In this week’s Global Design Futures course, we had a small practice of debate. The topic of the debate is “Does information help creativity?” In our team, we debate for ‘yes’. Before the debate, each member did some secondary research via the web, then we gathered the information and discussed.
At first, I focused on researching ‘big data’ and ‘creativity’. However, most of the articles are on the ‘no’ side, demonstrating that the big data technology would probably give bad influences to creativity. By the analysis of big data, people could grasp the accurate direction of the trend and come up with the template of the advertising as a result. This ‘accurate’ is indeed the killer of the creativity. But on the other hand, I also found that by big data analysis, business could reduce the cost of testing. In my opinion, ‘accurate’ and creativity are two different things, although there may be some templates, people could still come up with creative ideas and test them with a lower cost which could be an encouragement to creativity. Furthermore, the technology of big data is giving us opportunities, increasing the accessibility of creative ideas. For instance, the big data analysis in transportation could be used in many ways such as e-tag in Taiwan or application for instant traffic. This enables people to use the big data creatively. Also, by big data analyse, a small brand in the creative industry could easily increase its size in a rapid way. All of these are the evidence that big data could help the creativity.
After discussion, our group decided to redefine ‘information’ in order to gather more evidence to support our opinion. We defined ‘information’ as any single data that people deliver and send. Sometimes, inspiration originates from the information people get. For example, when a fashion designer starts to design, he/ she would probably search for some photos and references first. We considered ‘information’ could inspire people, that is information helps creativity. For example, emoji was invented by the human, but an artist had used emoji to create art. Another example is that the business model of Uber is based on much marketing research.
The contention of the opposite team is that information came from creativity, and there would be no information created if there was no creativity. In the end, our team lost the debate. However, I think the contention of the opposite team is a kind of sophism. It seemed to be reasonable and critical, however, had some confusing part. Firstly, information does not all come from creativity. Some of the information comes from the truth, such as the results of the experiments. Secondly, although creative may create the information, the information could still inspire people and help the creativity. This is the chicken-and-egg conundrum. Chickens come from eggs does not mean that eggs do not come from chickens.
The things I have learnt from this practice is that well preparing would bring success. The opposite team had prepared many contentions and also a clear slide. The second thing I learnt is that language is always the important part of a debate. I hope I could learn how to debate instead of only research for information next time.