BrandSoul

The theory of constraint

Yesterday I read an account of the life of John von Neumann, one of the leading mathematicians of the XX century. He was part of the Manhattan Project and has been widely recognized as the main founder of what today is known as Game theory.

The Manhattan Project reunited an important number of leading scientists and it happened to be that many of them were hungarians. Von Neumann was a hungarian jewish who had to exile to the US when nazis went into power. Asked by the coincidence of so many hungarian top-level minds at the same location, in Los Alamos, von Neumann answered it could be explained by "the need to make extraordinary accomplishments to avoid being extinguished".

I think this is a major factor in the lifes of many extraordinary creative people. Sometimes the constraint factor can lead to insanity or extravaganza, as I have sometimes discussed this with Trevor. But other times it is the only way to survival. In this case, not only survival is enough, but it is the element that makes sense the whole experience of the person.

Truffaut and Welles

I've just finished watching François Truffaut's Stolen kisses. I've enjoyed it so much that I can't help writing something on it. It is a trait of any genius to make things simple, but extremely meaningful. And that is what Stolen kisses offers. It is perfect in showing love and the joy of life. Thanks Truffaut for rendering this pure stream of bliss.

On the other side, I watched The magnificent Ambersons for the first time last weekend. Though I love Citizen Kane and Fake, The Ambersons saga seemed to me too pathetic, dark and claustrophobic. Of course, one could argue that is what Welles intended. Still the story reminds me too much one of a person I know and perhaps that contributed to the feeling of deception.

Truffaut and Welles, simplicity and complexity, two completely different styles. I was a Welles maniac years ago. Now I prefer Truffaut's serenity. Am I aging or something?

Maravich, the book

A book has been presented about the life of Pistol Pete Maravich. For those who did not have the opportunity to see Pistol Pete play live (it's my case), this is an occassion to remind the games of a true genius.

Here you can see some of the impossible shots and passes of Pistol Pete. Take a look at the interview and the passing lessons along with Red  Auerbach.

I think it is inspirational even if you just watch it.

Metheny / Mehldau

I saw it yesterday for the first time. Pat Metheny and Brad Mehldau have joined forces to record a new album together. The advertising I read reminded the historical pairings of Bill Evans and Jim Hall. The selling story is well designed. Still I keep some doubts regarding the real quality of the recording. I love Pat Metheny and love Brad Mehldau's innovative efforts too. I have seen Mehldau live in San Sebastian, at the Jazz Festival. I loved Brad's Largo. But this recording, isn't it too predictable?

Do they really have chemistry? Have you listened to the recording? If you have, please tell me.

Although I will buy the CD anyway I would like to know if it is not just another attempt for the recording label to earn some easy money.

Imaginary spaces

I like Frank Gehry's works. One of the pleasures I had last summer was to take a rest at work and sit down beside the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, (100 metres from my office) under the sun rays. I felt a deep sensation of peace and pleasure.

This is another one of his designs.

My second ChangeThis manifesto

Yes, I have submitted a new proposal to write a manifesto. It is called Building corporate mythics, and this is how I define it.

The discipline of "Corporate mythics" goes beyond what we currently understand by corporate culture. It is a discipline of building stories that have an active impact on the behaviours of the company and the employees. In this manifesto I present a model of working out these important elements in the life of any company.

You can vote for it here.

Non linear conversations

Roland Barthes, in one of his last courses at the College de France explained the way conversations are concocted and why they are the source of conflict and, sometimes, of understanding.

For Barthes any conversation starts with an statement or with a question. An statement is always a way of stablishing how things are for one of the parts. If the conversation starts with a question, then it is the person who is being questioned who gets all the responsibility of being responsive.

I talked about optimal responsiveness as the way of ethically answering to demands of others in social interactions. If you accept there´s always a demand of others, then you will have to be responsive in the most optimal way. That was the main law of "optimal responsiveness".

In conversations, when one person makes a question, it can be made with a sense of linearity or without it. If the question is linear it demands an answer in terms of yes or no, or a certain solution to the asked for problem. And Barthes intends to show out that the questioned person feels some kind of pressure. She is actually being questioned.

This is where the barthesian argument gains interest, when he suggests ways of making any conversation non linear; that is, transforming a power ridden relationship into a creative game of word exchange.

Why William James was an innovator?

I´ve been extensively talking on innovation for the last weeks, both with individuals and with groups. The most common reaction you find in these cases is the belief that innovation is another technique. The real thing is that innovation is closer to an art than to a technique. This is for innovation taken radically will always deal with a sense of vertigo, of chaos and of lack of control.

Many companies feel fear or even reject such an idea. It is true, you don´t have to be innovative if you don´t want, it´s up to you. You can even manage your company in a very responsible and polished way. You can even try to "structure" innovation and that can even be a fuze for corporate morale and energy.

What most structural approaches ignore is that

Social world is a world in becoming, not a world in being, and for that reason, studies of social structure as such are irrelevant.

Victor Turner

When it comes to radical innovation things are less structural, though more cinetic. There it emerges a common atmosphere that permits the spontaneous flowering of ideas and "brand actions". How this atmosphere affects the souls of constituents can be proved by the accounts of people who have lived in such conditions. Let´s recall here the family atmosphere of William James:

He grew up in a circle in which heresies were more gladly tolerated than orthodoxies. Men like his father and his father´s friends, who were attracted to Fourierism, communism, homeopathy, women´s rights, abolition and spiritism, were not likely to have any prejudices against mediumship, clairvoyance, mesmerism, automatic writing, and crystal gazing. From his youth, James contemplated such phenomena without repulsion and with an open mind

A palimpsest

A palimpsest is a written document, usually on vellum or parchment, that has been written upon several times, often with remnants of erased writing still visible. Most written works considered by the posterity as supreme achievements of art have this structure of palimpsest.

It is the continuous refinement of an initial spark that makes possible the development of a whole new work. And it is time the element that makes possible the complete work. There are many ways of making outstanding contributions in a certain field but palimpsests are one of the most fruitful. I wanted to tell this, for the common idea of a creator is one of an inmediate inspiration that creates the work of art in a definite way.

Linda Seger, who wrote a wonderful book on Making a good script great put it this way:

"To write an excellent script it is not necessary to have a good idea nor it is enough to put it in a written form. When we work on a movie or television script it is not the writing but the rewriting what makes the good script great"

Michaelangelo on the supreme art

Michaelangelo, a man who cultivated all the arts (painting, sculpting, achitecture, engineering, poetry) and mastered the main technical skills needed to make his dreams come true, to go from the idea to the realization, reflected on the hierarchy of the different arts.

For him, sculpture was the supreme art. And he explained why.

All the other arts are based on the addition of elements, one element on the previous one make up the work of art. Sculpture is the only art that permits to go straight to the form. The form is laying inside the stone. There is beauty waiting for the artist to unveil it.

What attitude do we foster in our work? One of adding complexity or one of achieving the essence of the matter? Are we used to refining our products and services? Do we have courage enough to "Do less", as Seth Godin used to reccomend?