First entry
How exciting, my very first blog ever...
I remember reading Ayn Rand's "the fountain head", a few years back. In this novel Rand classifies people into two stereotypes.
One is the creator, the pure thought, innovative, effective, able, genius and above all individual and egotistic.
The other is referred to as the "second-hander". The second-hander is the pretender, the masses, the will-less, one that nourishes from the creator like a parasite. The second-hander is unable to be innovative, creative and throughout history been standing in the creators way. Blocking progress with conservativeness, upheld by politics and religion.
I must admit that I never felt that I was one or the other. Nor do I have the desire to discuss Rand's personal views of mankind. But if we follow Rand's thought for a tiny bit, we could conclude that there can be no such thing as; organizational or group creativity.
Like I said, I don't buy Rands definitions. However I often find it difficult to engage a "symbiotic" group creativity. In most of the scenarios, there is one idea(from someone in the group) that the group decide to work with. This can be a good thing, but there is a human factor involved. In our school(Oslo school of architecture and design AHO), it is expected of the students to be creative, most of all from the students themselves. I've experienced that when students in little or non extent contribute to the creative process, it results in lack of objectivism and negative "vibes".
I believe this to be a result of disappointment from unfruitful hunt for creativity.
I've experienced this with other students and allso myself. This is of course an unlucky and destructive pattern, for any creative process.
I hope that by studying various techniques for creativity in group settings, that I will be better equipped to increase results from future groupworks.
I remember reading Ayn Rand's "the fountain head", a few years back. In this novel Rand classifies people into two stereotypes.
One is the creator, the pure thought, innovative, effective, able, genius and above all individual and egotistic.
The other is referred to as the "second-hander". The second-hander is the pretender, the masses, the will-less, one that nourishes from the creator like a parasite. The second-hander is unable to be innovative, creative and throughout history been standing in the creators way. Blocking progress with conservativeness, upheld by politics and religion.
I must admit that I never felt that I was one or the other. Nor do I have the desire to discuss Rand's personal views of mankind. But if we follow Rand's thought for a tiny bit, we could conclude that there can be no such thing as; organizational or group creativity.
Like I said, I don't buy Rands definitions. However I often find it difficult to engage a "symbiotic" group creativity. In most of the scenarios, there is one idea(from someone in the group) that the group decide to work with. This can be a good thing, but there is a human factor involved. In our school(Oslo school of architecture and design AHO), it is expected of the students to be creative, most of all from the students themselves. I've experienced that when students in little or non extent contribute to the creative process, it results in lack of objectivism and negative "vibes".
I believe this to be a result of disappointment from unfruitful hunt for creativity.
I've experienced this with other students and allso myself. This is of course an unlucky and destructive pattern, for any creative process.
I hope that by studying various techniques for creativity in group settings, that I will be better equipped to increase results from future groupworks.
posted by Ja-kalb at 4:05 AM
0 comments
