Creative, Technical or both? - Page 2

egray · 09-30-2008, 07:09 AM

Many interesting points here!

I used to teach a short, 12 week course in design, aimed at small businesses wanting to improve the quality of their own outgoing documents. I found that by teaching the purely technical side of design, I could get my students to start producing very presentable work very quickly.

Personally I do not think that made them designers, but it certainly pointed them in the right direction.

Having recently seen one of my old students' work, nearly 2 years on from the course, I noticed that she was still doing exactly the same things that I had taught her which was design without creativity - layout by grid and nothing more. Technically accurate and balanced but essentially lifeless.

I feel that creativity is something people are born with. It's something you can't quite put your finger on. Speaking as a more technical designer myself, whilst I can produce balanced and functional designs, I think it takes those with that rare streak of creativity to push the boundaries and make something truly unique.

ChrisLy · 09-30-2008, 04:40 PM

My point about creativity is that, in design (specifically -- and I assume that's what we are talking about), like in science, it is something that can only go so far.
Einstein or Newton would have never been able to create their creative masterstrokes without a strong technical knowledge. In fact, Newton had to create an entirely new form of technicality (calculus) to express his creativity.

I would argue that people who use flashy photoshop effects exclusively are using creativity as an excuse rather than the other way around. I think the people that use fewer flashy effects are the ones with true technical knowledge -- not creative.

Similarly, truly great, relavant art relies on intellect and an in-depth knowledge of culture and history.

Laquatus · 10-05-2008, 05:15 PM

I don't think creativity can be "taught". It's something we already own in our conscious or sub-conscious, like said before "instinct". The only thing that can be taught is the ability to create by learning various techniques... through this we learn ourselves (if we possess it) the creative vision, the ability to see what is creative and what is not. If we don't have this "gen" then even the most expert could teach us the 100% techniques of creativity, but we'll never understand the HOW and WHY...

Then I have another question for you all to debate... How do we know what creativity is and how it is taught specifically?

Greetz,
Laq

alyCe · 10-05-2008, 07:39 PM

I actually think creativity is within everyone, and you can learn to "unlock" it, through various methods. Some do it by patience and trying and failing, some do it through seeking out what inspires them and try to channel that, copying so that eventually they find their voice. Some find it through rituals, some drugs, some will never find it, some never bother to try, some just got a knack for it. It's about finding ways to open up the right side of the brain, and either just go with the flow and become an artist or learn the left to channel the right.

"If we don't have this "gen" then even the most expert could teach us the 100% techniques of creativity, but we'll never understand the HOW and WHY..."

The important thing when thinking creatively is not "why", but "why not"

egray · 10-06-2008, 07:39 AM

actually that's a very good point alyCe, I suppose with some people it just takes a lot to get them to think in a creative manner. Though I would say that the whole left brain/right brain thing probably dictates as to how creative a person can be.

Laquatus · 10-06-2008, 07:49 AM

"why not" ... i like that

Gino · 10-06-2008, 03:35 PM

I would say prob 75/25. The technical stuff is not hard to master really, but being creative and a talented designer/artist is no easy task. It takes a lot of hard work, natural talent, motivation and continued growth.

ChrisLy · 10-07-2008, 03:58 PM

After mulling this over some more, I think some terms need to be defined. What exactly is technical and what is creativity?
In my mind, anything that comes entirely from within is creativity.
Anything that is influenced by the outside world is technicality.
I find this definition satisfying and I think it completes our discussions hope of splitting the two (because if there is something else, then we would have to add a third percentage).

Would you agree or disagree? Or would you define them differently?

With this definition in mind, is your answer still the same?
Personally, mine is. I find that the only section of creativity in any field then comes from making connections between what is already known.
This is where the Einsteinian factor comes in. Taking what information is out there and reforming it into something better (Space, Time, Light being intrinsically intertwined).
That said, it would be hard to argue that all scientists who are not Einstein are bad at what they do. They simply are just not geniuses.
I similarly equate design to this notion. Gurus will be able to use their creativity in such a way that they change how we look at things in one swoop, but the workers that simply make small steps of logical progress are no less important.

egray · 10-10-2008, 10:41 AM

I think the dichotomy you suggest here ChrisLy is a big problem for a lot of designers. Thinking of technicality as purely a response to external stimuli puts a lot of people off really learning and grasping the technical side of anything.

I've lost count of the number of designers I've met over the years who claim to do web design but can't code a single line. They don't believe that it is creative, only technical. But as any coder worth their salt will tell you, coding is equally as creative as running a paintbrush over a canvas.

So with that I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with your definition.

For me, there is no distinction as to where each side comes from. Both creativity and technicality comes from within, both as a response to something external and both from a place inside that is difficult to pinpoint. How and when they are applied is important.

As designers, first and foremost our remit is to respond to a brief. To answer a question. To solve a puzzle. This requires both technicality of execution and creativity as well. Thinking about it more, I think the split of creativity and technicality in a good designer depends not on the designer, but should change depending on the brief at hand and the designers response to that brief.

Just a thought!

ChrisLy · 10-12-2008, 10:09 PM

Egray, I believe you have only misinterpreted my definitions.
But before I get to that, what you have said seems to imply that neither has a definition, and without definition there is no possible discussion.

I never said coding couldn't be creative. Coding is much like design. People that use their creativity to manipulate the technical side of things are still being creative.
For instance, when people decided to mash-up javascript and other coding techniques to create AJAX were being creative. Taking two seemingly unrelated ideas and bringing them into one is, by even scientific definition, creativity (in fact, its essentially the litmus test for those that we consider genius).

09-30-2008, 07:09 AM	#11
egray webmonkey Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 75	Many interesting points here! I used to teach a short, 12 week course in design, aimed at small businesses wanting to improve the quality of their own outgoing documents. I found that by teaching the purely technical side of design, I could get my students to start producing very presentable work very quickly. Personally I do not think that made them designers, but it certainly pointed them in the right direction. Having recently seen one of my old students' work, nearly 2 years on from the course, I noticed that she was still doing exactly the same things that I had taught her which was design without creativity - layout by grid and nothing more. Technically accurate and balanced but essentially lifeless. I feel that creativity is something people are born with. It's something you can't quite put your finger on. Speaking as a more technical designer myself, whilst I can produce balanced and functional designs, I think it takes those with that rare streak of creativity to push the boundaries and make something truly unique. __________________ Ed Gray Webmaster Architects Diseño Earle

09-30-2008, 04:40 PM	#12
ChrisLy Designer Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 43	My point about creativity is that, in design (specifically -- and I assume that's what we are talking about), like in science, it is something that can only go so far. Einstein or Newton would have never been able to create their creative masterstrokes without a strong technical knowledge. In fact, Newton had to create an entirely new form of technicality (calculus) to express his creativity. I would argue that people who use flashy photoshop effects exclusively are using creativity as an excuse rather than the other way around. I think the people that use fewer flashy effects are the ones with true technical knowledge -- not creative. Similarly, truly great, relavant art relies on intellect and an in-depth knowledge of culture and history. __________________ My portfolio. Feel free to critique.

10-05-2008, 05:15 PM	#13
Laquatus Digital Artist Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 95	I don't think creativity can be "taught". It's something we already own in our conscious or sub-conscious, like said before "instinct". The only thing that can be taught is the ability to create by learning various techniques... through this we learn ourselves (if we possess it) the creative vision, the ability to see what is creative and what is not. If we don't have this "gen" then even the most expert could teach us the 100% techniques of creativity, but we'll never understand the HOW and WHY... Then I have another question for you all to debate... How do we know what creativity is and how it is taught specifically? Greetz, Laq __________________ .: www.laquatus.com :. .: www.myspace.com/laquatusdesign :.

10-05-2008, 07:39 PM	#14
alyCe Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 709	I actually think creativity is within everyone, and you can learn to "unlock" it, through various methods. Some do it by patience and trying and failing, some do it through seeking out what inspires them and try to channel that, copying so that eventually they find their voice. Some find it through rituals, some drugs, some will never find it, some never bother to try, some just got a knack for it. It's about finding ways to open up the right side of the brain, and either just go with the flow and become an artist or learn the left to channel the right. "If we don't have this "gen" then even the most expert could teach us the 100% techniques of creativity, but we'll never understand the HOW and WHY..." The important thing when thinking creatively is not "why", but "why not" __________________ everyone runs, nobody hides

10-06-2008, 07:39 AM	#15
egray webmonkey Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 75	actually that's a very good point alyCe, I suppose with some people it just takes a lot to get them to think in a creative manner. Though I would say that the whole left brain/right brain thing probably dictates as to how creative a person can be. __________________ Ed Gray Webmaster Architects Diseño Earle


Welcome to our Graphic Design Forums! Your Design Forums has active graphic design forums where community members discuss graphic design related topics.

10-06-2008, 07:49 AM	#16
Laquatus Digital Artist Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 95	"why not" ... i like that __________________ .: www.laquatus.com :. .: www.myspace.com/laquatusdesign :.

10-06-2008, 03:35 PM	#17
Gino Administrator/Founder Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 1,037	I would say prob 75/25. The technical stuff is not hard to master really, but being creative and a talented designer/artist is no easy task. It takes a lot of hard work, natural talent, motivation and continued growth. __________________ Free Business Cards // T Shirts Blog // How to Start A Clothing Line

10-07-2008, 03:58 PM	#18
ChrisLy Designer Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 43	After mulling this over some more, I think some terms need to be defined. What exactly is technical and what is creativity? In my mind, anything that comes entirely from within is creativity. Anything that is influenced by the outside world is technicality. I find this definition satisfying and I think it completes our discussions hope of splitting the two (because if there is something else, then we would have to add a third percentage). Would you agree or disagree? Or would you define them differently? With this definition in mind, is your answer still the same? Personally, mine is. I find that the only section of creativity in any field then comes from making connections between what is already known. This is where the Einsteinian factor comes in. Taking what information is out there and reforming it into something better (Space, Time, Light being intrinsically intertwined). That said, it would be hard to argue that all scientists who are not Einstein are bad at what they do. They simply are just not geniuses. I similarly equate design to this notion. Gurus will be able to use their creativity in such a way that they change how we look at things in one swoop, but the workers that simply make small steps of logical progress are no less important. __________________ My portfolio. Feel free to critique.

10-10-2008, 10:41 AM	#19
egray webmonkey Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Spain Posts: 75	I think the dichotomy you suggest here ChrisLy is a big problem for a lot of designers. Thinking of technicality as purely a response to external stimuli puts a lot of people off really learning and grasping the technical side of anything. I've lost count of the number of designers I've met over the years who claim to do web design but can't code a single line. They don't believe that it is creative, only technical. But as any coder worth their salt will tell you, coding is equally as creative as running a paintbrush over a canvas. So with that I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with your definition. For me, there is no distinction as to where each side comes from. Both creativity and technicality comes from within, both as a response to something external and both from a place inside that is difficult to pinpoint. How and when they are applied is important. As designers, first and foremost our remit is to respond to a brief. To answer a question. To solve a puzzle. This requires both technicality of execution and creativity as well. Thinking about it more, I think the split of creativity and technicality in a good designer depends not on the designer, but should change depending on the brief at hand and the designers response to that brief. Just a thought! __________________ Ed Gray Webmaster Architects Diseño Earle Last edited by egray : 10-10-2008 at 10:43 AM.

10-12-2008, 10:09 PM	#20
ChrisLy Designer Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 43	Egray, I believe you have only misinterpreted my definitions. But before I get to that, what you have said seems to imply that neither has a definition, and without definition there is no possible discussion. I never said coding couldn't be creative. Coding is much like design. People that use their creativity to manipulate the technical side of things are still being creative. For instance, when people decided to mash-up javascript and other coding techniques to create AJAX were being creative. Taking two seemingly unrelated ideas and bringing them into one is, by even scientific definition, creativity (in fact, its essentially the litmus test for those that we consider genius). __________________ My portfolio. Feel free to critique.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode