Creating Things That Matter

by David Edwards, Timothy Andrés Pabon (Reading)

Most things we create will not matter. This book is about creating things that do, from a master innovator who brings science and art together in his cutting edge labs. Art and science are famous opposites. Contemporary innovation mostly keeps them far apart. But in this book, David Edwards―world-renowned inventor; Harvard professor of the practice of idea translation; creator of breathable insulin, edible food packaging, and digital scents―reveals that the secret to creating very new things of lasting benefit, including innovations we will need to sustain human life on the planet, lies in perceiving art and science as one. Here Edwards shares how he discovered a way of creating that transcends disciplines and incorporates the principles of aesthetics. He introduces us to cutting-edge artists, musicians, architects, physicists, mathematicians, engineers, chefs, choreographers, and novelists (among others) and uncovers a three-step cycle they all share in creating things that durably matter. This creator cycle looks unlike what we associate with game-changing innovation today, and aligns the most expressive art and the most revolutionary science in a radical reimagining of how we live. David Edwards and the innovators he profiles belong to an emerging grassroots renaissance flourishing in special environments that we all can make in our schools, companies and homes. Creating Things That Matter is a book for anyone wondering what tomorrow might be, and at last half believing that what they do can make a difference.

Genres: Business, Nonfiction, Audiobook

MP3 CD

Published October 16, 2018

About the author

David Edwards is a creator, writer, and educator. He teaches at Harvard University and is founder of Le Laboratoire in Paris, France and Cambridge, MA. His work, which spans the arts and sciences, has been featured prominently in the international media, and is at the core of the international artscience movement. He lives with his wife and their three sons in Boston.

Reviews

[Karel Baloun · Rating 2 out of 5]

Edward’s credentials fill me with high hopes, and his smart introduction really drew me in. Yet Edwards could have approached his own career with humility, yet instead he overinflated his own entrepreneurial achievements, perhaps to augment his own credibility. I feel he similarly overpraises the people he interviews, whom he knows and perhaps would like to cajole into deeper friendships. In cases where he introduces genuine geniuses like Robert Langer (p85–89), he seems to hijack their stories for his own not clearly connected purpose.

On the positive side, very few writers could knowledgeably discuss creativity in such a wide variety of domains. Edwards demonstrates interest and fluency in many forms of art, science and business. A succinct summary of his “third way” method is a chart on p177.

The first two chapters. setting the context, feel so rudimentary and obvious, he’s starting to lose me. I wish I could just read faster with skipping, but I’m trying to enjoy the aesthetic(!) of his prose.

Seven aesthetic dimensions for creativity: passion, empathy, intuition, humility, aesthetic intelligence, obsession. (p52-56) At a very high-level, this is both an inspired and reasonable list, especially indirectly adding curiosity as he does. Not sure why he keeps applying the label “aesthetic” rather than a wide variety of other more descriptive, positive traits precisely in context. The explanations he gives for each of those traits are these pages though, do not seem completely accurate. I know for a fact that Zuckerberg story is more wrong than right, and since I don’t know the other stories enough to judge accuracy, I have doubts.

On p92, he introduces a “fast cycle” no iterating through expirations of new ideas, but without discussing the key prerequisite of how to get into a position and environment to do so.

Jeff Bezos has apparently spent $43 million building a clock in Texas that will continue to work for 10,000 years. (p101) and this is genuinely presented as a laudable example of creating something that matters.

In my humble opinion, one reason Edwards’ various inventions have not had objective real-world impact, is that they are not anchored to real human needs, much less any deeper principle that would advance humanity.

Unfortunately, in the 3rd section Edwards bends reality too hard toward his perception. Lauded Maker Faire (p186) filed bankruptcy in June 2019. All of the UGC in the world may have objective creative value, maybe, but what of it will be in any way beyond just transient?

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some books that try too hard and those which do not try hard enough, and this book is clearly in the first camp.  Ultimately, what this book is trying to do is somewhat simple, but the issue is the way the author goes about it.  The author wishes to bridge the gulf between the arts and the sciences and to legitimize a place for the aesthetic in terms of scientific creativity and innovation.  All of that is well and good, and is something worth celebrating and appreciating.  Unfortunately, the author's ideas on creativity and aesthetics appear to be formed from a hipster idea of what is worthwhile and not something that would be appealing to the larger world.  There are a lot of odes to odd medicine that doesn't catch on because the logistical capabilities outside of a few drug companies aren't available, weird food ideas, and a celebration of irony.  All of this may play well in left-leaning areas where things that matter are things that are deliberate and strange and vaguely anti-capitalistic, but it doesn't play well overall when mattering is something that requires more than posing as someone who wishes for the well-being of others.

This volume of a bit more than 250 pages is divided into three parts and eight chapters.  The author begins with an introduction that defends the role of art and aesthetics in science and points to its pedigree.  After that the author spends a couple of chapters talking about the aesthetics of creating (I), with chapters on creating in a world that no longer exists (1) and creating in the world that now exists (2).  After that the author spends some time writing about the creator's cycle (II), discussing ideation, the generation of ideas (3), experimentation (4), and exhibition (5).  The final three chapters are whether the author spends most of his effort trying to appeal to a hipster heaven that is the sort of world that the author may want but that doesn't necessarily appeal to all of the readers (III), with chapters on grassroots renaissance that seeks to bypass contemporary elites (6), the fire of renaissance (7) that may sweep away old ways of doing things, and the relationship between culture, change, and hope (8) that demonstrates the hipster ideal of change for its own sake and a hostility to existing ways of behavior.

Ultimately, there is both much to enjoy and much to dislike about a book like this.  The book would have been so much better had the author done a better job describing the cycle of creation and the various motivations that lead people to create and the various ways in which ideation, experimentation, and exhibition can go differently based on the sort of creativity that one is engaged in.  All of this is well and good and would have been inspiring to a wide audience.  Unfortunately, as is often the case, the author wishes to write about creativity and examples of creativity that serve particular agendas that the author is deeply attached to.  And it is those agendas, particularly the author's strong bias for left-wing and meaningless hipster agendas, that is most irritating.  The author talks about things that matter by spending a great deal of time writing about a failed Catalan-themed restaurant, and in praising comedy improv culture, two things that don't particularly matter in the grand scheme of things unless ethnic origins and comedy matter a great deal.  One of the author's prime health examples of something that matters is an inhaler for insulin that never got off the ground because it got shut down by a large medical company, and that which does not have a practical effect ultimately does not matter, no matter how much a snowflake like the author might wish such things to matter because of their noble and good intentions.

[Kevinw88 · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read the book three weeks ago and don't remember anything from it other than it went on and on.

[Shhhhh Ahhhhh · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars because while this book did a masterful job of expressing itself, I did not get from it what I expected to get. This book really focused on basically the context in which innovation is occurring. It talked a lot about empathy, about innovation being for the good of many rather than few, it talked about organizations orienting themselves to create a culture of innovation, and it talked about specific case studies of innovative behavior, all of it seeming to revolve around the author's accomplishments and experiences (which I don't hold against him). Unfortunately, what it doesn't cover is the brass tacks of how to innovate. This book basically covers everything you should do after you have a good idea, not what you should do to acquire it. In that sense, I feel that it only accomplished half of the objectives implicitly states by the title. With that said, the reason this got 4 stars, rather than a lower number, is because the portion of the title it did deliver on, it performed very well. Talking about innovation as being a sort of public conversation or community effort, and as much an act of intuition as of reason, resonates with me very deeply.

Do recommend.

[Dennis Chang · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a guide book that tell you how to create things that matter, though it Briefly mentioned the three stages ideation, experiment and exhibit. The professor just show you Different stories of Creating that matters, and core principles.

As mentioned in the book, Nohria finished his preface by saying, we're not missing arguments today, We are missing experience. Our students should be creating such a fresh experience and eventually following into creative careers.

It likes our PDCA cycle, with guiding principles : passion , empathy ,intuition ,innocence ,humanity ,aesthetic intelligence ,obsession .

[Ayesha Ratnayake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had high hopes upon reading the title, but sadly, the book didn't do its name justice. Full of forgettable ramblings and overwrought sentences like this one from the description: "This creator cycle looks unlike what we associate with game-changing innovation today, and aligns the most expressive art and the most revolutionary science in a radical reimagining of how we live." Too much word vomit, not enough insight.

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

 I think that rich people's brains develop differently when they're young as their environment is so different from the one us peasants experience. To them the world is about experiencing fancy food and creating art and maybe even helping us poor plebs by inspiring us with their great art. This is the only way I can explain why books like this one exist. It's a boring list of rich and famous people the author knows, partly an autobiography with heaps of self promotion.

[Russell Howes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I understand and agree with some of the criticisms of this book in the other reviews, but I think it's insightful in the author's description of the Aesthetic Creative cycle, separate from creation that is strictly commercial or strictly artistic. It's worth a read, particularly the first half of the book. Later chapters seem a little self-congratulatory.

[Linda Ye · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is more of a collection of essays than a single coherent story. Many anecdotes in the book have a point to learn from, and most of the anecdotes are from creative minds the author personally interacted with.

[Bushra Salama · Rating 2 out of 5]

A couple of useful lines. The rest is anecdotal filler.

[Vadini · Rating 1 out of 5]

I got this book thinking it would have some novel insight into impactful innovation, but I wasn’t able to glean any particularly belief-changing ideas from the book.

[Gary McCallister · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm glad I read this book, although I found the authors arrogance a little off-setting. Still there inspirational stories and examples. However, now that I am done, I believe what I don't like about the book is the emphasis on things that matter. My personal; opinion is that creating things matter, whether what is created matters much is less significant. It's not my job in a review to prove my point, I have attempted to do that in some of my own books. Now that I write this, I think this is part of his arrogance. While the things he has created matter, creating anything matters as much or more.

[Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars - very inspirational and fun to read at times. Overall solid content, but felt the book could have been shorter.

[Emile]

This was one of those books aimed at me that just didn't land. There were many things that had me gritting my teeth throughout (excessive name dropping, continual use of "pioneer" and "frontier" imagery exultantly tone deaf fashion, extreme levels of self congratulation) but at the heart of it was a stubborn refusal to address the title question: what does it mean for something to *matter?*

David Edwards wants to glide over this, assume we all know what it means and agree on which projects embody it. But his relentless, chipper, "shit's fucked up and bullshit but humans are *innovators* and *aesthetic creators* and we just have to keep doing *pioneering* stuff at the *frontiers* and we'll figure it out" take refuses to grapple with any of the hard problems. We are not just dealing with the fallout of bad actors, but also the unintended consequences of people pursuing their dreams and passions trying to improve the human condition.

If you write a book about creating things that *matter,* and argue that it will help us deal with our sustainability crises, you have to deal with this stuff. The petrochemical revolution in industrialization definitely *matters* in the sense of being overwhelmingly, climate shapingly, important. But clearly this isn't what Edwards means. Colonialism and white supremacy clearly mattered in a similar sense. The development of industrial farming practices; same.

The overwhelming proportion of examples of "things that matter" that Edwards uses in the book are projects from the last 20 years. And I don't think I found a *single* negative example; something that didn't matter, or didn't matter in the right way.

Extremely frustrating read.