Petroski/Tharp

1. What do Petroski and Tharp have to say about the importance of revision?

Petroski and Tharp call for a creative process that focuses on iteration – Constant revision – because the failures of a idea are a necessary part of its growth.  Revision is an indispensable tool at the fingertips of any creator.

Although it is unpleasant, revision is vital.

The way Petroski and Tharp think of revision, reminds me of the theory of evolution. The bad ideas get changed in a way that adapts them into a new idea. This is almost the exact opposite of Dodd and Smith's idea of "throwing away" ideas. Tharp and Petroski basicly want you to "get fixated". well... that may be pushing it.

2. What are some of the criteria by which Petroski and Tharp each define failure, and what role does failure play in revision?

Tharp makes a distinction between public and private failures, the former of which is much more embarrassing and thus jarring.  Petroski defines any small error to be a failure, like a small failure to "cracks" in an engineer's design.

This reminds me of an old quote. When Thomas Edison worked on re-inventing the lightbulb, he fail many times.  700 iterations, i think... And when asked about his 700 failures he said, "I did not fail 700 times. I succeeded at proving those 700 designs would not work!"

All in all, I think I like the way Edison looks at things...

UARTS 102 post 1

• How do Dodds & Smith define fixation?

Fixation is, more or less, a road block for the mind. Taking something as given without letting newer perspectives have some say. Basically, you are not letting something show its full potential. 

• When and why does Gerber recommend throwing away previously generated ideas?  

Gerber recommends throwing away ideas because they – and i think Dodds and Smith would agree – are going to get in the way of better ideas! Like a monk tries to clear their mind, if one can clear their mind of old ideas, truly revolutionary things will materialize. 

Johnson's thoughts on combing ideas is seen everywhere in the world today! Lets smash social life and the internet together: Facebook. Lets smash  cameras and mobile phones together: Camera phone! Camera phone and internet: Smart phone and Facebook: REVOLUTIONARY!  c:

So there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson's thesis is correct. IN FACT, I think I would go so far to say that if somebody smashed Dodds, Smith, Gerber, and Johnson all together, they would have one of the most enlightened creative people know to man! 

The ideas our group has revolved around involve songs, which are in fact a blend between poetry and music. We blend that with psychology in an experiment on the mind's ability to "synesthetize" or show signs of synesthesia. 

Our second idea would involve turning everyday recyclables into instruments. And putting on a concert where the performers play only these "recyclable" instruments. 

Now, I don't think throwing these idea away will do anybody any good. I do know that there is room for improvement however, especially for the latter idea. But we should refine our ideas by blend idea's together, or pull ideas out of what we have already.