Teaching Constraints, Learning Creativity

Different disciplines require different approaches to education. The teaching of formalized sciences (such are physics, chemistry, etc.) requires the study of consolidated and already verified results and is conveniently carried out through lecturing (e.g. lectures or books) while formalisms and techniques are learned together with disciplinary contents. Soft disciplines (such are fine arts, interior design, media production, journalism, etc.) require “learning by doing”: the study of facts and techniques that is weakly related to the ability to produce masterpieces or new ideas. Design is in an intermediate position: techniques can be learned (e.g. modelling, representation, materials, colours, etc.), but the ability to design “new meanings”, i.e. creativity, is left to personal sensitivity and to teaching by examples. Creativity can be stimulated, and methods can be provided: constraints. In our experience in teaching design (in particular communication and service design) at our university, we combine theoretical lessons with many design activities, together with constraint driven activities. Constraints stimulate the lateral thinking and make students aware of their mental frames that oppose limits to their creative capacities; constraint driven assignments force the students to focus on the technical aspects, distracting their attention from the creative content so reducing “conceptual censorship”. This paper presents the methodology we use and some of the experiences we carried out with respect to different design fields (products, communication artifacts and services), both in academic as well as in professional environments.