Think Creative

I was in a discussion the other morning about the development of education and a theme came apparent about two distinct styles of teaching and their values in an educational scenario. These two types of teaching are those of instructional and deductive. To explain them a little more, the approach to instructional is that of having a teaching guiding you through a process. Much as with most modern education and that of the form of vertical thinking. Deductive thinking can be a result to instructive or a stand alone approach to education, but is based on the approach of learning from experience rather than secondary information retrieval. Teaching is an important and powerful way to get ideas, information and process across to large groups of people. The issue with this method is that it has, especially in recent years, become what can only be called "parrot' fashioned. By this it is meant that a teacher educates and the students repeat. This is done, like a parrot, until the ...

Sir Ken Robinson has done a follow up talk at TED based on his higher poignant speech of 2006, about the state of education regarding the negative approach to teaching creativity. His second speech, found  here , follows up by defining a new approach to teaching, in which a global revolution is needed. The speech itself is very moving and speaks volumes to the state at which education is today failing society. The current education system has two flaws ( well more in fact ) that consist of defining an education approach based on training the masses to be prepared for an industrial lifestyle, and secondly to white wash the approach to education. based on the previous induction methodology. The simple fact is that the current plan of attack regarding education was invented at the age of the industrial revolution, and hasn't had a great deal of modification since that early inception. This social state arose out of an evolutionary path that was proceeded by the agricultural method o...

*Note: Before I start I would like to point out that in no way am I trying to sell myself as being a great expert at design. I do however, enjoy what I do and pain myself to deliver quality work for my clients. Whom I think would agree on, on such matter. I do use the logo example above as it is the closest to showing what I would like to get across as an argument. Plus, if you can't blow your own trumpet once in a while in the economic crisis then who will. That all said, I am drawing to a close a development on a website, that has basically been going on for nearly two years now. The initial approach was based on the above logo. The lady in question, who has now become a good friend ( and should I say loyal fan ) asked me to do something about her logo. I took one look at it and nearly cried. The sadness grew when the client in question told me that the logo was designed by a graphic artist. She originally asked me to just do something about the pepper character in the centre. ...

A friend of mine at school was very good at art. It seemed inherent, as his father was good at art, therefore seemed to run in the family. It kind of made me like the idea as well, so at Sixth Form I walked into the art class and asked if I could do art as a subject. The teacher, Miss Parker, allowed me to join the class, but after some weeks took me to one side and politely told me that I would not make it as a creative person and I should think about leaving the class and doing some other course. I wouldn't accept this, and with several other similar comments from family and teachers alike, I set out to prove them wrong. I guess in a way I have. Also saying that however, I have always had the feeling that I could be artistic. Still today I get up and want to create. Sometimes more than get breakfast, or sort the house out. I say this little ditty at the start as I wanted to mention perseverance. If I had listened to my art teacher, all those years ago, where would I be? Wo...