Skip to main content

Eames, Perspective, and Problem Solving

I just finished Tina Seelig's new book, "InGenius: A Crash Course on Creativity". It's a terrific introduction to both the practical and theoretical aspects of innovative thinking. One of the techniques Seelig touches upon as a means of boosting idea generation is the concept of reframing.

Normally, and not surprisingly, we see the world through a single frame of reference; our own. We apply our knowledge, experience, expectations and attitudes to the questions and situations that arise each day. This isn't an altogether bad thing. Many of our daily choices don't require a particularly high-level of creativity. Still, this reliance on one viewpoint can be an impediment when it comes to creative problem solving. As Seelig points out, our frame of reference serves to both inform and limit the way we think.

The technique of reframing reminds us that there are multiple perspectives to a to every question. Reframing can involve simply asking what the situation would look like from another individual's perspective. How would a child respond to this situation? What would it look like from a visitor's perspective? From a customer's? By assuming a different perspective we open ourselves up to interpretations and ideas that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Asking questions that start with "what" and "why" is another great way to reframe situations. These questions help us to challenge our preconceived notions and look at potential alternatives. "What is the ultimate problem we're trying to solve?" "Why have we done it this way?" "What do we hope to accomplish?". These questions are open-ended. They don't presume an answer.

To illustrate the idea of reframing, Seelig cites a short film made by The Office of Charles and Ray Eames for IBM. The film, called Powers of Ten, opens with a lake shore picnic in Chicago. The camera pulls back (by factors of ten) to demonstrate the power of shifting perspectives. Once it reaches well beyond our galaxy, the camera zooms back to earth, moving inward and examining the sub-atomic world.


It's an interesting period piece, and also a great illustration of how reframing can change the way we look at our world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ohio Historical Center: A Defense

A couple weeks ago I was contacted by Carrie Ghose at Business First to share my thoughts on architecture in central Ohio. The recent controversy surrounding the new Student Union at Ohio State had apparently sparked a number of conversations regarding what constitutes "good" building design. Carrie was following that story , and developing a second piece to get feedback on other notable Columbus buildings. At the time I offered a staunch a defense of what I believe might be the most maligned and misunderstood building in central Ohio, the Ohio Historical Center. Business First wasn't able to run the whole piece, so I've decided to turn it into a blog post. photo courtesy of OHS/ www.ohiomemory.org The refrain is a as old as the building itself, "It's ugly. It's just a giant brown box. It doesn't even look like a museum". Sadly, it's that exact line of thinking that poses the greatest threat to the building Architectural Record referre...

The Problem With Librarian Problems

So it's come to this; a curmudgeonly blog post about the state of the profession (complete with finger wagging, tsk-tsking, and even a little SMH thrown in for good measure). "Shake your fist at 'em Pops. These kids don't know from librarianship". That's how you do it, right? Oh, the irony. I've spent 15 years in the profession deriding Will Manley and his hectoring ways. Now I've apparently become him. Point being, I'm acutely aware of all the contextual layers of this post. I know the implications and risks of saying, "Hey, that's not cool". I've been around long enough to know how easy it is to dismiss the contrarian stance; to push back against even the slightest hint of correction (Trust me, I've done it plenty of times myself). More to the point, I've been around long enough to know how easy it will be to dismiss what I'm about to write. Please don't. It's important. It's important to us individua...

Can Retro Design Be Great Design?

It appears that Spyker (the high-end Dutch sports car company) is making plans to develop a car based on the original Saab 92 (1949-1956). If you've been following the tales and travails of the Saab brand you'll recall that Spyker saved t he car maker from almost certain liquidation after GM cut the Swedish niche-brand loose last year. Having been a Saab loyalist for nearly 20 years, I'm thrilled by the idea of a resurgent Saab entering the market with a new direction and focus (most Saab fans look on the GM years as time lost in the wilderness). And while I've always understood the 92 to be a lovely little post-World War II car (and quite innovative for its time), it raises an interesting question about what constitutes great design. Namely, can retro design be great design? It's a question worth asking since we're clearly living in a time when re-manufacturing the past has become a common practice. Whether it's cars (like the MINI Cooper , VW Beetle , a...