This week we’ve seen Scott McCloud’s Big Triangle and Rudolf Laban’s Labanotation – both taxonomies for creative media. Both systems find their power by clarifying relationships between different content. I’m excited to add my thoughts to the conversation – I call my system ‘iMap’.

The iMap is a tool for creative taxonomy that considers two independent variables – what you say (narrative), and how you say it (execution). The relative positions of these variables on a concrete to abstract scale determines a work of art’s position within ‘the realm of consumption’ – the field that the iMap works on. To fall within the realm of public consumption, pieces can be abstract in execution or narrative, but not in both (pieces that are abstract in both fall into the avant garde category). The interactive visual shows a broad view of how this system is applied to songwriting (although it could be applied to any creative work).

The iMap rests on the assumption that a combination of the two main methods of classifying systems can be used to classify creative thinking as well. Systems can broadly fall into two categories: Stochastic systems are based on randomness, while deterministic systems are based on causality. Applied to creative cognition, these systems translate into two models:

1. Each thought is original, with every idea the sole creation of the thinker (stochastic)
2. Each thought is the byproduct of generations of creative and analytical thought, with each idea is an amalgamation of the ones that came before. (deterministic)

I think a more accurate representation of creative thought is a hybrid of the two systems – a kind of stochastic determinism:

3. Each thought is a combination of somebody’s personality and experience (the stochastic element), driven through the deterministic system that is generational knowledge.

As a tool for visualization and categorization, the iMap then becomes both documentary (i.e. you create a work, and see how it compares with influences) and generative – you plot out your desired influences, map them out, then start hacking away within the resulting space. I use the system for a variety of tasks. For documentation of my daily writing, I try to attach a stamp that includes an iMap graphic on the corner each of my journal pages. For idea generation, I’ll often think of some interesting combinations of media, plot them out on the grid, and then think of the relative similarities between disparate works – it’s usually a great thought exercise, and a good way to warm up.

We’ve touched briefly on the difficulty in accurately defining metrics for systems of taxonomies – what you gain in comparability (between two pieces), you lose in definition (of the full original works). I think that it’s best to recognize this, then purposely define metrics loosely enough to allow comparison between genres. On the grid, you can commingle painters, architects, musicians, poets – anybody that creates work that has a narrative component can fit within the system.

I’ve thought often about adding a third dimension to the iMap system. After going to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, I began thinking about how his work fits into the grid. His execution isn’t incredibly abstract, and his narratives are often pretty concrete – the iMap doesn’t seem to capture the entire picture. A possible solution is to try to quantify the level of grammatical reflexivity. For example – Van Gogh developed a naturalistic style of pointillism (his grammar) with no formal training, and a minimum of contemporary influences. His style became highly self-reflexive, even though the subject matter remained relatively straightforward. Maybe a third dimension would more clearly plot these works in the grid – maybe it would just add noise.

Thoughts?

Tags: Design, iMap, Music

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Design, Music. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.