 |
And the way we tend to
reason it out, at least in our
day-to-day lives, is to use
either inductive or deductive
arguments.
For those of you lacking the
finer points of education (like
me), I've boned up on this
subject. Inductive reasoning
is where you work from
specific observation to
general conclusions: so you
say "every time I put a roll of
film through the X-ray
machine it comes out fogged,
therefore X-rays may
damage film". Deductive
reasoning would have you
work from general laws and
apply them to determine
what will happen in the
specific instance. So you
might conclude: "X-rays are
known to damage film,
therefore it will fog the film if
I take the security officer's
advice and put my precious
shoot through this machine."
At this point you might be
wondering if my words
would not sit better in an
early chapter of Logic For
Dummies. However, bear
with me. Good things come
to those who wait. My
observations on induction
and deduction are merely
preparation for your critique
on my new discovery: a third
form of logic, one particularly
developed for the creative
process and apparent in
much of what surrounds us.
This new form is what I call
Reduction. It's so obvious that
you might assume I am just
stating platitudes, but then it
might also reassure you as to
how to give creative thought
some structure and
methodology.
Reduction is my new tag for
the theory, but it is captured
in epithet form by the famous
(and still controversial)
comment by arch-modernist
architect Mies van der Rohe:
"Less is more". It's also
lurking inside that irritating
saying "keep it simple,
stupid"."
Reductive reasoning is how
creative communications -
from fashion photography
through all kinds of ads to
the various forms of design,
including architecture - give
themselves form. To make an
effective ad you need a
single-minded proposition;
for outstanding design you
need a clear-sighted brief
and a focus on innovation;
and for a great image you
need to clear away the
infinite possibilities of
crafting a picture and instead
almost monomaniacally
devote yourself to delivering
the very particular vision in
your mind's eye. To do all
and any of these effectively
requires powerful reductive
reasoning.
This will come as no surprise
to many of you. The point of
focusing on it today is that
the fierce focusing logic of
reductive reasoning, of 'less
is more', is in a constant
battle with the forces of
chaos. It is the nature of
creative thinking that you
must explore new
possibilities, examine new
ways of doing things. So the
modernist like rules of 'less is
more' thinking are regularly
in counterpoint with 'more is
more' - whether it is the
focus of the Renaissance
modulating to the Rococo
over three centuries, or
whether it is geometric bold
fashions switching to eclectic
prints across the catwalks in
two seasons.
Right now I suggest we are
about to see one of those
swings in the creative
communication area. Here
movements are slower than
fashion, but faster than
architecture. For some time
the 'digital revolution' has
led the focus to be on visual
style exploration that
celebrates the new
technology, whether overtly
or subtly. Process play has
been all around us. Now I
detect we have got that
message. So what next?
Next - time to clear away the
clutter of complex 'style over
content' and return to
reduction. Refocus on the
basics. And that will mean
transparently and rigorously
demonstrating that you have
a big idea worth noting. In a
picture that could mean style
shifts as simple as the power
of portraiture, or the stripping
down of the colour palette, or
the reinstatement of some
classic rules of geometry
(think Rodchenko).
The light bulb went on over
this recently when I noticed
the evolution of a campaign
that I had been working on
with a team of colleagues.
Over a matter of months it
went from all manner of
complexity down to one
image... and then we saw
that it was possible to put the
big idea of the whole
campaign into the treatment
of that one image. An
already tightly cropped
image was cropped even
closer and the message of the
campaign (to do with the lifeforce
of sport) jumped out.
I'm making no great claims
for our work, but the fact that
we switched our focus from
complex messaging to simple
over a matter of months was
in part in response to
research about what was
happening... which indicated
where the future
communication opportunity
might be. Since doing this I
have started to note
complementary behaviour in
a number of other campaigns
out there.
You read it here first.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
