Everything is standardized, not customized which is depleting student's spirit and passion, just as restaurant food depletes our body of the nutrients it needs.
It is this creative perspective and outlook on the educational system that I feel makes Sir Ken Robinson a creative person himself. It addresses the two points that were covered in class. First, it is "novel," it is a new perspective and outlook that he was the first to introduce. Second, it is appropriate. It addresses a solution to a real problem. The problem being that the education system today is not serving students like they should be served, to no fault of the teachers, but rather to the foundations of which the broken system stands on, the solution being focusing on more developing individual talents and encouraging students to do what they are passionate about.
Just from his speeches you can tell Sir Ken Robinson is an extremely interesting person. He was born in 1950 in Liverpool, England to a working class family of nine. He endured several setbacks in his childhood including his dad becoming a quadriplegic after a work accident and suffering from polio as a child. If anything these set backs only encouraged him to perserve to make and impact and really do what he loves. It taught him to do take anything for granted for life is too short to spend it on something you are not passionate about. Something that obviously is reflected in his life work. He went on to earn his degree in English and Drama at University of Leeds and completed a PhD in 1981 at the University of London, researching drama and theatre in education. That both obviously gave him a great foundation for his future work. He had previously work with many programs that helped him to fine tune this perspective and vision he has for the educational system such as The Arts in Schools Project, which was an initiative to develop the arts education throughout England and Wales. He also worked as an advisor to the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Professor of Arts Education at the University of Warwick, serving four years as Chair of the Department of Arts Education, and as Chair of Research Development within the Faculty of Education. Also, he helped create a strategy for creative and economic development as part of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland.
Finally, Robinson was knighted for his achievements in creativity, education, and the arts by Queen Elizabeth II, for his leading the British government's 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education. This was a inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy. Obviously, his life story acts as support for what can happen when someone follows their passions.
The public seems to be in agreement with his plans for education revolution. They seem to generally feel that this is most definitely the direction that education needs to be moving, and that this should help to solve the issues of many children and teens to day feeling out of place at school. The educational community seems to also support his work, shown by numerous honorary degrees that have been awarded to him from several universities and colleges. Not only that, but government agencies, including Queen Elizabeth, seems to appreciate and see the value in what Robinson promotes. The only criticism is the amount of resources it would take for students to receive this education, but people generally seem to think the outcome would be worth any initial cost.
Relating this back to class, Robinson seems to fulfill the "Big C" category, because his vision of what education would be like is creating an entirely new paradigm. Not just fixing or changing something that already exists, but really creating something new from the ground up. Also, as I mentioned previously he uses many analogies when explaining his ideas and beliefs to the public, an important tool for many creative people in order to let other people understand the workings of their mind more clearly. He also seems to have used the tactic of "collecting"through out his life. Many of his previous work, and his early childhood can easily been reflected in his current work and views. His many experiences in interviews with people as well can be shown by the way that he truly understands the destruction that the educational system today is having in people's life. He has taken these peoples life stories to understand what needs to be changed. He shares these stories and experiences he collects through out his talks and his life to more fully present a picture of what happens when education is not individualized. Finally, he is a prime example of divergent thinking. He took something, education, and broke off in a whole new direction with it. Changing it from the building blocks we know today into something almost unrecognizable, at least that is his hope.
While Current TV no longer supports this format of programming, when the channel first began it was extremely different from other channels in that it formatted the majority of its shows around viewer created content. Current refused to be simply another news channel that told people what was important or unimportant. I remember watching the channel beginning in 2008 and being simply blown away at how many different shows and segments there were simply based in viewer submitted and created content. A number of news networks claim to integrate viewer opinions into their material but in fact do nothing of the sort. Current TV, created by politician Al Gore, was created specifically for this idea of giving the viewers a voice, and the use of viewer created content to fuel an entire channel proved a useful solution to the lack of public viewer opinion and content in news media. If this isn't a perfect example of collecting, then I don't know what is!
(Original Current TV logo)
There were a number of television segments and shows which helped harness and organize the thousands of videos submitted to Current's hosts online and posted on the Current TV Community boards. Some of the shows included Max and Jason: Still Up, Current Exposed, InfoMania, The Rotten Tomatoes Show, and the nightly Current News segment. The Rotten Tomatoes Show had two hosts, Brett Erlich and Ellen Fox, both of which have moved on since the show's end. Of course, the show was about film reviews. Viewers were encouraged and welcomed to go out and see films that Ellen and Brett would propose to present the next week, and after seeing the film come home and make a short review with their webcam or camera. They could then send it in to Brett, Ellen, or the show's email, and they had a chance to have their review aired on the program. As well, the reviewers who made it on tv would get a bit of cash for their review (around $100), which made the experience even more beneficial for the viewers. The audience's opinions could finally be heard! This was quite creative in that since film critique is said to be an open field, but in reality often falls short, that regular movie goers could have their own personal reviews broadcasted for the masses. The people's opinion was not only heard, but promoted through the integration and dependency on viewer created content for the shows. The producers and hosts are literally part of the production team as well, and they collaborate on various levels with the audience. Their collaboration is the heart and soul of the creative fuel of the channel, and the collection of viewer created content is vital!
(The Rotten Tomatoes Show hosts Ellen Fox and Brett Erlich)
I almost feel like it was this show that inspired me to go into film/media studies because I was utterly amazed at how the programs at Current TV worked. Everything came back to the viewers unlike any other show or television channel on the air. It was extremely enticing to see as a sophomore in high school and I can't help but miss it now that I'm a sophomore in college. Another one of the most viewer content fueled shows on the channel, and another personal favorite of mine, was Current Exposed, hosted by Douglas Caballero, who now co-hosts a Dallas morning show with Rotten Tomatoes' Ellen Fox. Every day after school, I remember coming home to watch Current Exposed and just being in awe of how many different people would send in short documentary-style videos about issues they felt were important in their lives. There were countless videos, a wide variety of show topics, and every video wore the heart of its creator on its sleeve. While the videos and segments in which Douglas Caballero himself would interview people on Current Exposed are no longer on the Current TV website itself, if you go to Youtube and simply search "Current Exposed", the interview videos of Caballero and other past Current TV hosts and workers show up in the results. More importantly, to access the viewer created content from the show, you merely have to go to Youtube, yet again, and search "VC2", at which point you will see countless videos with the VC2 in the title and the user who posted the videos being Current. The VC2 (which stands for 'viewer created content') videos cover a wide range of topics and the creators of the videos were viewers from around the world. The channel thrived on this VC2 and found a creative way for people to be heard. Again, collaboration and collecting are the most prevalent elements of this channel.
(host Douglas Caballero discusses a piece of viewer created content-or VC2- with a guest from Current's offices)
Where most channels say that their viewers matter and that their voices will be heard and made vital to the channel itself, very few follow through with this promise. Current TV, back when it first began, fulfilled this promise more than anyone could have ever though possible. Audiences tire very easily of being told what is important by the same news broadcasters and experts. The public opinion matters. Current solved the problem of lack of public input and opinion in the news and media by creating a channel which would run on viewer created content. Though the channel has taken a severely political turn and cut out almost all, if not all already, viewer created and submitted content, the remnants of what the channel was in its glory days are still out there, floating around the internet for everyone to investigate for themselves. The channel began a creative revolution in specifically using VC2 as its material in a journalistic world where experience matters and more often than not the voices of the public go unheard. The journalists worked their best to collaborate with viewers, and this collaboration created an entirely new way to present issues in daily life in a news media format. The creativity flows freely in this channel and not many can compete, if any at all.
"[It] would be foolish to place Jónsi in a specific genre, however, he manages again to create an isolated unique sound that only he could do without [being called] 'cheesy'."
Normally when I write my blog posts, I try to give an introduction into the topic instead of thrusting curious readers into unknown stories and details. But Jónsi's music is so special (in my opinion) that his music speaks for itself. Jónsi combines strong percussive sounds, atmospheric vocals, and unconventional use of his instruments to create music unique to him. Once the front man for Icelandic band Sigur Rós, Jónsi decided to pursue a solo career in 2010 after Sigur Rós went on an indefinite hiatus. Fortunately for us, Jónsi's innovative songwriting and music style decided to tag along for the ride, offering the world a Sigur Rós-esque style with an upbeat flair that only Jónsi can offer.
But who is Jónsi? Jónsi was born April 23, 1975 in Reykjavik, Iceland, Jón "Jónsi" Pór Birgissen (pronounced "Yohn-Poor Beergeeh-sehn "Yohn-see"). Rasied by non-musical parents, one wouldn't think that this blind-in-one-eye Icelander would show much of a predisposition towards music. But by a young age, Jón was playing Beatles records on his mother's turntable at twice normal speed and singing along to IronMaiden records. Jón's manipulation of sound as music as a child became the stepping stone to his creative processes as an adult. Now, Jónsi's most notable stylist achievements in music are a result of his innovations of traditional rock instruments and his ability to manipulate rhythm - as seen in the video above.
Jónsi is most well known, as I said, for his intricate rhythms and his manipulation of rock instruments. He was the first rock/pop artist to use a cello bow on an electric guitar. Believed to have borrowed the idea from the Erhu - a ancient, two-stringed Chinese guitar - the bowed electric guitar gives off an eerie, but calming, sound trademarked by Sigur Rós.
Now, I realize that this blog post is not about Sigur Rós, but it is important to understand Jónsi's past musical career before we start to understand Jónsi's future. Many fan were upset when Sigur Rós disbanded after 16 years of performing, but the band claimed that it was for the best (three of the four members were raising families). In reality, the Sigur Rós's disbanding was an opportunity for Jónsi to break free from the constraints of his former style. Since 2010, Jónsi has released his solo album, Go, and his in-depth DVD, Go Live. Additionally, multiple tracks from Go were featured on the Blockbuster, "We Bought A Zoo."
In conclusion, I believe that Jónsi's music, while considered "weird" by some, is quite creative. But the question remains ... why is it considered creative? Jónsi's music seems innovative, and he utilizes instruments in a unique way, but does his music really fit the definition of creativity?
Sternberg defines creativity as the "ability to produce work that is novel ... high in quality, and appropriate." First off, Jónsi takes an old instrument - the Erhu - and utilizes it's technique on modern instruments. While some have tried to recreate this technique, it is very difficult and Jónsi has proven to be the most adept player of this style. Even after Sigur Rós disbanded, Jón Birgissen had enough respect from his peers and his audiences, that he was able to successfully create his own solo label and unique style, producing a solo album in a little over a year. Not only do I love his music, but I believe that Jónsi has proven himself as a musician and a truly creative artist.
With the G8 and NATO summits coming to Chicago this May, there's a huge amount of concern over the violence and damage that could come to the city via protestors. Activists and protestors have a lengthy history as being categorized as troublemakers and unruly young people, but there's a large community of activists making real change in the country that most people don't know about.
Right now, there's a network of peace activists and professional protestors across the country who base their lives around creative non-violence. That's actually the technical term for what they do. Harkening back to one of the creative minds we're studying in class, Gandhi, those in the non-violent community have been using creative and innovative ideas to bring attention to the peace movement.
I was blessed to spend my spring break both freshman and sophomore years with two communities who center their lives around non-violence: the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House in Washington, DC, and Jonah House in Baltimore, Maryland.
While I could go on forever about both, here's what you need to know about Jonah House. They're a community of women, some of whom are women religious (read: nuns) who take part in nonviolent resistance actions, specifically relating to nuclear proliferation. Some of their actions are known as "plowshares actions." The term relates to Isaiah 2:4, which states "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." Often, plowshares actions consist of breaking onto the site of a nuclear weapons holding facility, hammering on the weapons, and pouring their own blood onto them as a symbol of the killing and loss of life that the weapons are capable of. Thus, they are "beating to swords into plowshares" symbolically.
Those involved in the actions do so knowing that they will face prison time. This form of civil disobedience is deliberate, and done to bring attention to their cause in a way that doesn't involve burning cars, beating police, or wreaking havoc on a city.
The novel process came about when brothers Dan and Phil Berrigan did the first plowshares action in 1980. This type on non-violent action had never been done before, and spawned a series of subsequent plowshares actions, which continue today. Others in their field followed suit, as the Berrigans were already well-known in the peace community for other non-violent actions they've done. And apparently, plowshares actions have made enough of an impact that Loyola sends students every year to Jonah House as part of the Alternative Break Immersion Program.
To learn more about the plowshares actions, here's a video made by the Jonah House community:
You've likely never heard of the Alexander technique, or its founder, F.M. Alexander. Alexander was an Austrian man who made his career as a stage actor. Born in 1869, Alexander often performed Shakespearean plays. Unfortunately for Alexander, he often developed voice loss during his performances and was even said to have had chronic laryngitis. Obviously these obstructions would cause an actor - especially one focused on orating - great dismay.
After seeing many doctors and voice therapists and the like, Alexander began to think creatively about his problem. No matter what the doctors told him, his problem kept recurring. He was not ill, nor was he a doctor, which would challenge and make the process of coming up with a solution a task meant for someone thinking outside of the box. Spending many hours in front of the mirror watching himself stand, act and speak as he would during a performance, Alexander finally formed the hypothesis that his posture and other physical factors could be harming him and affecting him in such a way that rendered him speechless.
You can see F.M. Alexander here in a headshot from the 1890s. Going deeper into Alexander's hypothesis, he further believed that the total of one's posture could affect the way air flows up from the lungs and affect, for better or for worse, how one is able to speak. Regardless of how much time and deep thought it took Alexander to come up with a plausible solution, he clearly was onto something. While this technique may not be very well known, even today, it seems that Alexander's technique of adjusting one's posture can be quite beneficial.
The Alexander technique, therefore, requires a trained professional to examine a person (or even animal's) posture in order to provide them the optimal posture for movement and activities. Only lightly placing the hand's on a person/animal, the instructor corrects posture and head movement during a variety of actions to improve the person's overall well-being.While actors and musicians have benefited from the Alexander technique, it is quite popular in equestrian circles, and even for athletes, as better posture has been seen to improve stamina and obviously better breathing practices.
Here's a video to help you better wrap your mind around what an instructor might do during a session. While this off-beat method of improving circulation, breathing and overall physical health might seem insignificant or very random, think about the field and domain from which the idea was developed. First of all, Alexander was no doctor by any means and yet his work has inspired such scientists Fritz Perls, the originator of Gestalt therapy. It almost seems like a combination of an etiquette lesson combined with physical therapy.
Alexander's determined mind may not have been "Big C" creative to come up with this technique, but with no support from the medical community and no background training, he undoubtedly needed creative inspiration to formulate what has become known as his technique. Relieving the body of necessary tension helped Alexander and has helped many people across many disciplines. Quirky? Maybe. But the technique has inspired many individuals to study it and earn professional certificates in order to help others, many of whom swear by its results.
You can read more here http://www.alexandertechnique.com/at.htm. And for everyone's reference, I learned about this technique during a public relations class, where our class client was one of the 10 registered Alexander technique instructors in Illinois.
In eighth grade I had to do a project in my music class that explored a band from our parents era as an attempt to broaden our horizons. I immediately turned to my parents for suggestions. They brought up the band Chicago, saying they had a unique sound and that I would probably enjoy it. After hearing "Saturday In The Park," I was sold.
Chicago's signature sound can be attributed to something not many other bands in the mainstream were doing at that time. They took the rock 'n' roll that was the popular music of the time and added horns. This may seem like a weird combination but it worked. While the Beach Boys reigned as greatest American rock n' roll band at that time this jazzed up version of pop Chicago was playing was novel and unique. The depth of their sound and lyrics greatly contrasted those of the Beach Boys. Eventually, their popularity grew until they too, were recognized as one of the greatest American rock 'n' roll bands.
Originally called The Big Thing, then Chicago Transit Authority and lastly Chicago, the band was compiled of DePaul University Students and a Roosevelt University music major, Robert Lamm. Lamm is responsible for hits such as "Saturday in the Park," "Does anyone really know what time it is" and "25 or 6 to 4." In my opinion, these are some of Chicago's most creative pieces and Lamm was the mastermind behind them. Throughout his childhood, Lamm always had a compilation of jazz records. These early influences, were ultimately instrumental in defining Chicago's sound. In high school, Lamm explored the visual arts and it was not until college that he began to truly explore music.
Not only were his musical skills and jazz background an asset, but also, he saw his music as a way to portray his social conscience. At a time when lyrics were revolving around having "fun, fun, fun until her daddy took the T-bird away," this was a risky move on Lamm's part. Like Danielson and Family, it was taking this risky move, incorporating his own beliefs into his work that set him apart. It was unique and not often done, but in the end, it was well received.
After Cetera started to steal the spotlight, Lamm's creativity was challenged. However, it was from this time that Lamm started to explore solo projects and collaborations. Although still committed to Chicago, he could not resist the need to create.
Like many other creatives we have studied, his relationships were not always successful. Two marriages ended in divorce until his last marriage to art director, Joy Kopko. It seems as if, her own creative nature allowed him to enhance his without taking a toll on their relationship.
As we have seen in the Z-boys movie, what made Lamm's work creative was the way in which he incorporated his past with his present. He saw rock 'n' roll and jazz and put them together making a sound completely novel. I believe this is what makes creative individuals creative. They see the same things others see but they see them in a different way. One may appreciate jazz and appreciated rock but Lamm was the one who saw that they could be put together. To this day, musicians have followed suit. He paved the way for artists such a Jason Mraz or John Mayer who seamlessly incorporate jazz into their interpretation of pop. Through Lamm's creative work, he forever changed his field. Despite his influence on modern musicians, Chicago's sound is still signature. Each individual, has unique experiences throughout their lives. Lamm used these unique experiences to create a product that was completely unique.
The term "Creative accounting" has often been used as a term for accountants using deviant means to misrepresent information or in some way change financial data to hide theft or to otherwise trick investors into believing something different than what is true... but even out side of these cases, accounting is sometimes, erroneously, believed to be a field completely devoid of creativity or innovative thought.
Well, this idea is completely mistaken. While the everyday accountant may not be required to use creativity in his every day work - as an artist might - the field of accounting is one that is purely brought forth from creative minds and is possibly the most creative field in business.
The fact of the matter is - there are no laws of accounting. In physics someone discovered that F=m*a and that E = M*c^2, but these scientists did not invent the rules of the universe. In economics, the change in supply in demand based on changes in price is a measurable, real phenomenon. Even in art, certain color palettes naturally work well together or bring about certain emotions - but this is because of a natural occurrence, not due to any innovation on the part of the artist...
The point is: There are NO natural laws of accounting.
There is no way to study the world and determine that debits will always equal credits, or to figure how much value an asset represents for the future of a company. Every aspect of accounting has come about because of creative minds making intricate rules to help provide useful information.
The key jobs of accounting in business are to tell investors how much money a company is expected to make in the future, to tell managers exact figures about the company's assets/abilities to make strategic decisions, to ensure that, even in corporations of over 1 million employees, all money is being kept track of and used as intended, and finally to have all of this information comparable between companies of any size. I am going to briefly - and hopefully without getting too technical - explain the some of the amazing ways that these feats are handled through wonderfully innovative accounting, and explain some of the most creative changes to accounting in the last 30 years.
---------------------------------
I would say that the most impressive feat of accounting is the idea of income. Income, as accounting defines it for a company, is not simply it change in the amount of cash that a company had from the start until the end - it serves as an accurate estimate of how much money the company is going to make in future years. Any investor can look at the income statement (another invention of accounting) and see what caused the gain or loss and by how much, and can use the resulting data to gain more information, such as how much the company is returning per dollar or assets (RoA) or per share (EPS). This data can then be compared with others in the financial market to determine whether giving money to the company in the form of loans, bonds, or stocks is a worthwhile investment.
Other brilliant creations of accounting include the way that depreciation is handled. A piece of equipment or a building that a company uses is only good for a certain number of years, and while it is paid for up front it gives the company value over that entire time. What this means is that when the equipment is bought there is no loss of profit, but the item gets "depreciation," which are losses of profits each year. These losses also make the equipment written down as being worth less value than when they were purchased, such that the item will be worth its salvageable value after its expected life runs out. This on its own is fairly innovative, and ties into the way that accounting is able to accurately predict future gains of the company, even with expenses where no cash is lost (such as the depreciation expenses).
In recent years, the biggest changes to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) came from the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act, in response to outrage over the illegal practices at Enron and Worldcom, and of the auditor firms that allowed the actions. These changes were again often very technical, but in laymans terms they were able to show more accurate data of the company's future value to investors and prevented against ability for fraud through several layers of check and balances in the accounting system. There were also great changes related to international financial accounting in regards to valuation of currency realizations and in non-realized gains from stock or even derivatives holdings.
Once again, the rules were re-written by brilliant people, making information through accounting even more easily available and regulated.
So to summarize, accounting may not start with great leaps of innovative work, but in a similar way that lawyers become the judges that make the laws, accountants create these principals and there are intricate, wonderful rules created by accountants that allow for unprecedented information analysis in our day and age. The next time you are doing your taxes, looking at stock prices, reading that a company is experiencing a gain/loss this quarter, or trusting your money in a bank, take a moment and thank the innovative minds that created these systems and the accounting rules that make our world function
I was never one of those girls who sat around playing with dolls... especially not Barbies. It wasn't necessarily because of what she did or didn't represent (the definition of unattainable beauty, the perfect woman, all that a woman should and shouldn't be, what a woman should and shouldn't do); it was more because dolls often seemed creepy to me (maybe I watched too many scary movies growing up). Creepy is definitely a feeling you get when looking at Mariel Clayton's photography- it may even be an understatement. When I first came across some of her work, I was slightly taken aback to say the least. I had seen some doll photography before: dolls used as muses for paintings or dolls set up in simple expected miniature scenes (such as the one below); but nothing quite like this.
Over the years, Barbie has been a part of much social commentary in terms of the image critics say she creates for young girls- an unattainable form of beauty and perfection. Most often, these criticisms have been in forms of articles and blogs. There's a few examples here and there where a Barbie is used to portray an anorexic woman in short artistic films and artwork. I have never come across any social commentary more complex involving Barbie than that...until I came across Mariel Clayton's work.
Mariel Clayton is a self taught photographer who features Barbie in a variety of scenes that are in stark contrast from "traditional" forms of artwork with Barbie- from scenes of Barbie representing strong historical women who inspire Mariel to Mariel's perception of children's fables to various morally questionable scenes of sex, murder, and societal issues. She says she's not sure why these ideas come to her, but all of this started out with a "camera and major interest in travel photography." She said, "A sublime encounter in a Tokyo toy shop led me into the surreal world of Japanese miniatures, and ultimately to the stories that could be told with them."
Like many of the artists we've studied in class (the architect in particular came to mind), Mariel's creative process depends on a gut feeling and a quick moment of inspiration. When it comes to her, it comes to her. "Sometimes I see a complete picture in my head, down to the last detail and all I have to do is recreate it with the props, other times it might just be a particular piece of a picture that I will then build on." In an interview, she tried to explain it by saying that her mind thinks things up quicker than she can consciously comprehend. (Perhaps, she would be a subject that portrays a certain degree of conscious creativity.)
Many of the scenes portray Barbie in situations that greatly contrast what she is meant to represent and completely skew society's traditional gender roles. Mariel hates Barbie and every stereotype that she represents. Ironically enough, Mariel does not consider herself part of the feminist movement in any way. She believes that "the message feminism is trying to convey has escalated to a ridiculous and unfair demonization of men." It seems to me that she is creating an image that is somewhat demonizing women. It's interesting that she believes the media is demasulanating men when many of her sexual scenes portray men in positions that are no where near what people would consider "masuline" in those cases. She says, however, that she is not out to send a message; she actually just finds this "funny." "I think it finally makes the doll interesting, and I like that contrast between saccharine sweet and pure malevolence."
Mariel also criticizes the way children are raised these days (as seen in the 3rd picture in the blog and the picture below) and the values that are instilled in them from a very young age. She feels children are not challenged enough with their schoolwork, but instead get caught up in the world of materialism and surreal scenes that can be found in television and video games- much like her photography, I guess.
I can't say that I particularly enjoy this art. For me, it was more like a car crash: I just couldn't look away. I do, however, find it to be quite a creative way to vent anxieties about society and whatever emotions she may be encountering on a personal level. It acts as an outlet, as does artwork for many others- artists and the patrons. People may have brushed on these concepts using America's favorite doll, but no one took it to the level she did. She's been quoted to say "some [immoral] things just need to be processed in a different way." If she did anything, she has definitely accomplished that much. Some of them take a little bit longer to process than others, but nearly every single one of them encompasses some type of social commentary.
If you’re lazy like me, having to go up and down the stairs can get really annoying. If I had to choose between taking the elevator up or the stairs, I’d choose the elevator every time if I wasn’t worried about all of the judgmental looks I’d get when I pressed the button to the measly third floor. I know I’m not alone in this. But what if there was a way to make taking the stairs more fun?
In an effort to encourage people to take the healthy climb up the stairs, many stairways in subway stations, museums, and other buildings all over the world have been reengineered into giant inclined keyboards. These innovative “piano stairs,” created from the mind of the inventor Remo Saraceni, have the potential to make a difference in the health of thousands of people by encouraging healthier choices, such as taking the stairs. Though climbing a couple steps may seem like an insignificant in leading a healthier lifestyle, as Saraceni says, “Every little bit helps.”
Obviously, individuals need to do more than just take the stairs in order to get into better shape, like eat healthier and exercise more, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. These musical flights of stairs have already shown to motivate more people to choose the stairs. In a study done in a Stockholm train station, researchers found that 66% more people took the stairs rather than the escalator when the piano stair made it fun to do.
Saraceni, an artist, engineer, and designer, hopes that his invention can also bring happiness to people and transform any area into a playground where even adults can return to their childhood innocence. When creating the piano stairs, children are his muses. Saraceni believes the lack of playfulness in adults’ lives, which is why he creates things that appeals to children in the hope it can encourage the adults to be as lively. Letting your inner child take over occasionally is fundamentally important to leading a happy life, Saraceni believes. Just because their childhoods are over, doesn’t mean playtime has to ever end. Regardless of how difficult life gets, Saraceni hopes that adults never get too disenchanted with life and that’s why he creates gadgets, such as the piano stairs, that are fun for all ages. “You go onto the piano and you smile,” Saraceni said about his Walking Pianos. “The person who is near sees you smiling and sees you walking about (and then) smiles, too. Create a social interaction… amuse yourself no matter how difficult life is.”
The piano stairs are a modification of the Walking Piano he invented over thirty years ago and that was shown in the movie Big, starring Tom Hanks.
Not only is Saraceni’s creation novel, but it is also useful in that it promotes physical activity. It may help solve the prevalent problem of inactivity and obesity. Saraceni managed to take the piano, a conventional instrument invented centuries ago, and found an additional use for it that has never been used before. By taking a typically five-feet long instrument and blowing it up to a than twenty-feet walking platform, Saraceni creates a space for people to let themselves go, have a blast, and foster creativity as individuals can even make their own music by choosing which notes to step on. “I wanted to take the piano… and remove all its seriousness and austerity and make it an instrument that you can walk across,” Saraceni said. “I wanted to make technology playful and utilitarian at the same time. I really believe that machines are here to help us to be more creative because they extend our possibilities.”
Saraceni sees the world with childlike wonder. And unlike some of the creatives we’ve seen, he seems to be a very humble human being. Though he is probably appreciative of the acclaim and attention, he’s motivated by something more. Not only does he sincerely love what he does, like other artists such as Picasso, but also he is delighted when he gets to see kids and grown-ups enjoying his Walking Piano or the other toys he’s created.
Dedicating almost every aspect of his life to creating new technological gadgets, Saraceni works, invents, lives, and sleeps in a toy-heaven loft, which he’s transformed into a childlike wonderland filled with musical trinkets and furniture, flashing lights, and dancing toys, all of which he has personally created. Though this kind of lifestyle may keep the creative juices flowing, it certainly can put a strain on personal relationships when the creative process is prioritized above all else, even one’s family. Saraceni, now divorced, is like many other creative individuals, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Frank Gehry, who seem to be more passionate about their work than their romantic partner. Gandhi, for example, though loving and kind to almost everyone he encountered, was very cold with his wife and sons. Gehry would speak with more love about his buildings than his own children. When the family of these creative individuals is always second-place to innovation, it is easy to imagine why so many marriages involving great creatives end in divorce.
This single-minded pursuit of individuals such as Gandhi, Gehry, and even Saraceni’s on their respective works, though requiring sacrifices in their personal lives, certainly helps make the world a better, more beautiful, and a more magical place.
James Dyson had a keen understanding and passion for engineering while enriching his artistic knowledge at London's Byam Shaw art school. Having the courses, tools, and resources to paint, but more importantly, to build, Dyson began his ongoing and intimate relationship with a new type of architecture. Also, having design heroes like Michael Faraday, Charles Goodyear, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Dyson had a solid scientific and creative foundation on which he began to build his ideas. After developing a high-speed landing craft in school, Dyson's engineering aspirations took off.
He began creating prototypes for products that solved everyday problems for everyday people. His development of a new style of wheelbarrow--one with a big round ball as the wheel and large back feet (as to not sink into the ground) was his first big work. He then moved on to what he is most widely known for: vacuums. Five thousand prototypes later, Dyson created his first vacuum: the Dual Cyclone technology in his DC01 vacuum.
After fighting with and persuading people to invest and believe in his new take on an old idea, he had a new battle. Once his ideas caught on, others tried to make their own versions. Now, with more than 17 different styles of vacuums, 8 different fan and heater styles sold in more than 45 countries around the world, Dyson has become an important face in household products and problem solving.
But is that really creative? To me, absolutely.
As seen in the video above, Dyson solves a problem with his creations, especially his vacuums. The Dyson website shares James Dyson's story of determination and persistence while building and bringing to life his ideas. But what attracts me to Dyson products is there sleek style. While fixing an everyday problem, the product you use looks good doing it. And that is always a plus.
As I sat down and thought about what has creatively struck me this week to blog about, I noticed that the Google logo on my homepage had been altered to depict singing frogs leaping in the air in honor of this being a Leap Year and in celebration of composer Gioachino Rossini's 200th birthday. Google frequently converts their standard logo to a "Doodle" as they call it to commemorate special events and dates or celebrate the lives of famous artists and scientists. Often I don't pay much attention to these new logos because it happens so frequently, and usually when I log onto Google, I have some intended purpose (and thus don't stay on the main page for long)...
Google Doodle, February 29, 2012 (commemorating composer Gioachino Rossini's 200th birthday and the present Leap Year)
In the grand scheme of things, Google Doodles are just a drop in the bucket when considering the creativity of Google as a corporation overall, but the Doodles are a little thing that can be educational, beautiful, or just plain fun. Honestly, prior to seeing the above Doodle, I had never heard of Gioachino Rossini, but in this context, I briefly learned who he is and why he is significant enough to merit a Google Doodle.
First Google Doodle, August 30, 1998 (commemorating company founders' attendance at the Burning Man Festival)
Google Doodles have been a part of Google's company culture since the days when the company was in its infancy. In 1998, company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin comically altered the company's trademark logo on the homepage with a stick figure walking out of the second "O" to alert users that they would be "out of the office" while attending the Burning Man Festival in Nevada. Obviously these two men's brief absences had little effect on company or site operations, and thus there was little reason to notify users other than for the fun of it. The Doodle went over well with Google users, and in 2000, Larry and Sergey asked a young intern named Dennis Hwang to alter the logo in recognition of Bastille Day. Dennis' first Doodle was well received, and he was later named Google's Chief Doodle Officer as Doodles became a regular site feature.
Google Doodle, May 11, 2011 (commemorating dancer Martha Graham's 117th birthday)
Initially, Google Doodles celebrated common and well-known holidays, but as the company and technology overall have evolved, so too have Doodles. Now, Doodles acknowledge and celebrate a wide array of events and anniversaries from the Summer Olympics to the birth of dancer Martha Graham. In the past ten years, over 1000 Doodles have graced Google's homepage (over 300 in the United States and over 700 internationally). What started as a joke has become one of the company and site's signature special features.
Google Doodle, June 9, 2011 (commemorating electric guitar inventor Les Paul's 96th birthday)
Dennis Hwang remains charged with creating Google Doodles to this day, but now he has a full staff of graphic artists and animators working under him (pictured below). No longer are Doodles confined to just being standard images with the word Google imposed into them. In the last year, a Doodle has celebrated what would have been I Love Lucy star Lucille Ball's 100th birthday by showing a television that played black and white clips from the show. To celebrate the birthday of Les Paul, the inventor of the electric guitar, Google turned its logo into a fully functional electric guitar that allowed users to strum songs and record them for later playing.
Current "Doodlers" Jennifer Hom, Mike Dutton, Ryan Germick, Sophia Foster Dimino, and Willie Real
Google's Doodle team creates the altered logos by holding brainstorming sessions about things that interest them or by looking at things that have been trending on the site. They do allow users to submit proposals for future Doodles or fan created Doodles by emailing proposals@google.com and have held a contest called "Doodle 4 Google" to allow fans to directly create Doodles that are then used on the site. Ultimately, the Doodle selection team and artists aim
to celebrate interesting events and anniversaries that reflect Google's personality
and love for innovation. All past Doodles (both American and international) dating back to the first in 1998 are currently archived at www.google.com/doodles for users to view and explore.
So why is this creative? Google Doodles are not fundamental to the site's intended purpose, so they really do not solve a problem nor do they most likely generate much additional traffic to the site. Most marketing professionals would cringe at the idea of altering a logo that is so intrinsically tied to a major international corporation. Still, Google sees this feature of their site significant enough to keep a fairly large staff on the payroll just to alter said logo about once every couple weeks. Maybe the company does it because they want to spread little-known knowledge in the world or just want to distinguish themselves from the likes of Bing or Yahoo, but I think that they do it just for the pure enjoyment of it. When you are having a busy or stressful day, there can be something calming or therapeutic about strumming a few notes on the Google logo or learning a new trivia fact about something related to the present date. Google Doodles exist to allow the company to exhibit its creative side while also allowing users to be creative in the same process. Furthermore, Doodles are educational by sharing the spirit of innovation and creativity with a good chunk of the world on a fairly frequent basis. Doodles might not be considered creative based on our criteria of being novel or extremely useful, but no one can argue that the whole concept is not deeply immersed in a spirit of creativity.
