NOW!

Anyone over the age of forty has seen dramatic changes in the workplace.  Typewriters went away.  Fax machines will soon become a thing of the past.  Don't get me wrong - I don't know how we lived with correctype and carbon paper and all the other now archaic tools that we used on a daily basis.

It's all changed, but is the instant "just add water" workplace better? 

At the risk of sounding like a geezer, I believe that something has been lost in the process - the great benefit of reflection to the creative process.

Example -  some years ago, as Advertising and Promotion Director for WOR Radio, I met periodically with our advertising agency to brainstorm campaigns and ads.  We'd meet around a conference table with physical comps spread before us.  We'd discuss them and suggest changes.  The account exec would take notes (with a pen on paper) and we'd decide to reconvene in a week after their creative team could reflect on our reactions and suggestions and make the changes.  After a week, we'd meet again and the changes would be reviewed, accepted or not, and we'd proceed.  They'd go back to their shop, prepare the finals for submission and placement in the various publications (print) or other applications.

Sometimes the whole process would shockingly take a month.  But at the end of that process, we were satisfied that we had all pooled our creativity and best thinking into these important representations of the business.

These days, this process can take place in one hour or less.  Is the product better?  In some cases, it's probably just as good.  But, in some cases, the essence of the product is distorted by the lack of reflection on the distinct nature of the ad or the understanding of the audience.  Also, comparative analysis of competition in our instant world does not always contribute positively to the product's unique sales proposition and gets muddled in efforts to "out position" the competition.

Having just gone through medical mania myself, I know only too well how our instant world has benefited diagnostics, treatment and even communication with the patient.  We don't wait for weeks for analysis.  Biopsies are instantly completed in the operating room so that procedures can move forward.  This is obviously a great benefit unless someone with greater understanding that I can show me that there's a down side.   And there are probably countless other examples in other fields where technology has shortened processes in beneficial ways.

Where I see the greatest disadvantage is mostly in the creative disciplines where reflection and meditation on an idea, a decision, an image can only make the ultimate product better.   The need to react and decide instantly can produce "knee jerk" solutions, ones that do not capture all the creative possibilities.  So, we see a lot of product mediocrity.  My good friend Mike, a gifted professional photographer, will rant about how instant photography and the availability of software has inspired every person with a phone to create and publish mostly awful photography believing that's all it takes.  It's great that we can capture every moment of our lives instantly, but this technology and instant availability has diminished the understanding and appreciation of the beauty and art of a fine photograph.

Think about how long Michelangelo hung from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.