Loads of photos of places around Hardanger, all from the Library of Congress in 1900s.
Currently reading psychology and encountered this definition of creativity, in the field of problem solving:
The capacity to produce something unique, and useful (Approaches to Psychology, W. Glassman).
The thing about problem solving is that sometimes, when a new approach to a problem is needed, we usually rely on this thing called creativity. Creativity itself is mostly associated with the Art or creating new ideas. This applies to problem solving as well.
The problem with the above statement is that it makes two very unbelievable descriptions of what creativity actually is. It is so broad, yet so narrow-minded that it practically has no meaning what so ever. By describing something as unique and useful is almost ignorant.
The cognitive process itself is based on the idea of gestalt theory. While in the process of problem solving, insight usually takes place once you cognite it long enough (both consciously and unconsciously). So for example, a math problem. Sometimes there is a question formated in a different way, that applies to very different concepts, one which an individual cannot see. After thinking about it, one suddenly gets the insight into how to solve the actual problem. The process itself is most often identified as creativity. So far the definition makes sense. The solution is something unique, and has use.
The problem is when you get to problems that have no answer at all. Sometimes, creativity may lead to a practical, or useful, solution to a problem. While sometimes, there are no realistic/useful solutions, but instead ideas. Even though a solution to a math problem may be wrong, it is ultimately creative. Even though people make mistakes, people can still be called imaginative.
What my argument basically is: Creativity is something that provides no solution. Creativity is the capacity to link to different things into one single thing. It is creative to solve a math problem in a different way (compared to the standard way). It is creative to join two different words to create meaning like in music. Creativity is something that is thought-provoking, imaginative, cognizant, something that provides a new way of looking at things.
Creativity is NOT the capacity to create a solution that is useful and unique. What I believe they were ultimately defining was the ability to come up with practical ideas that work only in reality, only useful for business strategies and real world applications. Sometimes it is necessary to not believe in reality, it may help people innovate and create new ideas.
Boompjes is a bas-relief made with reclaimed timber by Ron van der Ende.
At first it looks like sculpture, then later you find out its just a 2D picture. Pretty amazing if you ask me. Check his stuff out to see some cool pieces with automobiles and planes in the sweet form of nostalgia.
Found orignally from Preik.no
Stunning images of what seems to be modernistic churches taken by Christoph Morlinghaus.
Originally found on But Does it Float?
This makes me wonder, what is the longest street with the same name in the world?
Found ages ago from the Iso50 blog, but still quite interesting:
In 1956, György Ligeti composed an amazing electronic piece called “Artikulation”.
In 1970’s, Rainer Wehinger created a visual map to the recordings. Some awesome guy out there scanned the images and synced them with the audio. Thanks, guy!
Here is a more detailed investigation into the work.
I fail to see sometimes the synchronity of the recording with the images, but I think that they provide a greater representation than that produced by normal musical notation. It also turns out to make it more like art (which is the main point of art, that it provides re-representation of “things”).
Played around for a while with Processing and made this little thing. Directly inspired by the artist Yngve Zakarias. Not as great as his, but considering I made this in 10 minutes, it was a little fun…
