The varying approaches of creativity
So I went off-grid for a few weeks as I was on holiday! Was enjoyable but I’m raring to work now.
In response to my last blog @codeandcognition commented on a topic I have been hoping to discuss for a while! I wasn’t planning to post it now but will push it forward due to its sudden relevance. I entirely agree with their points that engineering requires far more creativity than many would expect and that the importance of multidisciplinary subjects is paramount to the successful progression of any modern field. Though I will say that the previous post was not to focus on the dynamics of creativity in engineering and artistic fields but the struggles of communication between the two. Regarding the element of creativity in various fields, I feel that it is so much more complex than a mere mention and deserves its own post. So I’ll get started!
Similarly to what was mentioned before, when creativity is thought of, the immediate reference for most would be a painter, dancer or musician, but the reality is that creativity encompasses every field within human reach. It is the spark that has reached any start or change to every creation and has been quintessential to every project I have been in as a musician, biomedical engineer and now as a neuroscientist. I speak with experience from these fields and can once again agree with @codeandcognition that each of these fields is heavily reliant on their own element of creativity, but the approach towards them is totally different. This in turn has made each field highly unique and in many respects “beautiful” in a sense, (a reason why being a specialist is so much more than just knowing certain things) but can cause issues in communication between themselves when being approached blind. See my previous blog for more details there!
The approach towards creativity in an artistic format: (Once again I will say this is from my experience and therefore, largely my opinion!) The traditional format if you will, largely starts off with that blank screen so many artists often find themselves staring at. It’s the worst thing in the world for me and has time and time again prevented any form of creation when all you really have to do is start with a single note on the paper. I’ll explain why this is slightly different to the approach of engineering later, but while all fields experience this simple block between nothing and something, the block artists experience is truly prolific in the sense that the only way to overcome it is by feeling your way around it. For me, it was orchestral composition and the difference between a successful piece was down to whether the sequence of notes within the score felt right or not. While the technical aspects of composing were certainly necessary, needing to know how things worked to make it sound a certain way, the feeling of whether or not something was right or wrong, truly defined the product. Of course, people have developed systems based on logic, reason and various forms of technicality to fully justify why artists define their work as good or bad, it is the unique creativity of these people that dictates the approaches they have on their own masterpieces.
Now despite what is next, I feel I should continue to say that this “feeling” can also be translated into other fields. There is no exclusivity when it comes to creativity and its approaches. However, it should be noted that artistic compositions are so much more often based within a feeling format whereas other fields that are much less traditionally creative (engineering), have been developed in a way that fundamentally differs and thus promotes a different form of thinking.
The approach towards creativity in an engineering format: A very interesting concept and one I think is rarely discussed between and outside of engineering circles. While I feel I may be a little biased as my experience in engineering has largely been in research whereas my experience with art has been as a student and freelancer, the element of creativity in engineering (in my opinion) is intrinsically tied to the understanding of the individual and the extent of which the field they sit within has grown. While this is not to say engineers do not require that element of creativity to go from nothing to something in a project as previously mentioned, artists will push boundaries from their own imagination and feelings while engineers will push the boundaries using their imagination and tools provided. The distinction between these two sets are the root causes between the fields differentiation. Progression within Engineering has always been set in a systematic fashion, using the ideas, the proofs of concept and then the tools that have all been thought of and constructed within a similar process of imagination. The only exception to this is the theories that are constructed, but even this can largely be based on our current understanding. Anything outside of this can sometimes be called science fiction which in itself blurs the lines between science and art.
This is why there is so much more of a need for multidisciplinary work within the fields of engineering as the system that we stand on requires it to expand to other forms of thinking. It cannot simply become flexible without the push for progression and will merely be fixated within the confines of its own limitations if not pulled out by others that are willing to extend an open hand and collaborate.
Once again I will say that these methods of thinking are absolutely not exclusive to themselves but instead are indicative of the systems that have promoted their thinking for longer than any of us have been alive. I can only hope that the further we progress over time, the more multidisciplinary work becomes a norm, and in turn, promotes alternative thinking.
I welcome anyone to discuss this further as I find these concepts fascinating and would love to hear others perspectives.