Ursula’s post leads me to think about the difference between creative process and established technical process through the lens of brain chemistry. (Apparently everything makes me think about psychological process these days.) When looked at from a physiological perspective, does the brain exhibit the same process when thinking creatively that we use when enacting scientific experiments?
Ted video:
What the hell is Ted? Anyway, fascinating and not that new as an idea. The thing that gets me thinking is about the possibilities for making something based on those principles. Some kind of simple software that allows people to create and animate an idea and then instead of that idea being captured and contained as data solely on a hard drive, it is displayed, indefinitely, in a public space for all to see. I guess the thing that would set it apart from the ideas put forth in the video is if the stories, animations, ideas weren’t just displayed en masse, collected and then splattered like a giant collage. (That AutoDesk wall of ideas, the visual map of their collective thinking, reminds me too much of a thirteen-year-old’s magazine collage documenting her winter dance.) What I want to make is something that allows the narratives created by the participants to be affected by each other as entities unto themselves. (I realize that each narrative would affect new participants’ stories just by being displayed.) But what if they were able to continue to evolve long after their original creator was gone. As if they had a life of their own, one that was given mobility through continued input from new users/creators. How would that work? Damn, that part always trips me up.
