Does the Age of Communication Herald the End of Creativity?

 

Birds on a Wire © Jessica Kerwin Jenkins

Birds on a wire... a visual allegory for humanity perched on the wire of technology. It's precarious, and like the birds, humanity seems to be blissfully unaware of the imminent danger we are sitting upon. But should technology slip our grip, it will be our split second survival response (our creativity, our wings) will be the only thing that saves us. Dramatic I admit but how far from the truth?

I read the title for this blog post in a daily horoscope and it gave me pause. I had to stop and really think about this since I straddle the analog and digital eras within my career. I have certainly struggled with how to integrate and authenticate my artistic voice into my digital work. I have been outraged by the lack of innovation and rampant copyright infringement that abounds on the internet. But this question – so personal – begs to be contemplated.

The Age of Communication is a daunting title. There seems no definitive value to the word 'communication' within this label so I am led to believe that it encompasses everything from reality TV to Stephen Hawking. But along with other era titles, such as The Age of Enlightenment, or The Dark Ages, there is the burden of imbalance. The pendulum must swing back in favor of anonymity, authenticity and personal privacy.

Where do we go as designers once we have been sucked into the vacuum of this new age? It's easy for us to overvalue the tools we use, the messages we send, the marketing force we create BUT is it an authentic contribution to the world? Is it really for the betterment and advancement of mankind?

Communication is God right now. Communication is unbridled and stripped of all its checks and balances (honesty, respect for privacy, attribution) and running rampant as it irresponsibly educates the population into rules and ethics that are hardly worthy living by. Communication is in its most pervasive and destructive form right now. The NSA digging into our every move, webcams being hacked, personal conversations splashed across websites without the permission of participants, invasive sales tactics, and our personal information being sold over and over again in an effort to encourage us to buy more and more useless things.

As a designer it would seem that I am biting the hand that feeds me by raising these questions but I see a deeper responsibility here. This may be the Age of Communication but there is an almost childlike selfishness about living in the moment with this new mindset.

Which brings me to the question of creativity. As more work is distributed to a less than critical audience where does the creative process belong in a world that really only values the revenue that is generated? There will always be a place for true creative geniuses but the audience that can truly appreciate their work may be shrinking. Creative process does not follow the linear pattern of binary code. It rambles, twists, and turns. The spark of an idea is in the the DNA of the person, in the rapid firing of our brain synapses, and the seemingly illogical combining of various influences.

Creativity is divine but the scientist will seek to define it, corral it, map it, and regenerate it. Can they? It is my hope that as we identify smaller and smaller molecular and atomic structures we will see that there is no end to the genius that is nature. We are drunk on a little bit of power and a little bit of knowledge but in the greater scheme of the inner workings of the universe we are completely ignorant. The pendulum will swing back to embrace the unknown, the spiritual and creative spark that works in tandem with our logical minds. And if we do it right The Age of Communication will create new ground rules for humanity.

Creative Collaboration - Can't live with it, Can't live without it!

Playing for Change - Stand By Me

Creative collaboration is something that happens in every artist's life. It is ironic that we are so dependent on the sharing of our work and processes with others when we spend so much time alone in our minds during the creative process. It gives us the illusion of autonomy but actually we are always working in tandem with someone or something.

As I watched the video above I thought about how much more powerful the outcome is when we collaborate with joy and the willingness to share our gifts. No ego. No hierarchy. No leaders. Just every voice, every creative effort being heard as part of the whole. Our current culture of narcissism has spawned an attitude that all art springs from the individual.

Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love, has a wonderful TED talk titled, "Your Elusive Creative Genius" and you will see she has a compelling argument for why this me-centered creative mindset has not always been the case. She argues that in ancient times all creativity was thought to come from the divine, the gods, and channeled through us. Therefore the responsibility to be brilliant lay elsewhere rather than our own egos. Who can argue that you don't feel a connection to something greater than yourself when you are tapped into the creative flow?

Which brings me back to collaboration. I think that technology has created an environment where collaboration is easier and more accessible and perhaps in the future we will begin to redefine the process of creativity with less of an "I" culture and more of a "We" culture. I have noticed among the artists I work with that the older generation seems a bit less inclined to share the process and the credit but my younger artists are all about collaboration and experimentation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that in their culture no idea is sacred once it is made public on the internet. Everything can be copied, modified, changed, remixed, redrawn, and redefined without regard for the original creator. So doesn't it make sense that they would embrace creative collaboration?

Once the process is embraced that leads to some wonderful outcomes because the collective creative consciousness is more powerful than the single voice in the end.

I will leave you with Pharrell Williams "Happy" video project, a huge collaborative of creative people dancing to his song. This one is from Hong Kong. Had only one person been the expression of the song it would not have been nearly as powerful as the collaboration of people around the world for the sake of feeling happy. Imagine if this example of creative collaboration was applied to all aspects of our culture; finance, politics, food distribution, industry, and on and on... what type of society would we have with a grander collaboration of humanity?

If I Only Had a Brain

 Ray Bolger sings "If I Only Had a Brain" in the 1939 classic movie, "Wizard of Oz".

 

“I could think of things I’ve never thought before and then I’d sit

  and think some more.”

Thinking is important to our development as a culture – thinking creatively is vital.

CCI – the acronym for "Cultural and Creative Industries" and the idea that new economies are about selling ideas while the old industrial production model would be selling things. America was an industrial production leader for many decades ushered in with the vision of Henry Ford. In 2013 are we being left in the dust because of our archaic notions about our educational infrastructure? It's Brawn Power vs. Brain Power.

I am thinking specifically about education. We have been slow to adopt new ideas therefore a large portion of our society has been left behind - but not in the way the "no child left behind" legislation of the Bush administration would have suggested. Our population is being left behind as other industrialized nations move from production oriented industries to Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI).

For a country to be competitive in design and creative thinking education is a vital element and yet the US is still experimenting with systems and undervaluing the field as a whole. Finland is a good case study of a country that has successfully refocused itself from being an industrial production economy to a growing CCI economy. Even though it is a smaller country than the US, without significant ethnicity and/or religious confilict it is a current example of what can be right in an educational system.

Investment in Education: Forty years ago, the Finnish government decided the path to economic recovery would involve a stronger educational system. They implemented stringent teacher-training guidelines requiring every teacher must have a fifth year master's degree and teacher training school. Consequently, their teachers are pulled from the top ten percentile of students in the country and given the same status as a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. 

The status and value put upon the teaching profession not only encourages the best and brightest to become educators but also sends a message to society as a whole that thinking and training are valued. Since Finnish teachers are given autonomy in the classroom and encouraged to develop new educational thinking the education system again reinforces the idea that they are a society that values creative innovation and respects the abilities of its professionals.

In contrast, you have the American education system, which closely monitors the curriculum, teaches to the test, overvalues test taking, and is straddled with economic burdens which makes it difficult to implement new ideas. The American system currently ushers untrained teachers, fresh out of college straight into the classroom in an effort to keep the schools functioning but not necessarily flourishing. This is a corporate model for education, which is an extension of the old idea of a production-based economy. 

The production-based model measures quantitatively the effects of education upon its product (i.e. the student), rather than the development of creative thinking and successful problem solving. It is one of the contributing factors to why our younger population is at odds with the current culture. Their world is a fast moving, tech based, economy that they need flexible thinking skills to survive but instead they are being handed a group of archaic skills that are only good for following orders and producing product – the old industrial model. This style of education is producing an indefinable, widespread anxiety among young adults as they emerge into the work world.

Technology: The second element in the development of a CCI economy is technological development and wide spread access to the Internet, which in turn provides the knowledge and content to create new products. There have been several Congressional bills over the last few years that would have effectively put the control of the Internet into the hands of the service providers. Fortunately, these bills were defeated but had they been passed the United States would have set itself back several years in technological development – perhaps a move from which we might never have recovered. In a recent development and with tremendous foresight, major universities are putting their curriculum and some classes online for public access. The idea to socialize education is good for society as a whole and with regard to the development of a CCI economy, universal Internet access is the key to facilitating that. 

Once again, I look at Finland as the successful experiment – the Ministry of Education and Culture launched the “Development Programme for Business Growth and Internationalization of Creative Industries 2007-2013.” The idea that technology, education, and the creative ingenuity of their population could significantly increase the bottom line of their GNP was forward thinking and proved the right move to make.

Functional Social Structure: The third and most difficult hurdle for the US to overcome is to create a functional social structure. This idea can be examined on a micro level to gain insight as to how it impacts us as a nation on a macro level. For example: if the parents in a divorced family are antagonistic towards each other the children can suffer intellectually because they focusing upon coping with their emotional response to a fractured social structure. However, if the divorce is supportive, with open lines of communication and tolerance for differences the children can thrive intellectually and feel less need to focus their energy upon solving the emotional issues. Of course, this is simplistic but it is meant to show the importance of pulling together as a nation rather than against each other. 

Currently our social structure is deeply divided which is starkly illustrated during each national election as the population divides into red and blue states. There are religious, social, economic, and racial differences that pull us apart and cause our focus to shift from the fundamentals of pulling together. Using Finland as an example in this case is where we part company completely. Finland, and many smaller European countries, although they can have problems with religious and ethnic antagonism, have smaller populations of people to influence when shifting their country into a CCI economy. This could single-handedly be the biggest hurdle the US faces today. While adversity can often lead to startling leaps in creativity from individuals, it is when a country pulls together that you see world leadership born. In the current world economy many countries come to mind that could be potential candidates for that honor but the US is not one of the stronger contenders.

With our uneducated, reality TV based culture, we have turned our backs on our greatest export – the creative intelligence and ingenuity of our people. The promotion of a creative economy needs to become a concept that is understood by the individual American and something they are committed to with foresight and intelligence. If we understand that, the model of what we are educating ourselves for will shift from "how to build things," to "how to think of things" and we would begin to heal our social structure and legislate creativity into our government. 

These are utopian ideas but we are seeking answers. This article was inspired by one column on how charter schools are using young teachers in a transient manner to fill the leadership roles in our classrooms. This seems symptomatic of our band-aid approach to our future as a nation. This idea as well as many of our "knee-jerk" emotional short-term responses to long term issues will have the same effect that fast food had on America – it will satisfy an immediate need but ultimately it will be unhealthy for all of us.