www.karimrashid.com
Above is a source for part of Karim Rashid's "Karimanifesto". He lists 10 points, part of a creative manifesto, by which he lives his professional life.
Never say: "I could have done that" because you didn't
This is the point that stands out the most to me. There is never any use in dwelling on failures, or on other people's successes. If someone got to a great idea before you, accept it and move on. Perhaps even use it as motivation to focus your energy more precisely next time.
It's hard for me to draw many substantial correlations between Karim's manifesto and his creative work, because of how abstract most of it is. He seems to focus on mixing form and function into workable, sellable products, which I can admire. Certainly his spirituality informs his art, as does all of ours. Whether or not you place much emphasis on spiritual pursuits, one's spirituality (or lack thereof) is an important part of one's life. To completely separate your creativity from your spirituality would take a conscious effort, one that Karim obviously doesn't bother with.
To conclude my blog, I present my own creative manifesto of 10 points. Thanks for reading.
1 - Focus on now, not later
2 - Embrace your strengths
3 - Embrace your weaknesses
4 - Don't be afraid to give control to someone else
5 - Think about yourself first and your audience second
6 - Create things you would want to buy for yourself
7 - Think outside of your industry's accepted boundaries
8 - Connecting with other people is the most valuable thing you can do. Do all that you can to be a "people person"
9 - Love money, but don't be obsessed with it
10 - Need success, but don't be obsessed with it
Friday, March 11, 2011
Freak Factor
http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/45.02.FreakFactor
Above is a link to David Rendall's "Freak Factor". It's an article arguing that our weaknesses, rather than being "fixed", should be embraced and seen as a natural compliment to our strengths. David makes several good points in the article, and I'd like to go into more detail with three of them.
2. What's My Problem?
Here, Mr. Rendall lists several of his own perceived weaknesses. It's a long list, and it serves to set up the next section, where he describes how he became successful in spite of his weaknesses. The key, according to him, isn't to overcome weakness, but to discover that his apparent flaws were simply clues to his strengths. For example, his profession as a professor allows him to harness his hyperactivity and his need for attention, both of which are his main "weaknesses". I agree that trying too hard to "fix" weakness can be unfulfilling and, more often than not, boring. There's a reason it's our weakness. We're naturally inclined to avoid it.
I think I often focus too much on fixing things that don't really need to be fixed. For example, I've often tried through brute force repetition to learn the art of drawing realistically. I just can't. I've tried, and I've made progress, but I've never really enjoyed doing it. I think perhaps I like the idea of being able to draw well more that the skill itself. What I do enjoy drawing are abstract figures, characters with more style than realism. It's a way to avoid realism, and I enjoy it more too.
4. Forget it. Don't Try to Fix Your Weakness
Doing things we're weak at is painful. It stinks. People who aren't good at math don't like doing math. So why bother doing them? There's a perceived need for all of our flaws to be "fixed" but, as David argues, perhaps that isn't the case at all. He argues trying to fix weaknesses is painful, slow, distracting, and it doesn't work. There are plenty of opportunities out there that will harness the full power of your strengths while simultaneously avoiding your weaknesses. We all have limitations, but so what? It may be easier to collaborate with others whose strengths compliment yours than to try and learn everything yourself.
I think the collaboration point is a very good one. There are countless people out there who need your skills, and whose skills you need too. Being able to collaborate and work well with others is an indispensable skill for creative types., and really, it saves you from doing a lot of boring and painful work. Things you might despise doing may very well be someone else's forte, and vice versa. Use this to your advantage.
6. Focus: You Can't do Both
This is, I think, the most important point in the entire article. Multitasking certainly has a place in the creative process, but you can't and shouldn't try to simultaneously fix your weaknesses and improve your strengths. It spreads your creative output thin and limits your potential. Ditch the "fixing weaknesses" part entirely, and just focus on what you do well. It'll make you happier, increase your output, and give you more to work with. David uses KMart's demise as an example of a company trying to do both (low prices AND higher quality merchandise) and failing. Because they weren't the best at anything, KMart lost it's customers and went bankrupt.
Focusing on strengths is something I could do much better. I think I try too often to improve my areas of relative weakness, when I should be focusing on my strengths.
Above is a link to David Rendall's "Freak Factor". It's an article arguing that our weaknesses, rather than being "fixed", should be embraced and seen as a natural compliment to our strengths. David makes several good points in the article, and I'd like to go into more detail with three of them.
2. What's My Problem?
Here, Mr. Rendall lists several of his own perceived weaknesses. It's a long list, and it serves to set up the next section, where he describes how he became successful in spite of his weaknesses. The key, according to him, isn't to overcome weakness, but to discover that his apparent flaws were simply clues to his strengths. For example, his profession as a professor allows him to harness his hyperactivity and his need for attention, both of which are his main "weaknesses". I agree that trying too hard to "fix" weakness can be unfulfilling and, more often than not, boring. There's a reason it's our weakness. We're naturally inclined to avoid it.
I think I often focus too much on fixing things that don't really need to be fixed. For example, I've often tried through brute force repetition to learn the art of drawing realistically. I just can't. I've tried, and I've made progress, but I've never really enjoyed doing it. I think perhaps I like the idea of being able to draw well more that the skill itself. What I do enjoy drawing are abstract figures, characters with more style than realism. It's a way to avoid realism, and I enjoy it more too.
4. Forget it. Don't Try to Fix Your Weakness
Doing things we're weak at is painful. It stinks. People who aren't good at math don't like doing math. So why bother doing them? There's a perceived need for all of our flaws to be "fixed" but, as David argues, perhaps that isn't the case at all. He argues trying to fix weaknesses is painful, slow, distracting, and it doesn't work. There are plenty of opportunities out there that will harness the full power of your strengths while simultaneously avoiding your weaknesses. We all have limitations, but so what? It may be easier to collaborate with others whose strengths compliment yours than to try and learn everything yourself.
I think the collaboration point is a very good one. There are countless people out there who need your skills, and whose skills you need too. Being able to collaborate and work well with others is an indispensable skill for creative types., and really, it saves you from doing a lot of boring and painful work. Things you might despise doing may very well be someone else's forte, and vice versa. Use this to your advantage.
6. Focus: You Can't do Both
This is, I think, the most important point in the entire article. Multitasking certainly has a place in the creative process, but you can't and shouldn't try to simultaneously fix your weaknesses and improve your strengths. It spreads your creative output thin and limits your potential. Ditch the "fixing weaknesses" part entirely, and just focus on what you do well. It'll make you happier, increase your output, and give you more to work with. David uses KMart's demise as an example of a company trying to do both (low prices AND higher quality merchandise) and failing. Because they weren't the best at anything, KMart lost it's customers and went bankrupt.
Focusing on strengths is something I could do much better. I think I try too often to improve my areas of relative weakness, when I should be focusing on my strengths.
Reflection on Gaming Presentation
Our gaming presentation went pretty well I think, but of course, not everything we wanted to convey could be done in our limited lab time.
1) The control mechanism wasn't really explained in enough detail for the audience to understand it completely. Because the controls are such an integral part to this game, that's a problem. Basically, the game uses the actual movements of the player to decide how the on-screen character will move. If the player crouches, their character will crouch. If the player jumps, their character will jump. If the player mimics throwing a grenade, their character will throw a grenade. Running is the only major action not represented in this way; obviously, it would be impossible for a player to run any substantial distance in front of their television, so the running is handled via a joystick on the controller.
2) The importance of realism couldn't be stressed enough during the presentation. Everything, from the controls to the graphics to the heads-up display, are centered around realism. The controller you hold is shaped like a real gun. You control the character through real-life actions. The graphics are photorealistic. The entire game is designed for you to feel like you are in an actual warzone. Guided perception elements are highlighted through realistic dialogue or natural lighting, as opposed to artificial arrows or sounds.
I think goals are the hardest concept to get across in a short presentation. The goals of a game - what a player must accomplish in order to "win" - aren't always explicit. Many times, what a player must do is hidden within the subtext of a game. Explaining such a goal would either be tedious and longwinded, or it would spoil a special moment of the game that the player should experience for themselves. Explaining goals as an outside entity often ruins the "magic" of what makes a good game special.
1) The control mechanism wasn't really explained in enough detail for the audience to understand it completely. Because the controls are such an integral part to this game, that's a problem. Basically, the game uses the actual movements of the player to decide how the on-screen character will move. If the player crouches, their character will crouch. If the player jumps, their character will jump. If the player mimics throwing a grenade, their character will throw a grenade. Running is the only major action not represented in this way; obviously, it would be impossible for a player to run any substantial distance in front of their television, so the running is handled via a joystick on the controller.
2) The importance of realism couldn't be stressed enough during the presentation. Everything, from the controls to the graphics to the heads-up display, are centered around realism. The controller you hold is shaped like a real gun. You control the character through real-life actions. The graphics are photorealistic. The entire game is designed for you to feel like you are in an actual warzone. Guided perception elements are highlighted through realistic dialogue or natural lighting, as opposed to artificial arrows or sounds.
I think goals are the hardest concept to get across in a short presentation. The goals of a game - what a player must accomplish in order to "win" - aren't always explicit. Many times, what a player must do is hidden within the subtext of a game. Explaining such a goal would either be tedious and longwinded, or it would spoil a special moment of the game that the player should experience for themselves. Explaining goals as an outside entity often ruins the "magic" of what makes a good game special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)