January 25th-Refining and Evaluating Ideas

What do Petroski and Tharp have to say about the importance of revision?

• Both Petroski and Tharp see revision as a vital step in any creative process, a necessary ingredient to any successful work. Petroski makes the point that we, as creative individuals, are in a constant pursuit of perfection. We will never reach it, but we are always in pursuit. It is only with revision that we can come close to a more perfect creation. It takes a critical and humble eye to make adjustments, to see what doesn't work and try to find something that works better. This can be during the process, in which revisions can be direct changes to the product, or it can be retrospectively, where we learn from our past mistakes. Tharp takes a very similar approach to revision. She argues that revision is a necessary stage to make a creation reach it's full potential. She cites when she was working on Movin' Out as a direct example of the power of revision. She premiered the show in Chicago and received a hefty dose of negative criticism. She revised and refined the show while in Chicago, and made it that much more successful when it came to Broadway. Her revisions made the show the success it was. She clearly believes in the power and necessity of revision.

What are some of the criteria by which Petroski and Tharp each define failure, and what role does failure play in revision?

• Petroski and Tharp see failure as a way to get closer to a more perfect piece. Failure is a way of seeing what doesn't work and thereby highlight what does work. Both Petroski and Tharp think that failure should be taken in stride-as an opportunity to get better and not to give up on an idea. Tharp defines some specific kind of failures: skill, concept, judgment, nerve, repetition, and denial. She says a failure of skill is simply when human ability blocks a idea, which is only a cue to start working to achieve the intended vision. She says that a failure of concept occurs when an idea is just not viable-it just isn't a good idea. She recommends just dropping the bad idea. She sees errors in judgment as failures to be objective enough to know when something should/should not be cut. She defines a failure of nerve to be a lack of self-confidence in the ability to bring an idea to life, and just recommends taking a chance and trusting in yourself. She sees a failure as a result of repetition occurs when something has been worked with so much to the point that you are unable to make informed decisions about the idea. You are too close to the idea and need to step away in order to make good decisions. The last kind of failure as Tharp see it is of denial. This is a reliance upon other's ignorance and non-understanding as a way of passing off sub-par work. It is only cured by self awareness and coming out of the 'denial.'

January 18th-Fixation and Allowing New Ideas to Emerge

How do Dobbs & Smith define fixation?

•  Dobbs & Smith define fixation as a persistence in unsuccessful method in problem solving. Unwarranted assumptions, typical thinking, or recent experiences can cause fixation. Dobbs & Smith define three categories of fixation: process, function, and perceptual. Process fixation occurs when one is attempting to apply an old method of problem solving to a new problem. When a problem resembles (on the surface) one already encountered, one can become fixated upon the old method of solving the problem, as opposed to thinking about new ways to tackle it. Functional fixation occurs when objects are mentally associated with the function they are most often used for, and it is difficult to detach oneself from this association. It prevents objects from being used in new and innovative ways, because they are only seen in the light that they are most commonly seen in. Perceptual fixation occurs when previously learned ideas about a problem are applied to a seemingly similar problem, even though it might not be appropriate. One becomes fixated upon ideas, restrictions, and solutions, that might not make sense in a given problem.

When and why does Gerber recommend throwing away previously generated ideas?

• Gerber acknowledges the fact that previously generated ideas can often limit us in creating new, perhaps better, ones. When previously generated ideas are given full attention, the focus is upon the past, not the present or the future. In successful idea generation, this clinging to the past can often stunt the growth of these new ideas. Gerber does acknowledge, however, that in a developmental stage, ideas are better off thought about and fleshed out, as opposed to forgotten quickly. This is only because development only can occur in such a situation of retrospective thinking. New ideas, however need to be without boundary so the best ones can shine through.

Reactions...

Gerber's thought of throwing away ideas to make room for new ones is pretty terrifying, really. It takes a confidence in oneself, the confidence to acknowledge and appreciate that you will have more than that one good idea. It is scary, but in a way, I think liberating. The freedom to improvise and spontaneously respond and create is too wonderful to pass up, honestly. And Johnson's ideas about great ideas being the collision and dialogue between smaller hunches supports this idea as well. When we open the floodgates of new ideas through improvisation and spontaneous creation, regardless of old ideas, these fresh ideas can interact, combust, argue, meet, and respond to each other to create a brilliant and original final product. I feel that my group can (and will) let go of our old ideas in the search of new and exciting ones. I feel that we can allow our ideas to incubate and take shape and fight until we have a polished final idea.