Visual metaphor is not only the staple of advertising but the backbone of all art.  James Geary points out in his TED presentation (embedded) that metaphor is when we perceive X = Y.  Analogy is a close cousin but its equation has no equal sign only an implied one.  Though, in our struggle to understand visual abstractions, I believe we search for metaphor rather than analogy.  We adore closure.

“That is, with visual metaphors, the image-maker proposes food for thought without stating any determinate proposition.  It is the task of the viewer to use the image for insight.”
(Noël Carroll, “Visual Metaphor,” in Beyond Aesthetics. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001 via About.com)

All art is abstract albeit some more than others. Once we accept this (and all sane people do) a metaphor is attached; it’s how sense is made of conceptual form.  This shape is your sister but that is a house; your sister is not a house – that would be analogy.  It then becomes obvious that visual metaphors also link to feeling.

A well executed visual metaphor leads the viewer without providing a conclusion.  Providing a conclusion turns art to pure craft.  Elegance turns trite when all visual clues are familiar and no interpretation is possible beyond that provided by the artist.

James Geary.com

James Geary’s Blog

[Biography via Wikipedia]

James Geary is an American-born, London-based writer and the former Europe editor of Time.^[1][2]

His most recent book is Geary’s Guide to the World’s Great Aphorists which he claims to be the largest collection of aphorisms in the English language, and follows on from his previous volume on aphorists and aphorisms, The World in a Phrase (published in the UK – but now out of print – as We Are What We Think). The World in a Phrase has also been published in Brazilian Portuguese – as O Mundo em una Frase – as well as Korean.

Previous literary efforts include a popular science book called The Body Electric, a survey of cybernetic projects attempting to replace or enhance human biological senses (also published in Spain as El Cuerpo Electrónico^[3], and two much earlier books of poetry written while he was a student in San Francisco, 17 Reasons Why and Words for Refrigerator Doors.

Geary publishes a blog about aphorisms, “All Aphorisms, All The Time”, via his website.He is also a regular speaker at literary festivals^[4] where he gives a largely unscripted lecture on aphorisms which includes his juggling routine.

Among his journalistic credits, apart from his work at Time, Geary is Editor at Large for Ode magazine^[5] and writes online for The Huffington Post, Salon.com and the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc’s Newsletter.

Just in case you were wondering about my opinion, Volkswagen is the ad winner – for my money (not that it has anything to do with my money) – of the 2010 Superbowl spots and here’s why:

1. It is centered around the brand showing its depth and breadth and not simply a funny spot where you remember nothing about the product.
2. It reminds their primary target how VW is immersed in our culture and renews an old road game; nostalgia is a powerful draw.
3. The slapstick keeps our attention and makes us laugh
4. Makes us tell stories among ourselves and enhances our love for the brand even if we’ve never owned one.
5. The spot was crafted well enough to make us want to test drive a VW; the cars looked beautiful.
6. The payoff was gratifying with Stevie Wonder and Tracy Morgan; two beloved celebrities.
7. The campaign is easily integrated across all media; its story is easy to share on Social Media and at the Water Cooler.
8. It has legs: visit Sluggy Patterson on Twitter and Posterous.

I can go on but you get the point.  Add to its draw is the fact it was superb among many awful ads we had to sit through this year.  My second choice was the Google’s Love Story ad but I’m still trying to figure out why they bothered, what did they gain exactly?

Go here for the video of Sluggy’s story and here for Punch Dub the game and on FaceBook here.

[update] Barbara Lippert’s Critique in Adweek gave the nod to Google and mentioned Betty White and the Snickers Spot. Both are solid in my opinion but Google on TV seemed gratuitous and without purpose; exactly what were they expecting, more awareness or increased user-ship? The Betty White/Snickers spot was a solid pick but we’ll remember their clever casting of Betty White and Abe Vigota before we’ll recall the brand name; it wasn’t “of the brand” the way the VW spot is.  Both spots – Snickers’ and Google’s – are more limited than “Punch Dub” in their integration across media channels as well.

FYI – Here’s how Stevie Wonder knows it’s a “Red One”.

Full Credits

Agency: Deutsch, Los Angeles

Client: Volkswagen

Director: Frank Todaro

Production Company: Moxie

Just for a moment act as though all the creative works you’ve ever done are gone and untraceable.  They cease to be.  There is no memory of your body of work except for what you own; friends, family, colleagues, students, peers – all have no recollection of your work or your reputation.  There is no longer a creative history to foster your pride.

Assuming your passion is not make-believe and your ability to produce remains, now what?  Your beautifully clever, well crafted, richly toned works are disposable.  a.k.a – You’re free.

It’s important that we know our best work is yet to be produced.  Our best is what is in us now, not what we – or others – admire about the past.  The current creative paradox or those conflicts that remain unresolved are in front of us and are what needs examining.

Maria Schneider has a story to illustrate this point.

Maria Scheider Biography (via Wikipedia)

Schneider was born in Windom, Minnesota. She moved to New York City in 1985 after attending college at the University of Minnesota, the University of Miami and the Eastman School of Music. She studied under Bob Brookmeyer and Gil Evans, working on various projects with Evans, including the film The Color of Money and Absolute Beginners. Her works share many characteristics with other jazz composers influenced by Gil Evans, including Lou Marini, and Grammy Award winning composer Bob Belden.

Schneider formed The Maria Schneider Jazz Orchestra in 1993, appearing weekly at Visiones in Greenwich Village for five years. Her orchestra performed at many jazz festivals and toured Europe.

Schneider was one of the first artists to use ArtistShare to produce an album. Her 2004 album, Concert in the Garden, became the first Grammy Award-winning recording sold exclusively via the Internet. It was named Jazz Album of the Year by the Jazz Journalists Association, which also named Schneider Composer of the Year and Arranger of the Year and named her group Large Jazz Ensemble of the Year.

Schneider’s ensemble is now titled “The Maria Schneider Orchestra”. Their new album, Sky Blue, was released in July 2007, also via ArtistShare. Schneider’s composition “Cerulean Skies,” from Sky Blue, won a Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Composition in 2008. Schneider is an avid birdwatcher and enlisted band members to contribute bird calls on “Cerulean Skies.”

“The committee is usually wrong; yet the crowd is commonly right and incredibly dull. If you’re part of the crowd you’ll be sourced and forgotten.”

I’ve Tweeted this statement a few times to gauge response.  My aim is to demonstrate that creativity has an individual source.  Whether we talk about the wisdom of crowds, group think or committee decisions, true brilliance comes from an individual, were,  in contrast, group worth is measured in evaluation, validation, and exploration.

Within each committee is a devil’s advocate – in this case not the anti-Christ but the anti-creative.  Creative teams are highly successful (if kept nimble) but I challenge anyone to find a good creative team staffed with devil’s advocates or those with outside agendas or unruly egos.

By far, the best (or worst) example of committee is most recently the U.S. Congress.  Ignoring its tragedy, there is comedy it the way a group can come up with a product absolutely no one finds entirely attractive.

Source a crowd and what do you find?  If you’re lucky, one individual with a great idea ready to be diluted by the committee or – much better – open it up to be altered to fit by another individual or creative team.  Either way, you get my drift.  Crowds are dull – it’s up to you to find the brilliance through open sources or create it yourself .

Ji Lee demonstrated the value of open creativity with The Bubble Project.  It didn’t involve a committee. It sources a crowd. It highlights the brilliance of individuals.  Yet, he was the catalyst for the disruptive idea.  He found the brilliance.

More on Ji Lee

Ji Lee Biography via 99%

Born in Seoul, Korea, and raised in São Paulo, Brazil, Ji Lee studied design at Parsons School of Design. He currently works as the Creative Director at Google Creative Lab in New York and teaches design at School of Visual Arts. In the past, Lee has worked as the branding director at Droga5 and art director at Saatchi & Saatchi.

Ji Lee is the founder of the widely publicized Bubble Project and the author of two books: Talk Back: The Bubble Project and Univers Revolved: a 3-Dimensional Alphabet.

Lee has given numerous lectures, including Harvard University, MIT and MoMA. Lee’s work has appeared in ABC World News, The New York Times, Newsweek, The Guardian, WIRED among others.

When turning pleasurable pursuits into a profession there needs to be barriers to entry or exceptional value that adds economic scarcity; conceivably risk, distinctive talent or financial investment.  This is permanently true.   Your value-add – if not unique – requires higher risk, or supplementary resources, or less pleasure if your unwilling to settle for lower (or no) compensation.

In the 80 / 20 hay day [the 80% worth consuming is produced by 20% of the talent], creative professionals would rely on institutions like the recording industry, art galleries or advertising agencies to organize creative output.  Our institutions filtered talent, packaged product, controlled access and provided distribution.  Groups were organized, consumers and producers kept separate, and chaos avoided.

Lately, creative professionals are suffering the heartbreak of  fading uniqueness and coping with pressures to add value in other ways.  Clay Shirky gave his first TED talk in 2005.  His institution v. collaboration presentation must have appeared abstract to more listeners then than now, nevertheless, Clay’s talk hasn’t faded in value for those of us trying to recover our bearings in a once familiar profession.

The chaos of coordinated groups without institutional control is just beginning.  Creative professionals are faced with a massive increase in expressive capability beyond that of the printing press, telephone, recorded media (photos, sound) or broadcast (TV, Radio).  Consider this a call to discover new uses for the new connective media; acceptance is an imperative.

Photographers will find Clay Shirky’s example of Flickr particularly familiar. You can find Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody here.

(via Wikipedia)

Clay Shirky (born 1964^[1]) is an American writer, consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. He teaches New Media as an adjunct professor at New York University‘s (NYU) graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP). His courses address, among other things, the interrelated effects of the topology of social networks and technological networks, how our networks shape culture and vice-versa.^[2]

He has written and been interviewed extensively about the Internet since 1996. His columns and writings have appeared in Business 2.0, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Business Review and Wired.

Shirky divides his time between consulting, teaching, and writing on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. His consulting practice is focused on the rise of decentralized technologies such as peer-to-peer, web services, and wireless networks that provide alternatives to the wired client-server infrastructure that characterizes the World Wide Web. Current clients include Nokia, GBN, the U.S. Library of Congress, the Highlands Forum, the Markle Foundation and the BBC.

Enormous Word Warning: Disintermediation

I’m no economist, but any word that begins with “disinter” can’t be a good thing. Mediation sounds harmless enough; almost soothing – but combined, its disposition is ruined.

Yet, cutting out the middleman sounds more pleasing unless – of course – you’re the middle man. Cheaper and faster is the result of the missing middle, although whatever value intrinsic to the middle is wiped out with its extraction.

Not so in the case of “Open Source”. Open source is a form of development that promotes shared access to the product’s source materials. Like a never-ending beta test -apart from the agreement that any enhancements are, in return, shared without compensation – Open Source is ceaselessly creative and occasionally innovative. Designs are mutually beneficial to a virtual crowd with shared interests giving them the opportunity of equal benefit. A score passed along a musical chain would be a good example or – more conspicuously – there is Linux code [yawn].

We can also source a community by holding an “open call” [notice the opportunity for confusion through the word “open”] much like the organizers of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair did through a contest for design submissions that lead to an iconic structure to compete with the Eiffel Tower. The winning innovative design – by the way – was submitted by George Washington Gale Ferris, Jr. and the stakes were high; much more than the average compensation for the winner of a CrowdSpring contest for example.

Anytime an opportunist can pocket some change, exploitation is an enduring prospect. Exploitation is a shell game; a game that typically relocates money from one pocket to another with little or no value-add – they are disinnovative. While not entirely useless [occasionally entertaining], exploitation games can sure piss some people off.

You disinnovate by making something look innovative when – in fact – it merely reframes processes, economic dominance, or both without adding value; much like I’m doing by swapping unnovate with disinnovate as a coined phrase thus reassigning title from Umair Haque to me. Others might disinnovate with an open call for a logo design at $400.  No innovation here just a shifting of profit from the logo designer to the solicitor; a shell game.

“We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.” – a punch line commonly attributed to George Bernard Shaw, also conjures the worst of the worst of Crowdsourcing and its disinnovative result that causes much venom spewing by creative professionals. Nearly all tools can be constructive or destructive, yet the old rules still apply:  “there’s a right tool for every job” and “you get what you pay for.”

Engage a crowd so they can influence a brand or participate in the development of products they want to buy – while not uniquely innovative – is inclusive in a variety that benefits everyone. A sure fire way of creating brand advocates is to get a community vested in its development; it’s a relationship much stronger than what conventional advertising will ever deliver.

Creativity is principally the domain of an individual enhanced by great relationships, but just as a properly harnessed horse team can pull harder, the right creative team can produce more consistently powerful messages. That said, teamwork isn’t what crowdsourcing stimulates. Consequently, don’t expect a creative product superior to that which you’d get from a reputable individual or strong creative team. Fluffy the cat will probably fetch your morning paper more often.

Conversely, “Open Source” not Crowdsourcing is the resource for absorbing virtual communities in teamwork. Their motivation is different; It’s less competitive and collectively engaged in a superior more productive solution. Open Source is much more likely to produce innovative, not disinnovative, results.         - Bruce DeBoer

In the attached video are two enthusiastic Crowdsourcing advocates. John Winsor – seated to the right [camera left] of Edward Boches – recently cofounded Victors and Spoils that lays claim as The world’s first creative (ad) agency built on crowdsourcing principles. What that means exactly and how far they can leverage a potentially disinnovative idea, we’ll have to wait and see. If brand awareness is a green signal for success, they’ve got a solid start.

For more go to:
victorsandspoils.com

Follow them on Twitter:

@jtwinsor

@edwardboches

I smile and cringe at the same time when I hear the aphorism “back in the day” – at least when it’s used in a serious conversation.  Typically, it’s a punch line.

In the late 80’s the Apple Mac II taught us to set typography. Immediately anyone could set type.  We didn’t hardly notice when the stat camera darkroom was reclaimed for storage, or when you’re local type house became a Mailbox Etc. or a Postal Instant Press (similar to Kinko’s).  Creative destruction is no longer a concept but a lifestyle.

(in the photo: director Jake Wiens)

You no longer have 10,000 hours to become a supremely accomplished anything. Additionally, those superbly mastered skills that worked to differentiate your business, have distorted into obscure techniques for specialized fine artists. Thus, before you can cash in on those professional skills, they’re no longer in demand.  My peers surely remember the fine black and white prints on Agfa Portrega-Rapid Photo Paper processed in Bovira as a fond distant memory. “Damn, just when I was starting to get good.”

A Detroit auto-worker replaced by robots will mutter, “no shit”, when they hear a creative professional complain about digital this or CS4 that causing a downward creative demand.  Craftsmanship has taken many tough hits in the form of the newest creative tools.

Can the 10,0000 hour skill of a professional compete with the 500 hour skill of 1000 amateurs?  The new creative democracy yields plenty of broken hearts, but let’s looks beyond that to what the tools allow the ubiquitous creative minds to achieve.

No time to whine.  What I’m suggesting is that there has been no other period when a highly accomplished professional from one field could apply their expertise to another, and do it solo.  There are enough specialized skills automated by hardware and software to allow knowledge to cross disciplines, and then push those skills out to the masses like Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s a duel case study.  I found Jake Wiens’ video about Valo inline skates on a Vimeo Channel.  It’s one film director, producer and on-air personality distributing his content about Jon Julio: pro skater, graphic designer, skate designer, web designer, and CEO / Owner.   - Bruce DeBoer

Valo Inline Skates: valo-brand.com

Jake Wiens Vimeo Channel: http://vimeo.com/jakewiens

Ask creative folks how their talent was revealed and you’ll probably hear a story of happenstance: my uncle gave me a camera, I got crayons for Christmas, my preschool teacher was a dancer or a likewise charming story of discovery.

It seems as though opportunity found them.  The fit was good; Aptitude harmonizing with occasion led to passion.  Not everyone has talent to be a musician, artist, or writer but we all have talent for something if we can find it and – with luck – get the education that enhances the find.

Historically our education skips this important discovery step.   Schooling gives priority to Math, Languages and Humanities in that order, followed distantly by the arts.  Did we ever have a creativity class?  Mostly we were taught to fear failure and follow formula.

Sir Ken Robinson’s TED presentation video has been widely distributed.  Permission to Suck is only the latest since its release in 2006 and won’t be the last.  Regardless, it would be almost irresponsible for a site devoted to creativity to evade posting a Sir Ken Robinson presentation.

“If you’re not prepared to be wrong you will not come up with anything original.” – Sir Ken Robinson

Here’s an alternate presentation of you’ve seen the TED video:  Sir Ken Robinson: A New View of Human Capacity

BIOGRAPHY (via Sir Ken Robinson website)
Sir Ken Robinson, PhD is an internationally recognized leader in the development of creativity, innovation and human resources and a New York Times Bestselling author. He works with governments in Europe, Asia and the USA, with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and some of the world’s leading cultural organizations. In 1998, he led a national commission on creativity, education and the economy for the UK Government. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (The Robinson Report) was published to wide acclaim in 1999. He was the central figure in developing a strategy for creative and economic development as part of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland, working with the ministers for training, education enterprise and culture. The resulting blueprint for change, Unlocking Creativity, was adopted by politicians of all parties and by business, education and cultural leaders across the Province. He was one of four international advisors to the Singapore Government for its strategy to become the creative hub of South East Asia.
For twelve years, he was Professor of Education at the University of Warwick in the UK and is now Professor Emeritus. He has received honorary degrees from the Open University and the Central School of Speech and Drama; Birmingham City University and the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. He was been honored with the Athena Award of the Rhode Island School of Design for services to the arts and education; the Peabody Medal for contributions to the arts and culture in the United States, and the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the Royal Society of Arts for outstanding contributions to cultural relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2005 he was named as one of Time/Fortune/CNN’s.Principal Voices. In 2003, he received a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II for his services to the arts and education. He speaks to audiences throughout the world on the creative challenges facing business and education in the new global economies.

Michael doesn’t consider himself creative. This isn’t a strange thing to hear, it’s a native thought to at least half the population. Maybe there’s something to it. After all, the average problem solver will adhere to formula and process. Is adding a+b to get “d” all that creative when your given both “a” and “b”? Question and answer – call and response – is the comfort in most zones.  When clients come to us with a photo layout, when an illustrator receives a rough sketch, or when musicians are handed a string chart, parameters are tight enough to apply something that looks and sounds creative enough to pass. Vibrancy resides in the problem not the solution. Solutions are sold as commodities. As well, we can find solutions waiting for problems, but who finds the problems? The tough creative challenge is defining a problem – finding the insight – inspiring the pen. Fact is, the solution may actually be in the problem once the discipline is found to define it. This is what Michael Bierut speaks of when he claims not to be creative. “I feel like I’m a Doctor and I can’t just practice medicine on myself, so I need patients that are sick, the sicker the better in fact.” Treatment in itself can be creative, yet the real nuggets remain in diagnosis. Without defining the problem we are doubtlessly treating the wrong ailment.

According to his online website Design Observer, “Michael Bierut studied graphic design at the University of Cincinnati’s College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, graduating summa cum laude in 1980. Prior to joining Pentagram in 1990 as a partner in the firm’s New York office, he worked for ten years at Vignelli Associates, ultimately as vice president of graphic design.”

In this video from the idea centric website The 99%, Michael Bierut offers a peek at his design philosophy and examples of treated ailments. Regardless of the opening disclaimer about his creative nature, Bierut is a first-class problem finder.

There is an undeniable longing for authenticity of communication. We’re learning to ignore the blather and jettison the needless junk.

The increased bandwidth of social media is irrefutable whether you see it as a waste of time or a wonderful way to connect.  It’s an alternative choice that’s personal and feels controllable; a tool to ignore extraneous messaging and stay within personal desires.

We are over stimulated by messaging to the point where one more useless message feels like a stranger approaching with a taser. “Don’t tase me bro”.

Simplify this; what’s going on here?  Bemused.  Pivot to what’s principally human: motivation of the tribes in their most common and simplest form.  The want for food, shelter, clothing, the comfort of others, and creation, it doesn’t get much simpler.  This covers most of our primal drives.

We’re stripped down, now without any more bull shit, put down that taser – connect with these drives and illustrate them.  Make the viewer feel them.

Terry Richardson reminds us that photography can be a very basic tool.  By reducing it to a simple capture of emotions the authenticity is preserved, the blather is eliminated and it feels as personal as discovering photos on a friend’s Face Book page.  Needless finesse of the craft is sacrificed to capture the raw motivation of the moment.

Perhaps you can’t work the way Richardson does.  Clearly, you have other tools in your chest with which you feel more comfortable; however, the aim remains the same.  Inspire the viewer with human greatness; communicate it with an authentic approach with as little static on the line as possible.  Give it the impact it needs to wake up viewer emotions.

As with other applied arts, Photography’s key function is to connect with one another through the more basic human emotional impulses. Tell me what motivates you and I’ll capture it in the most honest way I know how. You feel me?  The message follows motivation.    - by Bruce DeBoer

Part II of this interview: Terry Richardson

Part III of this interview: Terry Richardson

Terry Richardson Professional Website