Science and art have been historically been defined by individual genius. In the 50′s, individual invention gave way to group/institutional invention (i.e. Bell Labs). Now it appears that loosely connected networks of specialized expertise (such as pharmaceutical networks or the network that was formed to research SARS at the height of the crisis in 2003) are providing answers to the most challenging questions of our era. At the heart of the transition from individual to institution to network innovation is obviously the role of the individual. Is Einstein the last genuis takes a look at the value of individual vs. group based activities: “”Successful research groups are those that grow and evolve on their own over time,” he says. “For example, an individual comes up with a good idea, gets funding, and new group begins to form around that good idea. This creates a framework where many smaller groups contribute to the whole.”"
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
2 Comments
This trend (if there is one) toward “group genius” seems to be limited to scientific activity. Where’s the evidence this is happening in art? Art seems to be as much about individual genius as ever. Is this, then, the beginning of a further bifurcation between art and science? And what of philosophy?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Hi Chris,
Not sure how to address the art/philosophy distinction for group/individual. Art and philosophy are individual enterprises – and will likely stay so – because they are concerned with the expression of perspective and sensemaking frameworks. Both are as more concerned with expression of personal views than they are with innovating together with others.
With that satid, SFMOMA and MOMA aggregate individual voices to provide a pattern of angst in a particular era. I saw Design and the Elastic Mind at MOMA in April…I was surprised at how strong the individual voice was in traditional art (the first several floors of MOMA) and how silent the solitary voice was once I got to the DEM exhibit.
History seems to be concerned with selecting the genius voice from many different expressions. Had history unfolded differently, we’d have a different set of artists to study. McLuhan is selected because history unfolded as he envisioned it. Then we call him a genius. But he’s also partly lucky that things developed as they did. For every McLuhan, there are dozens of “geniuses” that history chose not to endow with genius status. The selection of artistic genius is more difficult precisely because it requires many voices from which to draw some framework of sensemaking…