From Critical Practice Chelsea
Revision as of 13:29, 11 November 2008 by Trevor (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

I've attempted to make a few things (that seemed less clear to me) clearer on the page. Would it be useful to have some position on 'Resource'? What it means to identify creativity as a resource - how can any potential be conveyed or qualified either for investment or utility? --Trevor 18:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What you added to the statement is very rich and useful, but I feel uneasy about describing creativity as a resource. It makes me want to ask first "How do you define creativity, then?". I see danger of a vicious circle. Should we define creativity? It is different things to different people. In the last meeting we discussed creativity as a need, a state, an indispensable component of wellbeing. I would feel more comfortable with referencing this dimension at the beginning of the statement. Shall give it a go ... --Cinzia 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused by the analogy to oil (a resource). An asset..? ;-) Its a slippery thing. In the case of a corporate collection such as Deutsche Bank's would the project be looking to reconnect the experience of the collection to the producers - like Fair Trade? From the minutes - If we want to make creativity more sustainable there are conditions we need to nurture. The purpose of the research is to find out what they might be.
Do 'we'? Who wants to? If we ask the 'case studies' to define what creativity is to them and then through workshop/seminar co-examine the ecology of that? This could be interesting from a service point of view - through our own creativity we create something that may have a market (value).
The wellbeing tone that you indicate partially shifts the projects focus away from financial value to emotional value but I'm not convinced it can escape the 'if our people feel more creative we will save/make more money' voice. That may actually be irrelevant :-)--Trevor 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Make an assessment of the value of creativity to the wellbeing of the individual/organisation in question.
  2. Examine that reading of creativity and wellbeing.
  3. What are they reliant upon?
  4. What needs to be done in order to sustain that contribution?
  5. How is that achieved?

This is the first iteration of the statement

This is intended to illuminate potential partners as to the who? what? where? why? how?
The term is much used and abused, what definition do we offer, or what do we mean by 'Sustainability'?
avoiding a negative impact? Stability - a desire for stasis? This is perhaps a somewhat naiive and Conservative ambition, almost suburban/Daily Mail in its values. Maintenance of change - a desire to manage something chaotic (in the scientific sense) and unmanageable?

The aim of this project is to explore a broad application of sustainability, beyond the conventional discourse with money and energy. It is inspired by an interest in creativity and self-organisation and what it is that sustains a community, relationship or activity.
There is an ethical interest in the relationship between growth and efficiency. Those who speak of growth often talk about more effective use of resources. In what sense are resources 'available' for use or consumption?
The discourse of sustainability is focused on the consideration of the movement of resources. There is no depletion of resources as such but a 'liquidity' subject to agency. To 'consume' is the capacity to cause an effect and through action redirect resources. From this perspective the limits of sustainability are governed by the ability or inclination to track this movement of resources efficiently and to quantify their potential. Moreover, developing methods for considering cross-benefit and cross-damages might allow a more efficient re-balancing of negative impact. In the productive sense, measurement is directed toward a given aim and fails to record so-called 'externalities', or irrelevant effects, and certainly many inputs fall outside the audit process. The Creative Industries are notoriously bad at this.
Individuals and ecologies that are considered sustainable must, at some level, accept a degree of interdependence and interact. But also understand their own agency, impact and contribution. This suggests a network of multiple, self-reflexive and interdependent sustainabilities.

return to sustainability