#creativity quotient

[rlharrington]

Strandbeest Two

Strand beests Two

New Ted Talk by Theo Janson. Original work also in this library. Life forms learning to liv on their own. They are mechanical beests using the wind.  Dry sand stops them and they proceed in another direction. A new generation of beests, they now able to hold the wind and use it when there is none. Better than the wheel and ceretainly quite pretty. It is the wave of the future. Have a look…

View On WordPress

[breakingglassandkickingass]

The Illusion of a Creative Department (versus everyone else)

Source

I love telling stories. And, I feel pretty confident saying, usually, I’m pretty good at them.  Puns; weird ancient Greek words; poorly executed and indeterminate foreign accents; a dirty limerick - I’ve got them all stowed away and ready the moment I get the spotlight (at a your next cocktail party).*

*For the record, I'm an impeccable guest, who never shows up empty handed, and happen to have Thursday night free.

That said, it came as a surprise when launching into a well rehearsed bit with a friend, that I was interrupted at an unexpected portion of the story. It happened as I talking to a friend who works in independent film.  I casually tossed the word “Creatives” as a group of specific people in a department within advertising.  It's something that we often say in the agency world.  

He interrupted, bristling at the idea of this being a singular group.  To him, it seemed counterintuitive to have one piece of the team be singled out for this skill.  It just didn’t sit that being creative is something some people working on a project are and others, simply, are not.  Why are they thought to be the only ones to be labeled with such a quality?

I have to say I agree with him.  Allowing people to designate themselves “creatives” is a dangerous and potentially harmful semantic to let stand.  It lets everyone else off the hook for thinking creatively and doesn’t set any actual standard for the standards “ creatives thinking” should have to hold itself to.  

It actually got me thinking back to Bruce Nussbaum’s thoughts on the failures of Design Thinking and on his thoughts on a  Creativity Quotient.  I particularly appreciated his breakdown below:

Creativity is an old concept, far older than "design." But it is an inclusive concept. In my experience, when you say the word 'design' to people across a table, they tend to smile politely and think "fashion." Say 'design thinking,' and they stop smiling and tend to lean away from you. But say “creativity" and people light up and lean in toward you.

Design Thinking focused on ways to approach taking “creativity” and breaking it down into processes for business.  The essential struggle to figure out how to how to build creativity into a quantifiable process we can follow again and again to reach a successful (and profitable) conclusion.  Nussbaum recognized that the heart of the matter was less about designers versus business leaders and more about the way in which people thought of themselves.

That scaffolding of Design Thinking, that collection of behaviors is the heart and soul of creativity. It includes being attuned to the people and culture you are immersed in and having the experience, wisdom, and knowledge to frame the real problem and--most important of all perhaps--the ability to create and enact solutions.

Although Nussbaum may bristle at yet another attempt to add a process regarding creative thinking, I do think this sort of “awareness of self” is something that actually needs to be taught.  It’s what actually means you can be called “creative thinkers.”   It’s one I should have paid more attention to when retelling my story to a new audience.    

It starts with understanding the structure of narrative.  Or to use the big buzzword:  storytelling. How people tell the story about the world around them. How they literally frame the abstract into something with cohesion that can be shared and understood by their intended audience.  

There are MANY different ways to approach storytelling but the first step is in positioning yourself in the world and noticing the way in which you tend to operate.  Noticing that when you see a car, is your instinct to  first appreciate it for the lines of its frame design or for the status it represents (or maybe just how awesome I look in that notphotoshoppedatall picture above?!)?  What does this say about you?  How do you think your audience would react to the same car?  Would what you deem the most important, be seen with the same importance to them?

The narrator should always be focused on three things:

Awareness of self  (identity)

Empathy to his/her audience

Ultimate intent 

Although it may be somewhat blasphemous to say, perhaps the best example of this is displayed by one of the past’s most successful marketers out there:  the Catholic Church.  In particular, the Church really got to be good storytellers during their heyday:  the Italian Renaissance.

Although there are numerous examples, I think we should focus on Milan’s Duomo di Milano and  Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa.  These pieces were created to be consumed by a populace that, at the time:

was largely illiterate,

lacked solid means for forward economic and social mobility

often at odds with the ruling class

Both the artists (who we’d call the “creatives”) and the brand (the Catholic Church) knew that proper storytelling tools NEEDED to both be accessible to their intended audience AND engaging.  And although they had a styleguide of iconography already established; with the Renaissance they were in the midst of a serious rebranding effort.

Milan’s Cathedral was first constructed as a reward to the noble and working classes, who had suffered under the war-happy Visconti predecessor, Barnabò (this sounds super nice except for the fact that a good deal of the funds came directly from the taxation of the same recovering populace).  For a populace who did not own much, extending them a sense of ownership and pride in a building that, ultimately, was a means of serving the Church, was a fantastic move.  It was a perfect example of constructing a narrative that was:  

aware of it’s place as a narrator (sympathetic and able to offer upwardly mobile rewards on the spiritual level to those who were loyal followers.  Who needs gold when they can get eternal life?)

empathized with its audience (dedicated building to them, for their past suffering)

and accomplished the intent of the Church by endearing them to the larger populace as one who held authority over not only the earthly government, but also the spiritual laws, as well.

Brand strategy just can’t get any better than eternal life.

On the second example, the Church got even more personal.

Source.

For a populace that was living under some tough conditions, martyrs, like Saint Teresa, reminded them that pain could be an expression of "being close to God."  Often, depictions of martyrs in pain looked very similar to someone in ecstasy.  This was not accidentel.  

In the Catholic faith any earthly pain is celebrated by the Church as reminiscent to the suffering of Christ (whose death was needed to cleanse people of their sins). The more pain suffered, the closer to an understanding of what Christ endured.  So, anything that brings someone closer to an understanding of God - particularly if that pain was because someone was being martyred - would be understood as a good thing.

As storytellers, the Church was aware of its audience and reacted empathetically with the structure for how to best tell a story.  Saint Teresa’s pain was so revered that she was given sainthood and a prominent statue of gold and marble.  I don’t know about you, but knowing that someone revers your pain and that you aren’t the only one who has come against such odds is a pretty fantastic start to a story.  

This empathy with the audience, of course, is not without valuable reciprocation.   The intent here was to extol the Church’s supreme authority.  The Church used pictures, music, and architecture to tell stories about downtrodden heroes. The Church attempted to gain their audience's attention by mirroring the plight of the populace.  The underdogs. Once they had their attention, they offered them incentives if they supported the Church.  

The Church also recognized the diversity of its audience and adjusted / expanded their story accordingly.   Nobility getting you down because you feel guilty about how easy life is?  No problem - just make a charitable donation and we’ll add your likeness right next to the saint in the form of donor portraits.  Still feel bad?  Well for a limited time offer the Church also offered a “pay as you go” sin forgiveness plan called Plenary Indulgences.  They’ve even made a comeback recently.  

Source.

The Catholic Church has had one of the longest running and most successful social media campaigns on earth (and possibly in the heavens).  

I realize that God may have be a bit heavy to be bringing in.  Especially since we started with my fumbling a story over cocktails.  But I think one important point here is to realize that storytelling can work forwards and backwards.  It's meaning is never static and will be constantly reevaluated and recontextualized. Even with subjects that have placed themselves in such revered contexts. Whether it is the same event being told by several people or a painting being seen hundreds of years later, there is always more than one way something can be narrated.  More than one way you can appropriate meaning for your own narrative and your intended audience.  

Witness Banksy’s retelling of Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or Piss Christ by Andres Serrano.

Source.

Interpreted in today's context, if the Church were a brand these sorts of pieces could be considered User Generated Content.  Maybe some would even call them viral responses?

This awareness and ability to react to the the delicate relationship between narrator and audience’s is the most important aspect for being successful.  It’s the reason I needed to adjust my story for my friend.  It’s why Bernini’s subject and medium worked in the 17th century and why Banksy’s works so well in the 21st.

Creative thinkers are storytellers engaging in a conversation. They don't build something because they think it's cool and people should pay attention.  They project the identities of their audience inward, react, and lead.  They're narrators that give voice to others by being good listeners, first.    

For that, anyone willing to construct a reflective and reflexive story is someone that can and should be labeled “Creatives.”  It's makes good advertising, good content, good art, and good cocktail party guests.  

But, for those who really like having silly labels like "Creatives" here are a few for everyone's viewing pleasure:

Source