How Business can stifle imagination

Roger Martin, writing for the Harvard Business Review, talks about how common American business practices often get in the way of imagination.

    How often do you hear these old saws repeated: “If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count”; “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”; “If you can’t measure it, it won’t happen?” We like these sayings because they’re comforting. The act of measurement provides security; if we know enough about something to measure it we almost certainly have some control over it . . . If an institution is all geared up for a future that is like the past and the future changes radically, then the institution becomes an anachronism, like a Motorola or GM.

    The late 19th and early 20th century American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce was the first to point out that no new idea in the world was ever produced by inductive or deductive logic . . . “If you can’t imagine it, you will never create it.” The future is about imagination, not measurement. To imagine a future, one has to look beyond the measurable variables, beyond what can be proven with past data.

He also mentions in the article something called abductive logic as an alternative to more restrictive deductive and inductive reasoning (the process by which a company or individual arrives at the idea that “If you can’t measure it, it won’t happen.”). Abductive reasoning is “the process of inference that produces a hypothesis as its end result” according to Wikipedia. Without it companies run the risk of going out of business.

Martin uses Motorola and GM as examples of this. Motorola, for instance, assumed the feature phone was the end-all of cell phone technology. Smart phones weren’t on their radar. However, while Motorola settled into this status quo, others continued to innovate.

Imagination often seems a forgotten facet of our humanity in the midst of all that makes up the fast-paced machine of our cultures. The process of imagining looks unproductive (“If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count.”) to much of the business world, but it isn’t just for officially creative types such as artists, designers and authors of fiction.

Imagination is for everyone.

Article found on Makoto Fujimura’s Twitter feed.

Intellect and compassion

I asked for and received a few C.S. Lewis books that I’ve yet to read for Christmas (I also tried to win a copy of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy at Urbana09, but my dart throwing skills weren’t up to snuff.). What this means is that the recently neglected stack of books — relatively short in comparison to my that of avid reading wife — awaiting my attention swelled when I was barely able to complete one read in 2009. Hopefully I’ll be able to pay more attention to my books in 2010. If I am so able, these give me access to reading material since most of our collection is still packed away in boxes.

I had reason, though, in asking for these books beyond just having “access to reading material.” Lately I’ve come to desire a faith, a Christianity, that is both more intellectual and compassionate than the one I’ve known or been exposed to and involved with for most of my life. I’m not exactly certain where this desire is coming from or where it’s leading, but that’s fine for now.

Lewis challenges me intellectually in a unique way. I used to read his writings regularly, but recently I’ve focused on writings on the arts, a lot of which are also intellectually challenging and steeped in theology. However, I’ve palpably missed his writing. This week I started into The Abolition of Man. It’s a short read I hope to finish quickly; my second reforay into Lewis will be Surprised By Joy.

Christmas Eve

When I was a kid I used to find auto fuses on the street and pretend they were spaceships akin to an X-wing fighter. And the Christmas tree was the mothership. Sometimes I miss my childhood imagination.

We got a little crazy this year and took advantage of the tall ceilings in our present living space this year. My wife and her parents went to a tree farm near Seward, Nebraska and felled an 11′ tall Canaan Fir (above). It’s the first tree we’ve had in two or three years.

The importance, and trap, of artistic freedom

My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful
the more narrowly I limit my field of action
and the more I surround myself with obstacles.
Whatever diminishes constraint, diminishes strength.
The more constraints one imposes,
the more one frees one’s self of the chains that shackle the spirit.


Artistic freedom is important, and tricky. From it comes both great and enduring artwork as well as works that are easy to deride. Artists themselves will mostly poo-poo any kind of limitations, crying foul, claiming the great scapegoat of censorship. Their peers who willingly work within certain limiting factors (i.e. a commissioned work) are often branded as sell-outs.

The importance of artistic freedom
From the Herva blog, a post titled Artistic freedom and the trap of success:

    Most of my adult life I’ve been trying to figure out where my creative output “fit.” This is bull kaka. At least for me it is. If I wanted to be a craftsman, worker for hire, to create towards someone else’s need this would be fine. But I don’t. I want to express my vision, to create out of my soul and to make exist things that I would like to see/hear/read. So why bother trying to fit in anywhere?

    . . . Forget “fitting in.” AND, just as importantly, forget success. For now, I just want to create with as few constraints as I am mentally and physically able. I want to make music with my heart and my hands, to paint or write (or whatever) with my insides (intelligence, spirit, guts, soul) guiding my choices. Will anyone pay for it? I have no idea. Will anyone other than me think it’s good? No clue. But I have to allow myself not to care or worry about that right now. Every creator I’m a fan of creates things oozing in singularity, works that rise out of the sludge due to their originality, clarity, and vision. I don’t see the words acceptance or money in that last sentence at all. Do I hope that in doing this some “success” will come eventually? Sure. But in the making of it, in the actual creation, I want freedom.

Allowing artists this kind of freedom is important, it’s important in relationship to the cultural implications of art. Artists are observers. Their paintings and sculptures are responses to their environments: Built environs, social environs, relationships and so on. These responses create a cultural and historical record in a way no textbook will ever be able to.

Further, art should challenge us from time to time — as a culture and as individuals. For this to happen, an artist needs the freedom to venture outside of our expectations, outside of our comfort zones (and often their own). Paintings aren’t just for looking pretty and coordinating with the new couch. Remember the dangers of sentimental creativity.

The trap of artistic freedom
Artistic freedom is also tricky. It’s easy to abuse the responsibility inherent in that freedom, to adopt an anything goes mentality and create to simply push the limits, sensationalize. Attempt to gain attention, fame. To go after success and money (which is valid to a point). The trouble is the only guidelines for artistic freedom are vague, unwritten social cues. They’re not something a person can put down in black and white.

But they are still there.

Such freedom can also distract an artist; artists need some focus with their freedom. At the same time they need, for instance, the ability to explore a wide range of media and push those media to their limits, an artist needs to develop their craft. Whether they like to admit it or not, craft is an inherent part of every artwork. To become proficient — and (in theory anyway) gain respect and a voice — in a craft takes discipline. Discipline is, in essence, a set of rules, whether imposed by self or others.

Rules that will at first guide will then grow with the potential to be broken.

Process
Says Sarah Jane of the Faith and Foolishness blog, “The artistic process feels at times like a many-layered friend, whose complexities I have come to understand through long acquaintance, and who occasionally still manages to surprise me. I have great trust in this faithful and mysterious companion.”

Process will be different for every individual artist. Some will work better with more structure, such as Stravinsky. Others will create their best work with a lot of freedom, like Herva. Finding a balance, personally, is always more difficult than picking one or the other, but it must be done.

Dangerous things you should let your children do

Just for fun this Friday:

Via The Educated Imagination

Why is art not considered “real” work?

This may be something I’ve talked about (or at least alluded to) before on the blog, but I don’t remember for certain so I’m bringing it up again. Earlier in the week I asked this question in the Facebook forum: “Why are the arts and crafts not considered real work?” The responses went like this.

  • I don’t know. Maybe through some false, Puritanical idea that work should be cheerless drudgery? That if you’re enjoying it too much, it’s not really “work”?
  • I think it depends on whom you’re talking to. Great societies need art as well as industry and politics (Actually, do we really need politics?). I, for one, would love to quilt or knit, but I’ll apparently have to wait for Heaven to succeed at those arts.
  • Arts and Crafts aren’t considered “work” because people can do them as hobbies or in their spare time and don’t realize that (perhaps) there is a great amount of craftsmanship and skill in what you do than in (perhaps) what I do, when I’m not punching a clock. The correct answer is, “Paul, we’d all love to do what we love to do but have to punch a clock and it’s more fun to mock you than to say, ‘I’m jealous.’” I’m not jealous of your vocation but I wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to do what I loved either.
  • Probably for a similar reason that being a “homemaker & mother” is not considered “real work” — because it doesn’t bring in the bread.

Through the course of these responses, I began to wonder if part of this cultural sentiment might also result from the underlying and powerfully subconscious underpinnings of our mass producing consumerist culture. The value of handmade has, perhaps, been relegated to the status of hobby because such objects don’t make significant contributions to national statistics. They don’t pay homage to the god of the economy. They don’t create enough of the right kind of jobs.

The value of imagination, beauty, leisure, philosophy and so forth also fall short of the god of efficiency’s standards, all of which often tie into the arts. These things take time out of an otherwise productive life and are generally frowned upon by American society.

Those are the beginnings of my thoughts anyway, and I’d be interested in hearing more from readers.

Do affluence and advertising stunt creativity?

I noticed an article posted to a friend’s Facebook status this afternoon that sounded worthy of reading. It’s titled Letting the Joneses Win and addresses both American affluence and, tangentially, creativity. Meredith Whitmore wrote the article to talk about her reentry into the United States after five years abroad in East Africa and China.

    Living life outside the reach of American advertising, for example, was much more serene. It was also freeing since I had space to ponder things beyond how my abs look, the kind of car I drive or the clothes I wear. In fact, I’d been living in areas where many people wear the same clothing almost every day—without their friends (or Stacy London) staging an intervention.

    So reentering our consumer-driven, image-mindful country felt like jumping naked into a glacial lake. (Well, at least my shock and audible gasping were probably pretty similar.) I came home to American friends who were ashamed to carry the same attractive, perfectly useful purse for more than a few months — forget about wearing a sweater twice in one week.

    As terrible as it may sound, during my first days back I wanted to smack several people and yell, “Get over yourselves!” Instead, you’ll be relieved to know I bit my tongue and tried to smile a lot . . .

    But in parts of the Third World with few resources and even less income, I have watched boys play with Coca-Cola bottles for an entire hour. And they didn’t feel at all deprived. Resourceful to the core, they could have fun and be creative with lots of things we wouldn’t even consider in the West.

Churches need to learn to trust their artists

A few years ago a friend offered to create a work of art for his church. The church accepted the proposal, and the over the past few years they’ve slowly worked on the idea. Recently the church — without the artist — decided on an image as a basis for the project.

It’s not unusual for the pastor (and a board of elders behind him) to want to control the content of artworks in their building. I regularly come across similar tales which evidence an obvious lack of trust in the artist heading up or contributing such a project, especially if the artist is a part of your congregation.

A visual artist — a painter or sculptor or printmaker — is more than just a craftsman. At it’s most basic, art is two things: Craft and concept. What the pastor-slash-board did in the aforementioned circumstance largely takes away the imaginative creativity, the concept, of an artwork. Hopefully an artist is gifted with ideas as much as with a particular craft. Further, they often communicate (i.e. interpret their surroundings) in different ways than than non-artists, which is part of their gift to culture.

In one sense, I can understand how the shepherd of a flock would want to protect his congregation from, well, unsightly or worldly things (as if they aren’t exposed to said things on a daily basis via other media or venues). The elders might want to avoid anything that would cause controversy; heaven forbid we be moved out of our comfort zones by a brutally honest painting of certain Scriptures.

Another scenario could be that the leadership already had an idea in mind and wanted to play artist from behind the scenes. Regardless, the way the project unfolded was disheartening to the artist, and I can certainly sympathize. Would it have been so bad for church leadership to look at a sketch of the artist’s idea and give their feedback based on that?

Below is Jim Janknegt’s most recent work titled Last Judgement. I can only imagine how horrified some church leaders would be if the thought of this creative commentary hanging in their building.

Modern Christianity is much too sanitized for our own good, which is another idea for another time but also effects decisions about what kind of art is or isn’t allowed into a church building.

lastjudgement10

IAM Encounter: The better poem, or painting, or sculpture . . .

Nicholas Wolterstorff, former professor of philosophical theology at Yale, spoke during the first plenary of Encounter 09. He also worked out of a keen interest in the arts, and it was his book Art in Action which served as the theme for this year’s conference. Wolterstorff is the type of man that I would love to sit down with for a few hours.

One part of his lecture stood out to me in particular. He relayed a story about visiting a poetry reading some years back. Following the reading, the poet took questions from the audience; one of the questions probed why the poet changed one word in the poem.

His answer, “Because it made it a better poem.”

Wolterstorff was impressed by this answer. The response didn’t try and justify the change, it didn’t give a long explanation of why he changed that particular word. Just that “it made it a better poem.”

Wolterstorff’s point here was that artists don’t always need to be able to verbalize exactly what makes a good painting, sculpture or poem. Artists, arguably, possess a certain intuition that helps them know which negatives to develop, which paragraphs to cut and which pots to just throw away. It takes time, perhaps a lifetime, to observe and thus articulate certain things.

Of course, there are basic tenets to every craft which serve as a jumping off point for an artist. Hopefully the artist will be able to make note of the importance of proportion, line weight and color theory when talking about a work or body of work. But there is more to art than formality.

thunderhead-square-299x300

For me, it boils down to a somewhat ethereal choice between my unfinished or even finished sculptures. The small thunderhead above was definitely a go, but two other larger works I finished in the Fall — and put just as much time into — I’m not happy with. Now, I may be able to modify them in such a way that I’m willing to exhibit and sell them (you can only do so much with wood and clay; poets have it easy if they want to make changes later), but if I so decide that they just don’t have it that is part of my own process and artistic intuition.

Is ADHD really just “Creative Kids Syndrome?”

NPR’s Morning Edition played a story yesterday about Pacific Lutheran University student Emily Algire. Algire was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, much to the confusion of her very organized mother.

The NPR spot reminded me of my August post wherein Sir Ken Robinson cites Gillian Lynn, who choreographed Cats and Phantom of the Opera. I didn’t elaborate on this story in that post — as it was getting long — so here it is in brief.

Gillian Lynn, who grew up in the 1930s in Kent, England, was suspected to have a learning disability by her school. The school wrote to her parents in order to state their suspicion. Lynn couldn’t concentrate. She fidgeted in school. “Now they’d say she had ADHD,” Robinson notes. “But this was the 1930s and ADHD hadn’t been invented, you know, at this point. It wasn’t an available condition. People weren’t aware they could have that.”

As a disclaimer, I’m compelled to say that the following isn’t intended to slight or make light of anyone’s personal struggle with ADHD. I’m not personally afflicted with said condition, and actually know very few people who are (in fact, I can’t name anyone off-hand). I’m by no means a doctor and have done extraordinarily little reading on this subject. Herein I’m merely theorizing as an outside observer.

However, I often wonder if ADHD isn’t something realized on account of our very rigid public education system. Yes, I said it: I’m not sure ADHD is real. That’s it. Those of you with passionately divergent opinions, let it out. Civilly, please, and with solid rhetoric. References to medical journals are great so long as they’re in plain English.

Even though I didn’t and don’t suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, I found the public school process to be a generally less than ideal manner of education. I’m an artist, a designer, a creative person. I work with my hands. Most K-12 classes are book and lecture-based affairs. You sit, you listen, you take notes and then you do your bookwork.

I know I didn’t and don’t have ADHD because I did fine in school despite being a hands-on learner. My grades hovered in-between A and B on the common scale. But I was most definitely bored. I was uninterested. At the same time, however, I was a self-starter. After I’d get home from sitting in classroom lectures for six hours I would — of my own volition — draw or make attempts at other kinds of art. I drew animals and eventually began drafting floor plans of houses (I have no recollection how I got into this, as it would still be three years or so before I took a formal drafting class.). I would sit for five or six straight hours creating. Tracing paper, t-square and compass in hand I devised Georgian mansions and modern vacation homes.

I took as many classes as I could in high school that lent themselves to the creative process, but it wasn’t nearly enough. I understand the need for math and English and history, but aren’t there better ways to teach it to people like me who thrive in a hands-on setting? How hard would it be to mix in more (or any) field trips to a history class or a simple engineering project as a math assignment at the high school, or even junior high level? Maybe we need different kinds of schools and different kinds of teachers for different kinds of learners. Maybe the system needs to better identify different kinds of learners — instead of lumping every kid into the same kind of classroom environment — and set students off on tracks that help them flourish instead of just get by. Once in a while I hear about this latter kind of track-based school, though it very much appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

My thought is that a lot of people diagnosed with ADHD simply learn differently than public education allows for in most instances. This was the case for Gillian Lynn. Lynn and her mother went to see a specialist. After the specialist outlined to the mother all of the problems the child was having in school, he told Lynn he needed to speak to her mother privately. The doctor and the mother left the room. As they left, the doc put some music on for the child.

The two watched Lynn from the other room. As soon as they’d left, the girl was on her feet moving to the music. After a few minutes the doctor turned to the mother and said

“Your daughter isn’t sick. She’s a dancer.”

“Take her to a dance school.” From what I can tell, Robinson is working on a book titled Epiphany for which he recently interviewed Lynn. She recounted to Robinson in an interview how wonderful it was to be in a room with a lot of other people like herself upon arriving at the dance school. “People who couldn’t sit still. People who had to move to think.”

Robinson goes on to list Lynn’s achievements. She founded her own dance school, choreographed some of the most renowned musicals, became a millionaire. “Someone else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.”

Is it really so bad that some people just aren’t wired to sit through a lecture, let alone five or six consecutive lectures in a ordinary school day? Or is it just that, for the sake of ease, the public schools in America won’t tolerate anything outside of the status quo? What will it take to change the bureaucratic behemoth that is public education so that it teaches everyone equally well according to the pupil’s standards, not some government regulator’s standards?

Some people have to move to think. And that’s OK.

Photo from Wikipedia.