• Blog
  • About
  • Archives

elemental links

brenda michelson's technology advisory practice

Drawing (even poorly) to See via The Book of Life

March 12, 2015 By brenda michelson

I recently unearthed my (real world) drawing pencils and purchased a pixel point stylus to add more illustration to my public works.

If you’ve worked with me, you know that drawing — on a whiteboard, legal pad, printer paper, using Visio, wherever — is a huge part of my process. Drawing helps me understand new ideas, think through problems, invite collaboration and communicate.

And while I’ve drawn some lovely Visio diagrams, my pencil-based drawing skills sit squarely in the fair range. A very long time ago, they were better. Because I worked at it, daily.

Now, I can either quietly, privately rebuild those skills, or throw caution and doodles (as it were) to the winds. I’m leaning towards the latter, because it’s not about artistry, but thinking and communication.

On this talent-is-overrated line, John Rushkin‘s thoughts on the importance of drawing, as described in The Book of Life:

Before the invention of photography, people used to draw far more than they do today. It was an active necessity. But in the mid-19th century, photography killed drawing. It became something only ‘artists’ would ever do, so Ruskin – passionate promoter of drawing and enemy of the camera – spent four years on a campaign to get people sketching again. He wrote books, gave speeches and funded art schools, but he saw no paradox in stressing that his campaign had nothing to do with getting people to draw well: ‘A man is born an artist as a hippopotamus is born a hippopotamus; and you can no more make yourself one than you can make yourself a giraffe.’

So if drawing had value even when it was practised by people with no talent, it was for Ruskin because drawing can teach us to see: to notice properly rather than gaze absentmindedly. In the process of recreating with our own hand what lies before our eyes, we naturally move from a position of observing beauty in a loose way to one where we acquire a deep understanding of its parts.

via On the Importance of Drawing | The Book of Life.

[Bold is mine.]

Filed Under: thinking styles Tagged With: archive_0, commentary, stream, visual thinking

Link: Why Nordstrom’s Digital Strategy Works (and Yours Probably Doesn’t) – HBR

January 15, 2015 By brenda michelson

From the esteemed Jeanne W. Ross on studying customer obsessed, digitally ambitious Nordstrom:

DON’T:

Only a small percentage of companies will gain competitive advantage from [social, mobile, analytics, cloud, and internet of things] SMACIT technologies. Those that do will focus less on the individual technologies and more on how they rally all those technologies, in unison, to fulfill a distinctive purpose. We don’t mean a generic, high-concept purpose like “generating shareholder value.” Instead, we mean something much more down-to-earth – a strategic focus that directs their technology spending.

DO:

It’s time to get serious about defining the purpose of your digital business model. Don’t worry about developing a strategy for social, mobile, cloud, or any other technology. Develop a strategy for succeeding in the digital economy—a purpose that leverages your unique capabilities and responds to market opportunities. Then grab every technology that takes you there.

via Why Nordstrom’s Digital Strategy Works (and Yours Probably Doesn’t) – HBR.

Filed Under: business-technology, digital Tagged With: 2015IT, digital-ambition, stream

Connective thinking is rare, crucial – 1959 Essay by Isaac Asimov on Creativity

October 21, 2014 By brenda michelson

Connective thinking ability cited as key trait in newly published Isaac Asimov essay on Creativity:

But what if the same earth-shaking idea occurred to two men, simultaneously and independently? Perhaps, the common factors involved would be illuminating. Consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, independently created by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.

There is a great deal in common there. Both traveled to far places, observing strange species of plants and animals and the manner in which they varied from place to place. Both were keenly interested in finding an explanation for this, and both failed until each happened to read Malthus’s “Essay on Population.”

Both then saw how the notion of overpopulation and weeding out which Malthus had applied to human beings would fit into the doctrine of evolution by natural selection if applied to species generally.

Obviously, then, what is needed is not only people with a good background in a particular field, but also people capable of making a connection between item 1 and item 2 which might not ordinarily seem connected.

Undoubtedly in the first half of the 19th century, a great many naturalists had studied the manner in which species were differentiated among themselves. A great many people had read Malthus. Perhaps some both studied species and read Malthus. But what you needed was someone who studied species, read Malthus, and had the ability to make a cross-connection.

That is the crucial point that is the rare characteristic that must be found. Once the cross-connection is made, it becomes obvious. Thomas H. Huxley is supposed to have exclaimed after reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of this.”

But why didn’t he think of it? The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table. Making the cross-connection requires a certain daring. It must, for any cross-connection that does not require daring is performed at once by many and develops not as a “new idea,” but as a mere “corollary of an old idea.”

Asimov also ponders the need and purpose of collaboration, along with providing a (still relevant) tip on sparking and extracting wisdom:

In the same way, a session-arbiter will have to sit there, stirring up the animals, asking the shrewd question, making the necessary comment, bringing them gently back to the point. Since the arbiter will not know which question is shrewd, which comment necessary, and what the point is, his will not be an easy job.

via Published for the First Time: a 1959 Essay by Isaac Asimov on Creativity | MIT Technology Review.

Filed Under: links, thinking styles Tagged With: archive_0, connective thinking, creativity, problem-solving, stream, systems thinking

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 9
  • Next Page »

Brenda M. Michelson

Brenda Michelson

Technology Architect.

Trusted Advisor.

(BIO)

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Experts Sketch
  • PEW Research: Tech Saturation, Well-Being and (my) Remedies
  • technology knowledge premise
  • The Curse of Knowledge
  • better problems and technology knowledge transfer

Recent Tweets

  • Great share. Subtraction can be additive. // cc: @AngelaYochem https://t.co/q1OgBcqz7N April 9, 2021 2:13 pm
  • Walking along, solving a writing problem in your head, when suddenly you’re an eyelash away from face planting in a… https://t.co/rVJ7QNuF30 April 5, 2021 1:31 pm
  • Arts, tech, education and (much needed) diversity; Portland, Maine. https://t.co/pSshO4VMXv @wearecywoc March 26, 2021 3:58 pm
© 2004-2021 Elemental Links, Inc.