Creativity on Hold: Update Pending

"Do what you can with what you have. Nothing more is needed." (Rubin, 2023:294)

When Did Resources Become a Prerequisite to Ideation?

During a recent conversation with a colleague about potential research ideas in Virtual Production and ICVFX production, he suggested there was little point in developing them further because we lacked the resources for specific integrated hardware. In context to the conversation, a reasonable response. Yet the comment lingered, because it raised a question for me that I kept returning to. Where is the boundary between needing equipment to test an idea and treating that equipment as a prerequisite for developing the idea at all.

In the previous blog, I argue that 'talent' gives people a reason to step back from work, "I cannot be creative because I am not talented,". I notice a similar mindset here. "We cannot develop ideas because we lack the latest hardware or software." they are not the same barrier. Talent is a myth; a lack of resource is a tangible challenge. Both however create the environment culture we look to develop skills in. What, if anything, must be in place to support ideation?

In Film, TV Animation and VFX, technology and equipment are woven into the craft, it can sometimes be hard to separate creative intention from the systems available to realise it. Limited resources may stop us running an experiment. They do not stop us asking questions, imagining alternatives or working a problem through with fundamental skills developed through experience. There is even some evidence to suggest that the relationship between ideation and resource can be improved if constraints are built into the workflow.

This distinction is important. While limited resources may prevent us from conducting experiments or pursuing certain research, they do not stop us from developing questions, imagining alternatives and prioritising ideation. By doing so, we build stronger problem-solving skills to address challenges created by resource constraints.

My creative friction in this post is a query, not that resources are unimportant, but how reliance on them can enter and obstruct the ideation process. Thinking back to the last blog post about "talent", I'm interested in how we can lose sight of the journey by focusing on an intangible output. Perhaps, like "talent", the obsession with the latest equipment and software can negatively impact the developmental environment we create for students and others looking to develop their skills.

Technological Abundance and Difficulty Choosing

Individuals entering fields such as film, television, animation, visual effects, or virtual production encounter a continuously evolving landscape of technology trends and software, frequently promoted as solutions to streamline complex processes. In this context, platforms such as YouTube and social media have become indispensable learning resources. These platforms enable knowledge exchange, offer recommendations, and promise improved production efficiency, including access to the latest cameras, essential plug-ins, innovative workflows, or rapid concept art creation.

A brief tutorial duration is not inherently deceptive. Experienced practitioners can generate effective images quickly, and observing their decision-making can offer valuable insights. However, the time it takes to complete a task does not reflect the long period required to develop the underlying judgment and skills. Decisions about composition, colour, form, and emphasis may seem instantaneous because they draw on knowledge gained through sustained practice. Observers see the execution of a process, but not necessarily the experimentation and failed attempts that shaped the final outcome.

This issue relates to the concept of hidden effort often associated with talent, discussed in the previous blog. When presentations emphasise efficient workflows and polished outcomes, the process of developing understanding may become obscured. Learners observe the results of successful practice without necessarily gaining insight into the learning processes that enabled such proficiency. Consequently, they may misinterpret difficulty as a personal deficiency rather than an opportunity for inquiry. It is important to distinguish between the time it takes to demonstrate a skill and the time it takes to develop it.

Beyond the widespread availability of online tutorials, a pervasive culture of equipment advancement exists. Recommendations about technology, software, and production systems are helpful, yet they also make creative readiness seem contingent on having the latest technology. Showcasing the newest equipment alongside examples of work confuses the audience about what creates successful work: the latest technology or the human operating the tool. As a result, the focus often shifts to determining which software package to learn, which subscription to purchase, or what updated equipment will enable a specific outcome. Individuals are then often prompted to choose production tools before clearly defining their creative intentions.

When considering intention, it is necessary to examine the motivations underlying the environment of online knowledge exchange and resources, which is largely driven by commercialisation. Frequently, users seeking solutions through online tutorials discover that the answers are inaccessible without payment, require the purchase of a plugin, or are restricted by a subscription. While this is not a critique of commercialisation itself, the focus here is on the quality of knowledge exchanged within this dynamic. The intentional concealment of information behind paywalls fosters reliance on tutorials and discourages independent exploration.

This dynamic is significant because the pursuit of answers can gradually shift into a pursuit of acquisitions. Instead of establishing a clear intention and investigating potential approaches, individuals may begin collecting tools perceived as necessary for creative work. As the prerequisites for beginning a project accumulate, the original idea may remain unresolved. Consequently, creative production can appear simultaneously accessible and heavily dependent on acquiring missing elements, such as a specific tutorial or new equipment. Tutorials may promise rapid results, while the emphasis on equipment and workflows introduces additional perceived requirements. As a result, creative exploration risks being replaced by the question, "What do I need before I can begin?"

There is also a distinction between watching and doing. In the paper aptly titled Easier Said Than Done,  Kardas and O'Brien found that repeatedly observing skilled performances could increase participants' confidence in their ability without a corresponding improvement in actual performance. This is problematic. If a developmental environment relies on knowledge sharing on platforms such as YouTube, a climate that creates perceived ability rather than tangible skill could become more prevalent. The response should not be to discourage online learning. Instead, it should help students move beyond reproduction and focus more on exploration and ideation. What principle is being demonstrated? Why has this method been chosen? Can the same understanding be applied under different conditions?

Ideation as a Problem Solving Tool

Returning to the central friction that started this post: the overreliance on technology, or more accurately, the perceived necessity of equipment and knowledge before exploring potential creative ideas. It does not mean requiring individuals to arrive with a complete concept before engaging with technology. That would replace one prerequisite with another: instead of waiting for equipment, they would be waiting for an idea. 

I mean creating an environment for questions, curiosity or intention to develop without demanding that the resource, knowledge or outcome already be established. "I want to investigate this relationship" can be a sufficient beginning. The form of the work may change through making, iteration, technical challenges, or barriers, but intention and exploration drive the work. 

Exploring the journey of practice rather than focusing on outcome aligns with Schön and the idea that a designer is not creating an outcome, but more accurately engaging their experience with a particular scenario. Problem solving.

"In a good process of design, this conversation with the situation is reflective." (Schön, 1992:78)

Dorst's account of design thinking places framing and frame creation at the centre of design practice, continuing from Schön's idea. Developing a way to understand and approach a situation is itself part of the creative contribution, rather than merely preparation for selecting a solution. In other words, relying on the "correct" equipment or learning through perception merely presents you with someone else's framing of a problem. Through creative practice, you learn to engage with the problem yourself, ultimately building more complex problem-solving skills and creative adaptability. 

Recently, I was fortunate to work on an AR project and help build the physical set that motion-capture avatars would inhabit and move through. I bring this up as an example of how I interrogate and iterate the creative process. Before reaching the final box for the project, I used cardboard and masking tape to create two iterations that solved potential problems and issues with what the brief demanded. The journey to the output was the focus and, in turn, supported better collaboration within the team; I was part of it, and it led to a more confident final output. 

This approach matters educationally because an overly fixed focus on outcomes can narrow what students believe they can discover. If they feel obliged to describe the finished work at the beginning, a change of direction may seem like a failure to follow the plan. The cardboard iterations were low-tech, low-stakes, and low-risk.  Trusting the process should not mean proceeding without purpose. It means recognising that purpose can become clearer through engagement. The work needs direction, but direction does not require a fully resolved destination.

This is why I want technical proficiency to develop alongside fundamental understanding. Learning a package is valuable, but learning how to investigate an unfamiliar system, recognise a transferable principle and adapt a method gives that knowledge greater flexibility. The aim is not simply to follow a workflow, but to judge when it is appropriate and when it needs to change.

Leading by example means making this development visible. We can explain why a test was chosen, which assumption it addressed and what its result changed. We can show a discarded approach and why we rejected it. We can show that uncertainty isn't necessarily a weakness to conceal, but something to work through.

The environment must support the activity it claims to value. If every exercise is judged as a polished production, exploratory work is disadvantaged. A preliminary test may succeed because it exposes a weak assumption, while an impressive technical result may contribute little to the underlying question. Recognising that difference clarifies what the work is intended to accomplish. Yet assessment is only one part of the environment. Exploration also requires time and time is often the first thing a tightly organised process leaves out.

Permission to "Go Dreamy"

Choosing a single favorite Lynch interview or clip is challenging. I often return to a behind-the-scenes moment that highlights the tension between creativity and real-world constraints. Lynch's frustration arises from production limitations, not a lack of resources or software. What resonates with me is his desire for time to experiment, reflecting a mindset centred on creative intent and exploration rather than output. The opposite mindset to one that is concerned about resource and output.

David Lynch aims to create without being limited by tangible barriers. "To go dreamy" reflects the freedom to explore and the value of the creative process. Childlike playfulness is not a lack of expertise or responsibility, but a willingness to try before knowing the outcome. This mindset cannot thrive if concerns about technology or missing resources hinder ideation. Our primary responsibility is to create.

Schön's discussion of exploratory experimentation places this activity within professional practice. Exploration can involve probing a situation to discover what happens, rather than acting exclusively to produce a predetermined result.

An experiment may show that the initial direction is unproductive. It may reveal a relationship we had not considered or create a better question than the one we began with. If every test must confirm an anticipated result, experimentation becomes difficult to distinguish from verification. Both have legitimate purposes, but they serve different functions.

We should plan for delivery and output, and setting goals is essential for development. However, environments such as universities and colleges should value exploration without being limited by resources. Technological advancements now provide equipment at various price points, supporting ideation and creation for all ability levels.

Value of Process
This mindset of going "dreamy" or, more accurately, a desire to explore the process rather than the journey reminds me of the concept of Shoshin. A concept explored  in 'Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind', Shunryu Suzuki writes: 

“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.” (Suzuki, 2020)

In creative practice, especially when facing deadlines and real-world barriers, it is easy to rely on experience and limit exploration. Like Lynch, Shoshin encourages us to remain curious and approach challenges without preconceptions or ego. This does not mean rejecting expertise, but in educational settings, we should examine our relationship with it. Technical knowledge supports informed decisions and complex work, but familiarity can lead us to default to established solutions. “This is how I usually do it” can quietly become “This is the only way it can be done.”

A beginner's mindset provides a fresh starting point. What needs to be discovered? Which assumptions could a small experiment test? What might an unfamiliar approach reveal? The goal is not to disregard knowledge, but to prevent it from determining the outcome before the enquiry begins. Going back to the recent experience with the cardboard prototype, approaching the project in a low-resource, exploratory way let me problem-solve and find a solution without worrying about the output. We might approach technology and hardware in the same way.

Leading by example does not require certainty. We can be experienced practitioners and still approach a problem as something new. My colleague's comment resonated with me because it highlighted the difference between a necessary resource and a presumed starting condition. Equipment may determine when we can experiment, but it does not dictate when we begin developing the enquiry.

This is the environment I hope we cultivate: one where ideas can emerge, technical choices respond to purpose, and constraints invite careful judgement rather than automatic delays. The next hardware or software update may expand our creative possibilities, but it should not determine when we begin to explore. 

We should all allow ourselves space to go "dreamy."

Thank you for taking the time to read this blog entry. This is one half of a conversation; please comment, reach out, I am always interested in hearing how others are navigating this creative landscape we are in. Creative Frictions is an ongoing series where I wrestle with and explore the environments that shape our creative work and development. 

Bibliography and Reading List

Clear, J. (2018) Atomic habits : an easy and proven way to build good habits and break bad ones : tiny changes, remarkable results. London: Random House Business Books.

Dorst, K. (2011) “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application,” Design studies, 32(6), pp. 521–532.

Kardas, M. and O’Brien, E. (2018) “Easier Seen Than Done: Merely Watching Others Perform Can Foster an Illusion of Skill Acquisition,” Psychological science, 29(4), pp. 521–536.

Lynch, D. and McKenna, K. (2018) Room to dream. First edition. New York: Random House.

Rosso, B.D. (2014) “Creativity and Constraints: Exploring the Role of Constraints in the Creative Processes of Research and Development Teams,” Organization studies, 35(4), pp. 551–585.

Rubin, R. and Strauss, N. (2023) The creative act a way of being. Edinburgh: Canongate.

Sawicki, M. and Moody, J. (2025) VIRTUAL PRODUCTION : essential elements on a budget. Abingdon: Routledge.

Schon, D.A. (2016) The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. London: Routledge.

Schwartz, B. (2004) The paradox of choice : why more is less. New York, N.Y: ECCO.

Suzuki, S., 1970. Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice. New York: Weatherhill.

Stokes, P.D. (2006) Creativity from constraints : the psychology of breakthrough. 1st ed. New York: Springer Pub. Co.