Creative Columns #2: It’s All Relative
for my second column i am going to turn it up a notch on the weird-shit-o-meter [and yes, in my tiny world there is such a thing]
some of you know me, and my somewhat distorted view of the world around me. and people with weird views tend to create weird theories. one of my latest theories revolves around the statement saying we, homo sapiens, are incapable in thinking of something new or unique.
quite a bold statement, don’t you think?….oke, stop thinking! click the damn link to read more, i didn’t write all this text for nothing!
now that you made it this far, let’s continue. we were talking…i mean, you were reading about one of my theories stating we are not able to think of something new.
now i can already hear the criticism: “but what about when that new ‘iproduct’ came out? that was new!” that is not what i am talking about right now. this theory revolves around the creation of an idea not the eventual product. it’s the thought that counts. i dare you. no, i double-dare you [how does that work?]. try to think of something non-existent. right here, right now. [even if you happen to succeed, try not to bother me, because there is no way to test such a thought and i am not interested.]
this thought of mine also deals with the fact people are not able to think of something which has not been derived from something they were stimulated by. whether you create something by using something else to derive it from or by using that which other things do not have, it is still related to another thing. it’s all relative.
here we go with the comments again: “that’s not a fact, that’s just your opinion!” let me just remind you that a fact is just an opinion by one or more people believed by many. remember when ’scientists’ said it was a fact the earth was flat? get my point? can i continue now? thank you.
anyway, back to the subject. a subject not easy to comprehend with such a limited brain as ours, so let’s start with some examples and explanations from multiple angles. there is one for all of you; scientists, philosophers, do-it-yourself’ers, sociopaths, even designers.
let’s start with the scientific angle. there is a known, and very rare, genetic alteration, which affects our eyes. this creates a new kind of shape on our retina [next to the known rod and cone cells who process and convert the light into neuron signals] which lets the affected person see new colors.
now i can already here you thinking: “new colors?! that’s not possible!” try to see this open-minded, because your imagination is lacking right now. if you cannot grasp a concept as this you are better of somewhere other then reading this column.
don’t ask me how and what it is called [i've searched for this condition, but am not able to find it, bonus points for you who does] but i can well imagine if someone which this condition would be able to see, let’s say; gamma or alpha-rays, those wavelengths could have some form of color. think of this: the color-spectrum is but a very small section in our electromagnetic spectrum.
let us move on to a philosophical approach. this way of thinking does resemble a philosophical theory of knowledge, emphasizing the role of experience, in one word: empiricism. it states that knowledge comes from experience. in other words, we can only know what we perceive. and this is not just a theory created by some truck-drivers on weed. some important philosophers commonly associated with empiricism include aristotle, thomas aquinas, john locke and john stuart mill. and trust me, those people have given a subject as this a lot of thought.
in a more test-it-yourself-approach; there is a simple example illustrating humans being relative. when showering we are able to tell the slightest of temperature differences. on the other hand, we are not able to give the current temperature of the water.
in a social way we tend to compare our values of things to others. ask yourself your definition of beauty, style, etiquette, communication or any other thing that comes to mind. it is all determined by the things around you. in others words, your environment determines your values. [i will deal with our environment and its influences in another column.]
relativity is quite interesting. i can vaguely remember talking to einstein around the 1900’s [you know; weirdo, bewildered professor, also came up with some interesting theories]. i proposed some of my ideas about relativity which he seem to find quite interesting. good old albert later on revised some of my statements and came out with his theory of relativity in 1905 showing off his well-known e=mc^2 [though he stole that equation from me, which originally said: 'eirenism' [peaceful state of mind] equals ‘my’ times ‘contribution’ square]. you might think it sounds stupid, but i will get that nobel prize some day.
however, i am currently drifting away from my point faster than an adhd-child on xtc, so i better get back on track.
how does this all relate to design and creativity again? well, it’s the creation of the idea that i am focusing on right now. so i advice you not to stick with the idea that you can actually create something new. instead, try to realize the truth. there is no spoo…uhh wait…that came out wrong…what i meant to say was: there is no ‘new’, there is only ‘that-which-has-been-derived-from’.
so the next time when you are asked to design or create something innovative, creative, new, or whatever your hotshot-i-know-jack-shit-about-creativity-boss wants you to create try not to stick with that which is known. also try not to stick with that which is unknown [because you can't]. just try to stick with very simple and small things without a lot of coherency to other little things. this way your idea is derived from something so abstract it will see little in common to all that other junk out there, making it just a little bit more unique.
and never, ever, start by analyzing the competitors in the same category, it will only influence your thought patterns and lead to copy-design. save the world by not making another grey box, we have enough of those!
to hell with grey boxes i say!
jan van der asdonk
Feedburner link
October 5th, 2006 at 6:19
I think this could be a good starting point for a discussion.
I personally agree, and think that people are incapable of coming up with new ideas, everything is derived from something, let me know what you guys think…
October 5th, 2006 at 7:03
I believe that every new or innovative concept is related to an earlier perceived experience, or combination of perceived experiences. However it depends how you define the fact of ‘a product or design being totally new’, is it only new when it has no similarities with existing product, or is it only new when the person who created it saw no connections with any other product? I believe that there are different ways to stimulate the mind at an abstract level to combine and merge different very abstract ideas into new designs and products. Of course these so called ‘new’ designs will always have a link to existing product, ideas or experiences. So it’s in fact impossible to design really new and truly unique products, but trying to get as close to unique design as possible, is a good goal for every designer.
October 6th, 2006 at 3:34
Hi Junior!
Now that I want to start to comment on your column, my mind is teasing me with different, contradictory thoughts. There are two of ‘em and here they come:
1) I think you’re right. There is no such thing as ‘new’. Relatively though, products can be new…you get it? But indeed, I believe as well that everything in this world is related. Theoretically one can look in the future if one is able to analyze everything on an atomic level and see how all (and I mean ALL) these atoms react to each other and then predict with a staggering certainty what these atoms will do. But that’s just theoretically…
2) Have you seen that documentary-movie “What the bleep do we know?”? No? let me eduacte you guys: The story goes, that the indians (you know, the original inhabitants of the land nowadays called North America) could not see the ships of Columbus coming on that bright sundaymorning of 1492. (yes I was there, just like Junior actually talked to our dearest Albert) The ships got closer to the coastline and the indians still did not see any ships. Why? No, not because they were short-sighted, in their world there was no such thing as a ship. The whole concept of a ship was not-existent. And the theory goes, that one cannot see things that are non existent in one’s world.
Here we go “in one’s world”. This means that maybe there are many, many, many things around us that are actually there, our brains just ignore them since our brains don’t recognize them. As a side note I think it is culturally dependant what one can and cannot see and depends on how you were raised as well. Think back of the time you were a child, a little stone you found somewhere could be anything you want,…cool!
OK, back to the indians; when the ships eventually got even closer (Columbus must be one amazed little fellow…) the indians started to see the waves the ships made in the water. After looking for a long, long time at these strange waves, one smart-ass indian started to notice the ships, but unfortunately it was too late and the US of A were founded. The bottom line is: there are new things out there, and our eyes pick them up, our brains just don’t allow us to see them. Unless you get a spoiler like the waves of the ships.
So,…look for the waves fellow designers, look for the waves. And find all the beauty that is hidden from us!
October 6th, 2006 at 11:35
damn jasp,
that’s one hell of a story you got there. you have got some interesting points.
however, i just have to comment on the part about the indians not being able to see the ships. if indians are familiar with water and know what it is they would be very much able to indentify the ships as ‘not-water’. which would lead to the conclusion the ships are something else, something new.
i just cannot comprehend people not being able to see such a distinct feature on the water as ships. how close to these huge things have to get for the indians to see a difference in the waves and still not notice the big boats? another addition, i am familiar with the same story. only in the version i was told the indians recognized the people on the boats before the boats themselves.
these ships are made of many things; ropes, sails, wood and a lot of other things. how come these indians did not identify any of these known materials?
with that statement of being unable to see that which is new to us, we would have been blind as little babies, unable to see anything around us until someone explained or showed us what is was. which is not really true.
but still an interesting statement. unfortunately, the only waves i get to see are those when i flush the toilet.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:37
Okay guys,
Noticing that this designer discussion has started I hope not being conceived as being interruptive as a marketeer. WH*T TH* F*CK a marketeer? WTF is he doing in OUR space? Well there are a few thing I would like to share with you.
First of all, I would like to complement Mr. van der Asdonk with his theory, which I regard as being the truth, or at least as close as possible to. To reason why people are only able to imagine the imaginable follows from their instinct. When we cavemen (Yes I’ve been there as well) were hunting on animals, we found ourselves being not capable of fighting them on our own. So we asked fellow cavemen to join us and fight them together. However the % of success was still not satisfying for the women in our villages, that had to feed us and our babies. To avoid being kicked out of our homes we started thinking of something new to be more efficient. (We didn’t knew this word by then, but we knew what we ment)
Than all of a sudden we saw a Bizon being killed by little stones that rolled from the mountains straight onto the head of the Bizon. (Thats why The Rolling Stones have been so successful) Although we didn’t kill the Bizon, we told our wives we did. And to avoid our wives being disappointed the next week we started collecting stones.
And guess what, after some practice we found our ways to mash the Bizons ourselves. Soon enough we even returned to the village with 2 Bizons. Something our Grandparents considered as being impossible.
OKAY enough nonsense, this has nothing to do with Design, This colum, or my passion Marketing. The only thing I tried to explain was that innovation comes from our abililty to think logic. And we are so blessed in being able to think logic, because thats the main source of our supreme existance, above other animals.
So to sum it up, until now I completely agree with Mr. van der Asdonk, but with the upcoming part I would like to trigger you designers to be different. ‘Cause thats what is all about right?
As a marketeer I’m responsible for selling the product you designed. This should be easy right. ‘Cause most of the ideas you invent are awesome and fingerlicking. Most of the product you design are the product I would like to have installed in my home or whatever as quickly as possible. But selling the product to me is not enough, the product has to be sold to the damn nation or even better the damn world.
Well to make it somewhat easier, just imagine the average person. Take a piece of paper, 2 minutes of your time and a pencil, write down everything you know about the average people. That is pretty hard right. For all the designers of the Western World, here a picture (just click or copy paste the link)
http://www.ru.nl/contents/pages/23199/05.jpg
This is how the average customer in our World looks like. These are the customers you’re designer for 85% of your time.
Okay the last fact I would like to bother you with. Do you know what innovation has had the largest effect on the economy over the last 50 years? here’s another picture…
http://www.politikimfreientheater.de/pix/presse.jpg
Well thats about it.
Just a quick footnote.
Please don’t think that I regard designing as something stupid or unimportant. Because it’s quite the opposite. Innovation should be at the top of our business, not just a toy to play with as CEO’s.
But innovation should be useful, the best innovation are not always beautiful, but they are so damn useful. So try to imagine something new, non-copied, but also useful. Because that would make life some much easier.
(excuse me for some typos or grammabugs, but fridaymornings aren’t my favourite ones)
October 6th, 2006 at 12:13
waaah a marketeer!!! incoming! hide! take cover! four! fire in the hole!
gheghe, just kidding. nice post, thanks for your time.
i would like to comment on your view on selling products. products will never appeal and apply to everybody. although your aim is high, in reality it is a major challenge to get your product our for everybody. most products have target groups. these groups provide targets, so we designers will have a better chance in meeting as much wishes and demands as possible.
but i very much agree with you that innovation should be a top priority. and especially a focus on product that not only look good but also show affordance and usability. what good is a product when no one is able to interact with it?
October 11th, 2006 at 0:42
Funny, I have had several discussions with my brother-in-law lately about this subject. We both agree that trying to invent something completely new, being innovative (to the full meaning of the word) nowadays seems virtually impossible or at least very difficult. Even new art-styles are basically old ones put into a blender.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say that it is impossible. In fact, there are numerous innovative things that mankind has come up with such as fire, the wheel, aeroplanes, boats and velcro. But still, we just stole those ideas from nature…
It’s a pity that many designers have somehow accepted this incapacity to come up with new things, and have decided to really improve the world by yet another phone cover or, like Jan said, another grey box. Another pity is that these ‘innovative’ ideas are backed-up by a multi-million marketing scheme into tricking people that it is, in fact, a wonderful new innovative addition to our lives. Or is this a bit too hush, Martijn?
I like your article Jan, and also the replies so far. It’s a good thing to be aware of these things. My hint of advice is, look for ‘new ideas’ in nature. See what else we can steal.
October 11th, 2006 at 14:09
Ok, I guess it would be a pretty useless to start a discussion about whether it is not possible for us to think of something new or not. I guess thinking of something new without relating to anything would end up in playing god and creating a new dimension. Sounds interesting, but I’m kinda busy right now.
In my opinion we could use a novelty scale. Obviously a scale needs some quantity, lets say Wen. Something new is maybe 80 Wen on the scale of New.
So how do we determine the novelty of something? An idea can be new as well, but some ideas are more new than others before that, although they may have there earlier.
hmz… have to pick someboby up…
to be continued…
October 11th, 2006 at 15:20
designers A meets designer B:
“omg rofl wtf lmao!!!”
- “what? what? whaat?”
“i just thought of an amazing idea!!”
- “a new idea hmm? how much in the on the Wen Scale?”
“about 187….”
-” 187 Wen? dude! that’s like….almost….new….”
“i know….omg….i am gonna save the world with this!”
and yes, such things do actually happen…
October 11th, 2006 at 21:02
hello dudes, designers and divas,
i can not agree more with alain. multi-million marketing schemes together with the so called ‘innovative’ products are a waste to the world. customers are getting more cynical than they have ever been. within a few years its no longer sufficient to tell your customer a simple lie. nowadays customers are in control… they ask each other about purchases and they tell each other about purchases. if you lie you will suffer… so thats the reason why i tried to tell you how important its going to be to design product which we can sell, we cannot tell lies to sell, the product have to be of a sufficient quality and fit to the customer preferences so we marketeers are able to sell it.
however if you as a designer just don’t like marketeers, if got one great advice for you, and please dont tell other marketeers i told you this: but just design crap, because that makes us have to lie to sell, in which we will fail and our position in the firm will be lost. the only side-effect of this would be that you’ll have to deal with the nutty financial guys. the guys that still havent found out the pleasures the ipod brings to your life.
so its up to you, designers.
if i may propose: please help us marketeers! just design really innovative products, that have some unique selling points. this will keep us alive and in return we’ll group up with you, try to get more respect and the corresponding funds from the financials at the headquaters. and most of all we’ll bless our customers with the best and most honest products they have ever seen.
amen
October 29th, 2006 at 19:07
-ignoring the marketeer….-
to be new, or not be new… maybe the newnyness scale is not a (very) good idea, but its a new idea! On a newnyness scale maybe very young, but not to be used much by many people probably. On the innovativeness scale no so high. Maybe thats the point I was making:
I can think of thousands of new ideas everyday, but only once in a while I can make millions of dollars out of it. What we need is not newnyness, (or just novelty in proper english, staying in China fucks up every sense of proper language) but fertility. And fertility gives the opportunity for others to actually use that idea and make themselves happy. -still ignoring the marketeer….-
So little John, can you provide me once again with a good dialogue obout a fertility scale? Lets call it the ytilitref scale
October 29th, 2006 at 23:46
designer A meets designer B:
“dude, dude, dude!”
- “now what? can’t you see i’m busy?”
“dude, seriously, remember that last time i saved the world with my design?”
- “vagely…”
“well, this time my idea is even better!!!”
- “better hmm? how much on the Wen Scale?”
“Wen Scale? that’s like sooo 2005. now we have the Ytillitref Scale…”
- “the what scale?”
“the Ytillitref Scale! it is a new and improved scale focussing on the fertility of an idea rather then just the new-factor.”
- “i see, and how much Ytillitref are we talking about with this brain child of yours?”
“about 0.254.”
- “0.254? how much Wen is that?”
“dunno, there is no such thing as a Ytillitref to Wen translator…”
- “so how am i supposed to grasp the size of this idea of yours?”
“dunno, but this is huge!”
- “…”