Creativity is a blessing from nature but we can develop it by careful planning through education. This is all the more important in a country like USA where we accept even the mediocre to contribute their best and create something new.
Hence, it is necessary that parents and teachers provide healthy conditions at home and the school. This would enable children to express themselves and contribute something new for the society, which may be termed as creativity……….

http://www.sangambayard-c-m.com

One statement in particular confused me (paraphrased)
“…interpretations of perceptual information that exist through a gestalt lens at the cognitive level. ”

A Gestalt is, by definition, an entity _perceived_ as a whole and not as a collection of parts. As such, any “interpretation” of “perceptual information” that results in a “gestalt” is done so unconsciously (hence my question as to what you mean by “cognitive level”). While we can certainly undergo an intentional perceptual shift that reorganizes the constituent into a new whole, the gestalts themselves are still formed at a “perceptual level” (see Jastrow’s duck/rabbit). “Is it a continum?” Absolutely. The split between sensing and thinking is far more artificial than you might imagine. Don’t take my word for it though. Rudolf Arnheim wrote a whole book on it. The introduction I include here:

“Reasoning, says Schopenhauer, is of feminine nature: it can give only after it has received. Without information on what is going on in time and space the brain cannot work. However, if the purely sensory reflections of the things and events of the outer world occupied the mind in their raw state the information would be of little help. The endless spectacle of ever new particulars might stimulate but would not instruct us. Nothing we can learn about an individual thing is of use unless we find generality in the particular.” -Visual Thinking

This is why my initial response (http://thesis.ianbellomy.com/?p=202) “might be taking my statements too far” as you say. While I apologize if I conflated your article, my position is that the designing of “interaction” as per IxD is equivalent to designing in larger context than traditional design studies. I feel this position is both important and useful if any split between the two (perhaps like the one at SCAD) is to be bridged.

I.e. (getting to behavior) Depending on your context, culture, etc. there are many ways to interpret the sign of bouncing your hand w/ your finger tips closed and pointing upward. Everyone can see it exactly the same way, but “meaning” is interpretive.

When it comes to behavior, it is purely an interpretive balancing act of implications and inferences. When they match we have communication.

Is it a continuum? maybe. I haven’t really thought about it that way, but I’m always open to that possibility.

…but…how do we perceive them?

2. but for you the individual, the answer is more complex and filled with “it depends” type statements. What I will refuse to debate is the reactionary response to bad experiences with institutionalized educational systems. We’ve all had bad experiences and we can do better. What I do know is that the rigor and intensity of a good solid foundation of design education does things to behavioral modification and craftsmanship that only a few very disciplined people can capture outside the formal institution.

On the flip side, I would say that formal does not have to mean “college” or even “school”, but it should mean guided. The Bauhaus for example was an amazing institution that turned into a school, but wasn’t accredited in the sense that we think of schools today. CIID and Ivrea before it are other examples directly in the IxD community as well.

But to your point, can someone learn and experience all they need to in the same time frame as a formal (even school-based) educational system as they can “on their own” just opening blogs and lynda.com and whatever else? I think in the bell curve frame of things, the #’s are really low. Maybe the top 1% can do it adequately.

I think there is a recent upswell of hubris that is taking place with all these open systems that makes us think that the old is totally outdated and thus can be replaced in whole through completely egalitarian and non-institutionalized systems. I personal don’t agree w/ that notion at all. Is change required in institutional formal education: HELL YES! but that is change, not removal.

I challenge anyone out of high school 4 years in industry to have the same level of creative stamina and thinking skills and production quality that my students have. Are there experiences they are missing? Nothing that forcing coops or internships and great professors tied to industry can’t assuage.

– dave