First TE says that companies like Amazon who are based on quantitative methods are not creative because they “marginalized messiness”. LD responds that “(d)ata analysis and everything that goes into it can be highly creative”, meaning (I guess) that Quants can get down in the mess too. Both are good points but miss another aspect that unites the arts / humanities and the sciences, and this is the heart of my argument. They are both creating practices that effect our live in important ways. The point is that we all create. It’s not whether we are or are not creative. It’s a question of what we are creating. From John Shotter’s Cultural Politics of Everyday Life:
But now, many take seriously Foucault’s (1972: 49) claim that our task consists of not – of no longer – treating discourses as groups of signs . . . but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.
In other words, it’s not wether the Quants are creative, but do their analyses treat me as an object to be controlled, or do they treat me as a human being where the analysis respects my being. That’s called ontologically responsible assessment. Again, from Shotter:
I want to argue not for a radical change in our practices, but for a self-conscious noticing of their actual nature.
We should offer people clear and understandable analysis where they can make new connections, but also respects and is responsible to their rights as a person. Yes, as Lee claims, the sciences and the humanities can work together. But beyond that, they are both human based social practices. If we see them as practices a la Foucault, there is much more in common than is different. They are both not only creative, but they are creating.