One perk of an independent life – I’m more free than most to travel the world and see amazing things.
Last week I was in Brussels to give a lecture at Namahn, a wonderful design consulting firm, and Joannes, the company founder, was kind enough to take me to Rene Magritte’s house, which is now a small museum. He’s one of my favorite artists of all time – to see where he worked was a very special thing for me.
One of his most famous paintings is The Treachery of Images (La trahison des images). You may have seen it before:
![]()
The text in the painting reads “This is not a pipe”.
It seems like a joke. First time I saw this painting in college I just snickered and moved on. But later I’d realize he’s reminding you that pictures of things are not the same as things. That movies about things are not the same as the things they are about (e.g. Twittering about something is not the same as doing that thing). It’s deep, funny, interesting, philosophical and simple all at the same time, which is what I hope my work to be like.
Walking around the house he lived in, many of the objects that appear in his paintings can be found, including the pipe:
I also saw his bowler hat, the fireplaces and stairs that appeared in many of his paintings.
Here’s what I learned:
Sadly I just missed the opening in Belgium of the Rene Magritte museum, which will be the largest exhibition of his works anywhere in the world. It opens June 2, 2009.
You can see many of his works here – I suspect you’ve seen some of these before even if you didn’t know the name of the man who made them.
Found this great post from Slate’s Moneybox via Brady @ O’Reilly.


I think Tufte would be happy.
You can and should play with the interactive map yourself.
One of the grand confusions of modern life is the confusion between what is good and what is popular. Most of the time people confuse being popular with being good, which isn’t necessarily true.
I knew a guy in high school. He was very popular. But I don’t think anyone would say he was good at anything. Not really.
I also knew another guy in high school. He was pretty good at lots of things. But for some reason, he wasn’t very popular.
I suspect if these two guys ever met the universe would have exploded. Good thing that didn’t happen.
The temptation many creative people I know have is to strive for popularity. To make, do, and say things that other people like in the hopes of pleasing them. This motivation is nice. And sometimes the end result is good. But often what happens in trying so hard to please other people, especially many other people, the result is mediocre. Their internal goodness detector is disappointed with what they make.
And then there are the artistes. People who develop their own sense of what they think is good and insist on striving for it, no matter what anyone else says. Provided they don’t expect anyone else to care, these people are quite interesting. Although there is nothing worse than an artiste who insists on telling you how stupid you are for not seeing how brilliant their work is.
Digging through history I’ve found it interesting how characters like Van Gogh, Michelangelo, and Bukowski balanced the popular vs. good challenge. Most famous artists took commissions, and in some cases those commissions resulted in their most famous work (For example, Da Vinci and Michelangelo had clients and lived mostly on commission income. If you wonder why much of what’s in museums are portraits of old wealthy people, it’s because they’re the only ones who could afford to pay for paintings). In other cases, like Bukowski, Henry Miller, Van Gogh, they never really compromised. Sometimes to their own detriment.
But what most creative people want, all the ones i know, is to be both good and popular. They want to achieve their own sense of goodness, while at the same time pleasing other people. It’s a tightrope. Especially once you’ve been popular here or there, people tend to want more of the same. And that rarely fits in with a creative person’s sense of goodness. So a few big popular victories early on can put handcuffs on how good, from the creators standpoint, they can ever be while still being popular. My first book was on project management, and I suspect for some people, no matter how many books I write on other things, I’ll always be the project management guy. And that’s ok.
How do you balance your own sense of good vs. your sense of popular? Do you find clear places where they are in conflict (say your client’s sense of good vs. your own?) How to you balance this out and stay sane? Do you divide your creative energy into “work creative” and “personal creative”, giving yourself a safe place to be an artiste? Or is this more than you’ve ever thought about what is, perhaps, a silly and pretentious line of thinking?
Whatever your opinion, I’d like to hear it.
I’m stuck in the Vancouver airport, waiting for them to find a new plane. Hard to complain about waiting for a new plane, when the old plane broke. Tell me the current plane might explode and I’m happy to wait, thank you very much.
Waiting in at the gate, in between trying not to strangle the kid dancing precariously close to my luggage, and the guy with laptop problems on my left who has his volume set to 11 (I will be hearing the Windows startup song in my sleep), I made a sketch for ideas in organizations.
The arrows are the paths of different ideas. The box in the middle is the organization.
Whenever leaders want more innovation, they typically start by adding more inputs into the process. They seek out more ideas. Hey, lets brainstorm! Or maybe we should crowdsource! Or how about getting everyone to mindmap!
Executives often do this flinchy sort of thing and it’s big news at many corporations to start “idea programs” to encourage people to submit ideas.
These programs are launched, ideas are submitted, and there is much rejoicing.
But little change.
The reason there is little change is that idea inputs were never the problem. The bottleneck was further upstream. Crowdsourcing, brainstorming, mindmapping, and the dozens of other techniques people obsess about help create early idea volume, but do little to help the curators, the people who winnow down the hundreds of ideas down to dozens, and dozens down to a handful.
It’s much more useful to study where the bottlenecks are, when and why new ideas are killed, and who the people are that are killing them.
If you have 1000 new ideas a month, but 0 prototypes are ever made from them, what good is another 2000 ideas? It’s much better to study why there is no time or rewards for prototyping and focus on getting that number to go up.
An easy diagnostic for innovation is the list of 10 stages – Where do ideas die in your world? That’s the place to study and make changes to help ideas survive longer in your organization.
The real challenge is getting ideas out the door – not how you generate ideas. It’s more useful to study how ideas die – what reasons are used? Who has the power to do it? And when and why are they using it?
Sorting out the lifecycle of ideas in an organization requires study and thought, while slapping more idea generation techniques on the front does not.
On Tue April 14th I’ll be doing a live webcast for UIE on Why designers fail and what to do about it. This will be the full 90 minute version of my talk, with some new twists and updates specially designed for this webcast, and it includes tactics and approaches to thinking about failure and how both to change your philosophy about experimentation, but also tactics for learning as much as you can from your failures, and failures of designers and creators throughout history.
For this 90 min live talk, a talk you can participate in from anywhere in the world, wearing only your underwear if you choose as I won’t be able to see you, for $129 – Here’s my promo video for the session, with audio voiceover, including a last slide that details the value you’ll get from tuning in.
Details and registration info here – Use my promo code BERKUN to get the discounted price of $99.
A common problem experts, like user experience designers, have is working for an executive who has no idea what they do.
The trap is often the expert, in this case, a designer, is hired by the VP, but no one anticipates how many things need to change in the organization for the designer to be of use. So the designer sits on the sidelines, frustrated, while the VP is happy since now s/he can say “We have a design expert on staff” even if that expert isn’t contributing much.
This situation is common, but it’s not a disaster. It just means you have to be your own advocate in making your contributions visible. Here’s a battle plan:
Also check out my free webcast this Thursday, March 19th, 10 am PST, How Progress happens, which offers more tactics and inspiration on making change happen.