From Design Thinking to Art Thinking

Design Thinking is the process that is receiving most attention. However, Design Thinking may have limitations. Design Thinking can frequently lead to more incremental, rather than radical, outputs by putting the customer at the center of the innovation process.

Art Thinking; by contrast, has the capacity to liberate its practitioners from the user experience that characterises Design Thinking and can thus offer more creative, radical and disruptive options.

Creativity forms the basis of artistic thought. It is useful to examine creativity.

What is creativity?

While defining creativity, on the one hand, we need to reveal the distinction between its false forms — that is, creativity, which is a superficial aestheticism. On the other hand, creativity in its authentic form — that is, the process of bringing something new into existence. The crucial distinction, the distinction between artificial art and pure art.

This distinction is a distinction that artists and philosophers have been trying to make clear for centuries. For example, Plato reduced poets and artists to the sixth link of reality, because he said they were only concerned with appearances, not reality itself. He was talking about art, which is adornment, a way of beautifying life, dealing with images.

Creativity is the most basic aspect of a person’s own existence in the world.

In order for our inquiries on creativity to go beyond the superficial, we must clarify the distinction. What we’re dealing with here isn’t hobbies, do-it-yourself trends, Sunday painting, or leisure activities. Where has the meaning of creativity been so disastrously lost, other than in the idea that it’s just a weekend thing?

The creative process should not be explored as the result of dementia, but as the highest manifestation of affective health, an expression of normal persons’ acts of self-actualization. Creativity should be seen in the work of the scientist as much as the artist, the thinker as much as the aesthetic; and the range of creativity should not be circumscribed, whether it occurs in the captains of modern technology or in the mother’s normal relations with her child. Creativity, as the webster aptly puts it, is the process of making, of revealing being.

Naturalness of Creativity

This is what Alfred Adler talked about in an interview in a house where he was a guest; refers to his theorizing as compensating for creativity. People produce art, science, and other aspects of culture to compensate for their own inadequacies. A simple example is often cited as the oyster, which produces a pearl to cover a grain of sand that inadvertently enters its shell. Beethoven’s deafness was one of the many well-known examples given by Adler to show how highly creative individuals compensate for a deficiency or organ failure by their creative acts. Adler believed that civilization was also created by man to compensate for their lack of teeth and claws in the animal world, as well as their relatively weak position in the earth’s crust, where they did not find themselves in a friendly position at all. Adler then forgot that he was addressing an artist community and said, looking around the room, “I see very few of you wear glasses, I guess you guys aren’t interested in art.” He thus dramatically staged where this compensatory theory could go with oversimplification.

Adlerin’s theory has considerable value, but the fault of this theory is that it does not deal with process. Compensatory tendencies in an individual will affect the form his creation will take, but it cannot explain the creative process itself. Needs for compensation affect a particular orientation or arc in culture or science, but they cannot explain the creation of science or culture.

Creative Process

The first thing that draws our attention in creative acquisition is the encounter. The encounter may or may not involve voluntary effort, i.e. ‘voluntary strength’. It is not the presence or absence of effort that matters, but the degree of concentration; It should be an open binding. In the distinction between fake (illegal) creativity and authentic creativity, we see that illegal creativity is creativity that is not encountered.

The encounter results in a different experience for everyone. For example, artists encounter the landscape they want to paint, and the landscape disappears and when they encounter their material, they end it. That’s when the creation process ends. The outcome of the encounter is important to the creative process. Science will face its experience and laboratory task in a similar encounter for my name. Once a tech worker completes the creation process, the design process will also end. Everything that is considered but not implemented will remain in the design Thinking phase.

What Exactly is Design Thinking?

‘We all design when we plan for something new to happen, whether that might be a new version of a recipe, a new arrangement of the living room furniture … The evidence from different cultures around the world, and from designs created by children as well as by adults, suggests that everyone is capable of designing. Therefore, Design Thinking is something inherent within human cognition: it is a key part of what makes us human’.

DesignThinking is: ‘a human-centred innovation process that emphasises observation, collaboration, fast learning, visualisation of ideas, rapid concept prototyping and concurrent business analysis.’‘the search for a magical balance between business and art, structure and chaos, intuition and logic, concept and execution, playfulness and formality and control and empowerment.’

Design Thinking is invariably user-centred and founded, ideally, on some actionable insight. It is highly visual and relies on customer observation, developing thick, rich ethnographic portraits of

customer behaviour and trying to identify themes and patterns (unmet or under-served needs) from the observations. But unlike Marketing, Design Thinking assumes that the problem is ill-defined and focuses on precision, insight and accuracy in defining the real problem. Specifically, incorporating customer, consumer or ‘end user’ perspectives when examining the issue facilitates a better understanding of the issue and when this superior understanding is combined with creativity, the solution is more likely to stand on higher ground.

The Phases of Design Thinking

The Design Thinking process is progressive, highly user-centric and an iterative process which favors ongoing experimentation until the right solution is found. There are several different versions of the Design Thinking process in use today, with three to seven different steps, levels, or modes. Design Thinking is very similar in all of its forms. According to the Stanford’s Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design’s (d.school) model, there are five stages to Design Thinking: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test.

Figure 1: Design Thinking process

These steps are not usually in order, and teams frequently run them in parallel, out of order, and iteratively repeat them.

How Designers Think

In a series of interviews with designers, they discovered that they rely heavily on intuition for their ideas as they try to understand what makes them more creative than other professions. “I believe in intuition,” said one of the interviewees, Jack Howe, an architect and designer. I think that’s the difference between a designer and an engineer’ . A similar observation can be made today about the difference between data scientists and design thinkers. The latter uses evasive thinking or intuition, while the former relies solely on data. suggests that the term intuition is indeed a convenient shorthand for what it really is in Design Thinking.

inductive or deductive thinking — it is evasive thinking. Deductive reasoning is the reasoning of formal logic. Maybe it starts with a hypothesis: All swans are white. Next, some fieldwork is designed to prove or disprove this hypothesis. This is the dominant orthodox for business analysis. This is the bread and butter of all MBA-trained executives. inductive reasoning only aims to build theory from data. Therefore, it does not start with any solid hypothesis; He starts by observing how things really are and then theorizes accordingly. Where the variable studied is highly context dependent, such as corporate innovation — for example how firms find winning ideas. Two types of reasoning that use intuition to encourage divergent thinking and ultimately arrive at more original ideas.

Quantitative, big data analytics is now synonymous with the digital business landscape, but the widespread use of data mining methods may not only be a reliable guide to past behavior and future. In the late 1980s, Philippe Starck is a famous designer of a wide variety of different products. At that moment, Alessi came to her. The Alessi company had begun to develop a new line of household appliances or kitchen products.

It was designed by renowned designers such as the kettles and coffee pots by architects Michael Graves and Aldo Rossi and the cutlery and spice sets by industrial designers Ettore Sottsass and Roger Sapper. They invited Starck to contribute to this prestigious new product line and suggested that he work on the design of a lemon squeezer. The story goes that Starck came to Alessi outside Milan to discuss the project, and after the meeting took a short vacation on the small island of Capraia just off the Tuscany coast.

The placemat in the restaurant and its first iterations (in the center) Conventional crimping machine designs, projected to the right of Figure 2; See Figure 2. But when his food arrived, something else was triggered in his imagination and he began to create images of strange forms. Large bodies and long legs. Finally, he reached the blueprint in the lower left corner of the placemat. It would become one of the iconic designs of the 20th century.

Figure 2: . Starck’s original design sketches for the Alessi lemon squeezer.

In describing the possible creative trajectory of this great design, Lloyd and Snelders suggest:

The squid-like concept is not a sudden inspiration, but a form of analogy that probably started unconsciously but became more and more conscious. This intersection of three parallel ways of thinking. The first involves the problem of how to squeeze a lemon, the second involves creatively exploring the possibilities offered by the shape of the squid, and the third draws on Starck’s youthful interest and appreciation for sci-fi comics. Resemblance to some shapes, possibly from HG Wells’ War of the Worlds. But as Design Thinking becomes more mainstream, its limitations become more apparent. One such limitation is the inherent user-centred approach of Design Thinking. It places users at the center of the process and gives them the dominant voice in the innovation dialogue. While customers are essential ingredients for a successful business, rarely imagination or deep insights into the future. They cannot anticipate unmet or unspoken needs and are rarely the source of radical ideas. Design Thinking tends to anchor innovators in incremental processes. And so while it’s a great toolkit for businesses, it can limit groundbreaking thinking.

Art is a compass. Often, we tend to forget the fundamental question: What is the design for? What is the direction for? This is where Art Thinking comes in. We are discussing essential questions as a starting point for tomorrow.

İn which the goal isn’t to move from the current situation, A, to a better position, A+. Art Thinking necessitates the establishment of a new and optimal position B and spends more time staking out options and hunting for uncontested space in the open-ended problem space. Art thinking fuels the realization that art and business serve one another. It describes art as the process of “inventing point B,” rather than just moving from point A to point B. It adopts business as a structure in which creativity can operate. Art thinking is a mindset that brings the creative thrill of exploration together with the structure and organization of a business. Long-term business success hinges on figuring out point B, but short-term performance pressures make it difficult to do so.

Both ‘Art Thinking’ and ‘Design Thinking’ can be utilized together. Design Thinking can focus on making the ‘created’ product better, useable, culturally acceptable, and manufacturable, while Art Thinking can focus on creating original ideas without the restrictions of productivity. The main distinction is that in design, you are attempting to ask, “How can I improve this?” In art thinking, you are often asking, is this even possible? You are developing the question and answering it. Both approaches are extremely compatible, but art thinking creates more room for the unknown, untested, and the not yet commercialized.

Instead of limiting possibilities, codifying behavior, and reducing risk, what if business leaders acted and thought more like artists? The beauty of art as a process is that once you create a point B world, normalcy, the most powerful change agent of all, takes over. If you look back over the years, you’ll notice how much has changed and start seeing how we had taken many things for granted. Space exploration, medical standards like in vitro fertilization, or even smartphones were acts of inventing a point B world first.

Art Thinking is a process of applying artistic thinking to view a broader range of challenges. This requires a special kind of thinking, a combination of being open, taking risks and developing a different mindset. It will enable to catalyze Innovation, strategy, education and policy with this thinking, which connects creators, industries, governments and citizens by enhancing the process of questioning society.We can best illustrate this with a venn diagram.

Venn diagram is one of the most basic set representation diagrams. In this notation, set elements are represented as points in a closed shape denoting the set; A hollow circle is used to represent the empty set. It is shown as a circle. The first person to come up with the Venn dia gram was John Venn. Capital letters are used when naming the Venn diagram. (Just like any other set notation) the venn chart is often used for operand sets. That’s why John Venn gave it its name. This is a common thing. Venn chart is very easy to represent and is given on sets of common intersections. Venn Diagram is also a Math Headline.

We all have many roles in life. What we learn and use within these roles can potentially be the factors that enable us to make inventions that will take us to point B in other areas.

The Beginnings of an Art Thinking Movement

Art Thinking emanates from the core of the individual and asks, ‘Is this even possible?” Art Thinking spends much more time in the problem space: it is not customer-centred; it is breakthrough-oriented.

art and technology meet to produce new forms of culture, and so the role of design is crucial to the vitality of the arts and similarly, the role of art is at the very heart of design.

Science and art are separate realms where one prizes data and the other aesthetics: it has long been noted that gifted practitioners of the former and very often equally talented at the latter.

notes that Einstein played both the piano and violin: Max Planck composed songs and even a full opera.He also played the piano, organ and cello. Roald Hoffmann, the Polish-American theoretical chemist who won the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry also published plays and poetry. Nobel Prize winner in 1906, Santiago Ramón y Cajal was a celebrated photographer and artist. Pomeroy’s research (2012) suggests that Nobel laureates in the sciences are 17 times more likely than (the average scientist) to be a painter, 12 times more likely to write poetry, and four times more likely to be a musician. Students of Leonardo Da Vinci or Albrecht Dürer will not be surprised at this, as they were also scientists, as well as being consummate artists. The link is thus long-established. There is another dichotomy at work here, too, and that is the division between strategy and creativity. Bilton and Cummings assert that this, too, is a false dichotomy. Business leaders often

equate creativity (sometimes disparagingly) with novelty, spontaneity, like an unplanned eruption of new and often random ideas. They see ‘creativity as unfettered, dynamic, borderline-crazy right-brain thinking’ . While strategy, on the other hand, is rational; it is solid, it is about systems, control and accountability. On both sides, creativity and strategy are seen as extraordinary opposites of one another rather than as integral to each other. For a strategy to be successful, it has to have an element of creativity within it — otherwise it would be a predictable, paint-by-numbers plan which would not offer any competitive advantage. In addition, for creativity to take root, for an idea to spread, it too needs to be framed strategically, rationally, otherwise it would just pop, fizz and evaporate. Arthur Koestler similarly concludes that invention or discovery takes place through the combination of different ideas and angles. He notes that the Latin verb ‘cogito’, to think, actually means to ‘shake together’ which is the creative act of making connections between previously unrelated things. In the business world, this is known as ‘kaleidoscope thinking’: the shaking together of known elements into previously unconsidered combinations.

I would like to give an example of an artistic thought that emerged as a result of encountering creativity.

While working as a technician at Good Samaritan Hospital, Thomas Fogarty (b. 1934) noticed how difficult it was for surgeons to try to open blockages in veins and arteries. In the operation, which usually lasted between 9 and 12 hours, the entire vein had to be opened and the patient either died or lost his legs during this time.

Fogarty developed a method that avoids these tube surgeries. This method used to open the obstruction by inserting a urethral catheter into the vessel.

While working on the attic of his house, Fogarty was able to tie the tip of the rubber glove to the catheter using the tying techniques he learned thanks to his fishing background. After this glove was inserted into the vein and the clogged area was passed, it was inflated like a balloon using mineral salt, reaching the width of the vein, and then pulled back to allow the blood clot to be removed along with it.

In 1961, Fogarty’s balloon embolectomy catheter — which gave the clot removal process its name — was tested on a human for the first time. A small incision was made on the patient and the catheter was inserted into the patient’s occluded vein. When the balloon catheter was inflated and retracted, it brought with it a blood clot that blocked the vessel.

Fogarty’s balloon catheter, patented in 1969, is still one of the most widely used methods in the treatment of atherosclerosis. This method is also used in angio treatments for re-expansion of narrowed heart vessels.

If we had not gone to fix the existing and come up with a brand new idea, perhaps we would not have been able to talk about the 20 million people gained so far.

In Conclusion

Art Thinking is also more comfortable with the uncertainty inherent in the idea that the future is unknowable, because otherwise an innovation would in principle already be known and would occur in the present, not the future. A scientist interested in research, perhaps physics, can attack his problems directly. They can go directly to the heart of matter: that is, to the heart of an organized structure. Because scientific doctrines already have a structure; and with it, a generally accepted problem-case. However, real-world innovation problems often do not have this useful clarity. This is the heart of Art Thought: when boundaries are uncertain and results are uncertain.

What all the data fail to capture, he says, are critical nuances of culture and context that ultimately drive behavior and pave the way for lasting innovation. Art Thinking allowed the organization not only to chart a path from Point A to a more desirable Point B, but also to jointly imagine or invent an ideal destination and put enough creative initiatives on the field to get there. He would not have created an invention and a revolution if he had not adopted it and tried what to do in the face of this situation he faced.

Nur Safiye Kırımcan