12/18/2010 11:20:46 AM 
(2) 
(2) This is a nice presentation from "Account Planning Guru", Paul Feldwick, from a London TEDx conference, where he provides an interesting perspective on the problems surrounding the definition of creativity.
He touches on the obvious problem of its very intangibility making it a tough concept for business to grasp, but goes on to explain how he thinks its been wrongly pigeon-holed in the "innovation" space, which implies breakthrough thinking.
Using Elvis as an example, he shows how he wasn't especially original, but there was something about his "presence" that made him interesting.
Feldwick believes the knock-on impact, for advertising, of poorly defined "creativity" is to always push for originality. Instead, creative needs to be thinking about "artistry", rather than originality as the way to develop ideas that generate a strong emotional response.
Posted by Ed Cotton
redefining creativity
Paul Feldwick explains the need to re-define ?creativity? away from terms like originality and innovation. To me, that?s like saying we need to avoid using words like rhythm and melody when defining the word ?music?. I've posted my thoughts in full here
Posted by Andy on 12/22/2010 09:32 AM
Paul Feldwick explains the need to re-define ?creativity? away from terms like originality and innovation. To me, that?s like saying we need to avoid using words like rhythm and melody when defining the word ?music?. I've posted my thoughts in full here
Posted by Andy on 12/22/2010 09:32 AM
It appears you don't have Flash installed.
I find this to be an odd argument. Sure, aesthetically-pleasing work doesn't HAVE to be original, but it SHOULD be in our industry, shouldn't it? Whether the goal is buzz, or engagement, or delivering happiness, or whatever, an aesthically pleasing campaign that looks just like everything else isn't going to be very resonant - see 90% of all car commericals for proof. Even in the case of Elvis, there is originality in the context, even if it's not in the content. In retrospect, it's easy to say that Elvis was derivative because he was simply delivering black blues music to a mainstream white audience. However, at the time, that was presumably a radically original idea, with no guarantee that it would work. Add in his unique performance style (which functionas as a creative delivery mechanism), and I find it hard to make the argument that Elvis was not "original."