I love it. Winks to those that get it.
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O rly?
4.29.2007
REVISING THE CREATIVE PROCESS
The first step to resolving a conceptual ( communicating our client's message ) problem with relevancy begins with understanding that conceptual thinking is not opportunistic. It is episodic. There is no top-down, left or right convention. We’re are dealing with an existing set of realities and by doing so, we’re dealing with concepts that have already been resolved. Considered perfect in most regards. They are correct and work because they’ve been experienced and utilized, establishing form and function creating a unique relative perception for everyone else.
To suggest there is a formula or process, suggests everything else is in the world is innately wrong. The information we’ve received through observation, statistics and ( unwanted ) opinions must be considered factual in order to concept with relevancy. If not, principally speaking, this will end the conceptual process before it begins and eliminate relevancy. Simply because, the creative process does not see the tree before the forest. It will see the forest and systematically work back in relation to the whole on a broader experiential plain. To scrutinize the height of the tree and it’s foliage is destructive and impulsive. As it is, the forest should be considered perfect. It has no immediate relative meaning to us, therefore there are no problems or logistical mistakes. And if you assume this is a top down process then I urge the objective eye to look closer. Once you’ve broken the tree down, you’ll begin to see the leaves, then the veins, then the texture of the leaves and so on until you are so completely removed from the first and most obvious plain ( simple-minded message ), it would be impossible to concept a relatable experience back. By then the objective is to far away to relate back to the prospect. The prospect is now lost in the forest and the only thing they care about is, getting out.( math whizes refer to this as infinite regression )
Clients often say far to much and forget that a prospect is initially only seeing the forest. Once interested in the forest, the prospect may focus in on a path. Offering an experience is equivocal to offering choice. Choice denotes value thereafter.
Again, to suggest there is a formula is to suggest everything else is wrong. We know that mother nature is not wrong. A problem may exist relative to us but, it by no means that it is wrong, that it is not a truth or fact. A concept that is built on an existing set of concepts must be treated as fact. And we must assume that initial parameters of these facts are not going to change. They are perfect truths. And in agreeing to this, we must realize that if the parameters do change within the facts, the concept must be reevaluated entirely. A truth or fact is personal context, and if context fails, there is no perceivable relevancy. Information cannot be introduced into the concept without expecting the relevancy of the concept to change as well.
Information arranged and organized through symbols, colors, pictures and words creates content. Content presented in relationship either paralleling, or contrast existing content creates context. Context creates relevancy.
Removing the term ‘creativity’ ( because it still scares people ) from this explanation and subsequently replacing it with ‘solution,’ we would explain this process as an existing system with a series of subsystems that based on their individual relationships continue to create an additional set of subsystems with each reaction.
Campaigns with communication that establish a big picture, with media being the 'details' and not the focus, will create relevancy. Position a statement before you position media. A statement is clear and concise. Whether written or expressed verbally ( or anything auditory ). Creating alternative vehicles for messaging ( media ) should be secondary. And all though media is the form in which we function it is not a something with a true form. The ideas and concepts should dictate the media. Perhaps calling media 'context' with the message/concept being 'content' will help clarify my points.
And when you do agree on the statement you're brand is declaring, keep this in mind, if you change a word, the sentence should be re-evaluated. It might not make sense anymore.
When you make a change, conceptually speaking, your creating a detour for the concepts and ultimately the prospect. And that detour will dictate the rest of the consumer journey. Your brand is not a house that can be repaired with duct-tape a little plaster and some new paint, it's a tree.
This isn't a top-down process.
To suggest there is a formula or process, suggests everything else is in the world is innately wrong. The information we’ve received through observation, statistics and ( unwanted ) opinions must be considered factual in order to concept with relevancy. If not, principally speaking, this will end the conceptual process before it begins and eliminate relevancy. Simply because, the creative process does not see the tree before the forest. It will see the forest and systematically work back in relation to the whole on a broader experiential plain. To scrutinize the height of the tree and it’s foliage is destructive and impulsive. As it is, the forest should be considered perfect. It has no immediate relative meaning to us, therefore there are no problems or logistical mistakes. And if you assume this is a top down process then I urge the objective eye to look closer. Once you’ve broken the tree down, you’ll begin to see the leaves, then the veins, then the texture of the leaves and so on until you are so completely removed from the first and most obvious plain ( simple-minded message ), it would be impossible to concept a relatable experience back. By then the objective is to far away to relate back to the prospect. The prospect is now lost in the forest and the only thing they care about is, getting out.( math whizes refer to this as infinite regression )
Clients often say far to much and forget that a prospect is initially only seeing the forest. Once interested in the forest, the prospect may focus in on a path. Offering an experience is equivocal to offering choice. Choice denotes value thereafter.
Again, to suggest there is a formula is to suggest everything else is wrong. We know that mother nature is not wrong. A problem may exist relative to us but, it by no means that it is wrong, that it is not a truth or fact. A concept that is built on an existing set of concepts must be treated as fact. And we must assume that initial parameters of these facts are not going to change. They are perfect truths. And in agreeing to this, we must realize that if the parameters do change within the facts, the concept must be reevaluated entirely. A truth or fact is personal context, and if context fails, there is no perceivable relevancy. Information cannot be introduced into the concept without expecting the relevancy of the concept to change as well.
Information arranged and organized through symbols, colors, pictures and words creates content. Content presented in relationship either paralleling, or contrast existing content creates context. Context creates relevancy.
Removing the term ‘creativity’ ( because it still scares people ) from this explanation and subsequently replacing it with ‘solution,’ we would explain this process as an existing system with a series of subsystems that based on their individual relationships continue to create an additional set of subsystems with each reaction.
Campaigns with communication that establish a big picture, with media being the 'details' and not the focus, will create relevancy. Position a statement before you position media. A statement is clear and concise. Whether written or expressed verbally ( or anything auditory ). Creating alternative vehicles for messaging ( media ) should be secondary. And all though media is the form in which we function it is not a something with a true form. The ideas and concepts should dictate the media. Perhaps calling media 'context' with the message/concept being 'content' will help clarify my points.
And when you do agree on the statement you're brand is declaring, keep this in mind, if you change a word, the sentence should be re-evaluated. It might not make sense anymore.
When you make a change, conceptually speaking, your creating a detour for the concepts and ultimately the prospect. And that detour will dictate the rest of the consumer journey. Your brand is not a house that can be repaired with duct-tape a little plaster and some new paint, it's a tree.
This isn't a top-down process.
4.28.2007
ADS
Agency: Pragma DDB, Lima, Peru
Creative Director: Ricardo Chadwick, Alvaro Naddeo, Emilio Diaz
Art director: Alvaro Naddeo
Copywriter: Jaime Chehade
Illustrator: Albero Naddeo
Photographer: Juanjo Rosales
Retouch: Carlos Luna
via Design Idea
4.25.2007
4.24.2007
OPINIONS SUCK
Through an email recently, someone asked me what I thought about a campaign they we're presenting. They wanted to know what I felt about it. And If it needed 'more.'
–felt?
To be honest, I didn't feel anything. Mainly because I was now propositioned to remove myself from the engagement, the experience. I was being asked to step back, and evaluate the work. The problem with this is, consumers don't do that, now do they. I Felt like responding back, "great! you ruined it for me, I can't be excited or inspired or motivated now." Of course, I do this everyday with my work. And all of us wonder how the work will be received by everyone who surveys it. Consumers included. Naturally, I want to sound intelligent now that I've been asked for my 'opinion.' Who wouldn't?
–more?
More–NEVER, less, LESS! Naturally this is, ( as any good-hearted, charming and good looking creative would say ) my response before I've evaluated the work. But then reality sets in. Prior experiences come to mind. I found myself asking: What was in the brief? What did the client say? What did their husband specifically request? Their niece? The girl in media who loves fashion advertising. What does the guy that swivels back and forth in his chair all the time, think? Did his CD like it? What was the single-minded thought?
Where is this running?
I thought about all of this before I even looked at the work. Sad, isn't it? Bad training. Never even saw the idea–yet, I had all these concerns before the work even had a chance to amaze or disappoint me. It almost failed because I was more concerned with what everyone wanted it to do instead of what the work was actually going to do. Imagine what goes through the head of our clients. 'Creative process' is an oxymoron. Advertising talks to much. Art requires no explanation. The consumer is stuck in the middle.
Allow the concept to create new context. This in-turn creates relevancy. And offers the client a chance to be little more then what they think they are.
My response to the email; Looks good. I like. Funny.
–felt?
To be honest, I didn't feel anything. Mainly because I was now propositioned to remove myself from the engagement, the experience. I was being asked to step back, and evaluate the work. The problem with this is, consumers don't do that, now do they. I Felt like responding back, "great! you ruined it for me, I can't be excited or inspired or motivated now." Of course, I do this everyday with my work. And all of us wonder how the work will be received by everyone who surveys it. Consumers included. Naturally, I want to sound intelligent now that I've been asked for my 'opinion.' Who wouldn't?
–more?
More–NEVER, less, LESS! Naturally this is, ( as any good-hearted, charming and good looking creative would say ) my response before I've evaluated the work. But then reality sets in. Prior experiences come to mind. I found myself asking: What was in the brief? What did the client say? What did their husband specifically request? Their niece? The girl in media who loves fashion advertising. What does the guy that swivels back and forth in his chair all the time, think? Did his CD like it? What was the single-minded thought?
Where is this running?
I thought about all of this before I even looked at the work. Sad, isn't it? Bad training. Never even saw the idea–yet, I had all these concerns before the work even had a chance to amaze or disappoint me. It almost failed because I was more concerned with what everyone wanted it to do instead of what the work was actually going to do. Imagine what goes through the head of our clients. 'Creative process' is an oxymoron. Advertising talks to much. Art requires no explanation. The consumer is stuck in the middle.
Allow the concept to create new context. This in-turn creates relevancy. And offers the client a chance to be little more then what they think they are.
My response to the email; Looks good. I like. Funny.
4.21.2007
4.16.2007
MY GOALS FOR BLOGGING
Robyn McMaster, on Brain Based Biz has tagged me with:
Goals as a blogger.
Read on. :)
Blogging provides me with an outlet that I feel is inherently dependent on my nature; observation and introspection. Neither one the predecessor. If it is possible to equate the two more concisely then I will suggest it offers me art and life. A subsequent and more remedial result of this being, improving my writing skills with each post I read and create.
Blogging is a cultivation of thought and experiences. A vicarious exploration not otherwise readily available through common social interaction. To more clearly define my art proposition, I offer that blogging is essentially self-expression in it's most raw form. An endlessly and continuously plowed field of information. Each yield more ripe then the last but, a yield no better then the last. As the soil is constantly turned and the seedlings never from the same region. Cross-pollination is bound to breed a new species. A new idea born as another dies off.
In defining my 'life' position, I suggest that despite a good harvest, I look forward to enjoying the meal with someone who might share the same taste in food. No one likes to eat alone. At-the-least, perhaps someone will bring new ingredients.
I enjoy my sampling of the apple. And in return hope to plant a tree
that yields equally juicy bites.
And, now I want to hear why Breeze Debris, Orbit Now, RyanPricevsMedia and Kuiper cliff blog.
Goals as a blogger.
Read on. :)
Blogging provides me with an outlet that I feel is inherently dependent on my nature; observation and introspection. Neither one the predecessor. If it is possible to equate the two more concisely then I will suggest it offers me art and life. A subsequent and more remedial result of this being, improving my writing skills with each post I read and create.
Blogging is a cultivation of thought and experiences. A vicarious exploration not otherwise readily available through common social interaction. To more clearly define my art proposition, I offer that blogging is essentially self-expression in it's most raw form. An endlessly and continuously plowed field of information. Each yield more ripe then the last but, a yield no better then the last. As the soil is constantly turned and the seedlings never from the same region. Cross-pollination is bound to breed a new species. A new idea born as another dies off.
In defining my 'life' position, I suggest that despite a good harvest, I look forward to enjoying the meal with someone who might share the same taste in food. No one likes to eat alone. At-the-least, perhaps someone will bring new ingredients.
I enjoy my sampling of the apple. And in return hope to plant a tree
that yields equally juicy bites.
And, now I want to hear why Breeze Debris, Orbit Now, RyanPricevsMedia and Kuiper cliff blog.
4.07.2007
IT'S WHAT WE CALL THE NEWS
Thanks to Adhole's member Tracey Lawrence for finding this painfully true and hilarious video.
And JibJab for creating it.
4.05.2007
BLOG AFTER BLOG
SOME
Some pass news along.
Some digg it.
Some shovel it.
Some are an authority, either through readership or because
they claim to be a professional within their given industry.
Some pontificate while others make me laugh out loud.
Some claim to be able to make me rich, while others remind me
of how small I am in this world.
Some won't let me forget the worlds ecological problems and some
won't let me forget our political ones.
Some even try to convert me subversively to converting
to christianity or an atheist.
Some blogs are dead.
Some blogs are visited by ten thousand people daily, some–hourly.
Some are a viable source for all things considered thought provoking.
Some spark creativity.
Some conscientiously steal other's ideas.
Some report just the facts.
Some refute just the facts.
Some blogs are a part of a larger group of blogs.
Some blogs have multiple writers.
Some have won multiple awards for their aesthetic. Their content.
Their writing. Their navigation and technical wonders.
Some have won awards for being a blog about awards.
Some report science, discovery, education.
Some offer the tools for science, discovery, self-education.
WE
We have a rating system for blogs.
We track our readers.
We rate other blogs.
We write our content specifically for our readers.
We create pictures and artwork for our readers.
We promote ourselves.
We can talk with whomever we want.
We do not have to talk to anyone. At least not face-to-face.
We sell our ideas.
We share them without cost to the reader.
We create communities for people to gather and exchange ideas.
We sell these communities to the highest bidder.
We create tools for other people to do the same,
for a small fee, of course.
We create free tools.
We want more freedom to do and think as we please.
We want more.
I
I am not sure what has really changed.
Are we looking to change a system of subsystems or re-establish
these systems in ones favor.
Why do you blog–again? I can't imagine a level playing field
where a 'list' matters. I think almost everyone will agree that
creating our own content truly breeds innovation. Yet, most simply
pass it along? And on the other hand, when someone does something
profound, we shit on it.
Should I assume that the only level playing field is one based on mediocrity?
Some pass news along.
Some digg it.
Some shovel it.
Some are an authority, either through readership or because
they claim to be a professional within their given industry.
Some pontificate while others make me laugh out loud.
Some claim to be able to make me rich, while others remind me
of how small I am in this world.
Some won't let me forget the worlds ecological problems and some
won't let me forget our political ones.
Some even try to convert me subversively to converting
to christianity or an atheist.
Some blogs are dead.
Some blogs are visited by ten thousand people daily, some–hourly.
Some are a viable source for all things considered thought provoking.
Some spark creativity.
Some conscientiously steal other's ideas.
Some report just the facts.
Some refute just the facts.
Some blogs are a part of a larger group of blogs.
Some blogs have multiple writers.
Some have won multiple awards for their aesthetic. Their content.
Their writing. Their navigation and technical wonders.
Some have won awards for being a blog about awards.
Some report science, discovery, education.
Some offer the tools for science, discovery, self-education.
WE
We have a rating system for blogs.
We track our readers.
We rate other blogs.
We write our content specifically for our readers.
We create pictures and artwork for our readers.
We promote ourselves.
We can talk with whomever we want.
We do not have to talk to anyone. At least not face-to-face.
We sell our ideas.
We share them without cost to the reader.
We create communities for people to gather and exchange ideas.
We sell these communities to the highest bidder.
We create tools for other people to do the same,
for a small fee, of course.
We create free tools.
We want more freedom to do and think as we please.
We want more.
I
I am not sure what has really changed.
Are we looking to change a system of subsystems or re-establish
these systems in ones favor.
Why do you blog–again? I can't imagine a level playing field
where a 'list' matters. I think almost everyone will agree that
creating our own content truly breeds innovation. Yet, most simply
pass it along? And on the other hand, when someone does something
profound, we shit on it.
Should I assume that the only level playing field is one based on mediocrity?
4.02.2007
IMAGINE A FORMULA
imagine
imagine
imagine
imagine
imagine
Hello and welcome,
imagine a formula,
for creating clarity,
of ideas and communication,
chemistry for relevancy
and originality,
create a voice,
that is heard over a thousand other voices,
without shouting,
without shouting,
without shouting,
a method for inception and ideation,
a formula with endless results,
i think i know the formula,
it may sound simple,
but all good ideas are,
i think I have the key,
u + me = us,
let's mix it up,
let's mix it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Imagine a brand landscape defined by the individual; the consumer, the prospect, the common surveyor–a marketplace that evolves organically based on consumer interaction and feedback. A company and their agency-both accountable for their products, services and ideas. Knowledge is growing directly in relation to the amount of people contributing to it without regard for social or economical barriers. Language barriers don't exist. Knowledge is systematic growth based on interoperation without ration. Mass communications leveraged by the individual. Products and services rising and falling on their own merits. Someone googles "sucker born everyday," every minute. Advertising talks too much, art requires no explanation and we live in the middle. Create relevancy.
