Tip: References Are Overrated
By Behance Research
Behance did a very unscientific study of how we use our own reference items. Over the past three years, we have accumulated 4 faux-leather-bound plastic sleeve books full of magazine cut-outs, printouts, and book excerpts on creative people. The first thing we found was dust.
It seems that these invaluable references were not as valuable as they appeared. While we plan to someday flip through them, we seldom do. In the age of Google and some kick-ass blogs, we tend to turn to the mighty might web for information. What is the point of keeping 600 reference items if you seldom refer to them? If you are bored or need to be inspired, and the internet connection is down, then maybe...
When Reference Items are Used Well
However, there was one book that had no dust and was centrally located in our office. "Take-Out Menus" was a compilation of restaurants in the area. It seems that the title for this collection of reference items was specific enough to make the collection useful. If we had titled the collection "Random Mailings" and included the other coupons and marginally helpful items we receive in the mail, then we would probably refer to the collection less frequently. The lesson: tag or title each reference file with a SPECIFIC name, rather than something generic.
Reference Items for Inspiration
The only counter-point is that references often serve as cross-pollination in their randomness and tendency to surface unexpectedly. When you stumble upon an old reference item, you may be reminded of an old idea or become inspired by something you had almost forgotten. Of course, in this capacity references are also serving as a distraction. At best, the reference is serving as helpful cross-pollination for the projects you are currently working on. At worst, the reference item takes you completely off track.
This tip was written by Scott Belsky, Behance Team. Explore more Behance tips, and check out Behance's guest postings for small businesses trying to make ideas happen, hosted at American Express' OpenForum.
146
Posted On
February 13th, 2007 | E-Mail This
Add a Comment
The act of concentration on the object to extract it from it's original place (woo, sounds weighty for cutting a page from a magazine) gets your mind to focus on it during the act - you're not only cutting, but you're simultaneously processing and integrating the object into your own database (which is not the right word, but it will do).
In this scenario, it seems better to further transform the object, as more value comes from the activity - i.e. cutting out elements and recomposing them in a sketchbook, photocopying or scanning and then transforming them would be of a higher process value than simply scoring the edge of a page, scribbling notes and storing it in a binder.
The correlating argument supports your thesis: the binders themselves are pretty useless because they save completed work that has no intrinsic value for anyone but the person who made the binder in the first place.
Tangential point: I had a colleague who made their office wall into their binder. It looked messy, but it made sure we all looked at his references.