The process of creation

For a movie to come into existence, somebody has to initiate the process. Whoever that person is, we can liken them to the businessman in chapter three who is waiting for the right set of circumstances to emerge that will trigger the start of an e-business venture.

For the purpose of this comparison, it may be convenient to use the theory of film making known as auteurism, which sees one prime mover -- the auteur - as being in charge of the overall process. This is not a universal model of the way in which films are made, but, it provides a convenient framework with which to compare the nature of movie making to that of creating an e-business

The term auteurism was first brought into widespread use by Andrew Sarris, who in 1962 wrote an influential paper entitled "Notes on Auteur Theory". This theory evolved from an essay written in 1950 by François Truffaut entitled "Une certaine tendance du cinéma français" (published in a French film enthusiasts journal called "Cahiers du Cinéma"). Truffaut was writing at a time when French film makers had recently become aware of the progress American films had made during the period when the French were prohibited from seeing them under the Nazi occupation.

Writers in the journal "Cahiers du Cinéma" had observed that although most American films had been made under the studio system - where a director was appointed as a manager and given a script, a crew and a cast - the films often carried a characteristic stamp, identified exclusively with the work of the director. This stamp nearly always carried through to other movies that the director was assigned to.

Recognising the importance of a director's contribution to the making of a film, the journal "Cahiers du Cinéma" started focussing on the style of directors rather than the content. This elevated the role of the director from that of a mere employee of the studio, carrying out a managerial role, to that of the creative engine behind the film. At a time when the movie industry was dominated by the all powerful studios, who effectively employed everyone involved in the production of a film, this was a radical viewpoint. Movies at that time were produced along similar lines to automobiles, where individuality was subservient to the system of production.

Isolating the creative input of the director was thus seen as pretentious eccentricity by the main movie makers - and the journal was regarded as a maverick voice. That is until Truffaut's essay attacked the traditional French film makers for sticking rigidly to literal translations of plays and literature. He proposed that the whole approach to film making be changed: to use 'shooting scripts' written specifically to take full advantage of the expanding techniques of cinematographic technology and working with locations rather than studio sets.

His paradigm saw films as being the creation of a special kind of author, who could use the technology of cinematography to interpret literary subject matter in new and exciting ways. He described this kind of film making as "a cinema of auteurs" (a cinema of authors); thus auteur - the French word for author - entered into the vocabulary of film makers (via Andrew Sarris's influential paper, "Notes on a Theory of Auteurism").

At the time, this theory was seen as a radical paradigm shift, which Sarris defended by pointing out that auteurism had always been a principle method of classification in the arts. He explained that artists are compared, rather than individual works of art: composers are compared rather than musical compositions; writers rather than individual books; etcetera. Looking back at creative work done in the past, it seems perfectly natural to judge an auteuer or creator by a range of works. It doesn't make sense to compare individual pieces of different artists.

If there are similarities between movie making and e-business solutions, it would make sense to try to identify the auteurs of the e-business world and examine their techniques and strategies. However, there is a problem with this. It is not easy to spot creators or creative work at the time of creation. In judging contemporary creativity, it is far easier to judge and compare individual pieces. A good example of this is pop music. This is judged on the basis of immediate impressions of a single piece in isolation. Pop charts reflect this kind of comparison.

This kind of classification can be seen to change when pop groups, who have made a number of hits, build up an expectancy for their next creation to be a hit. The passage of time can give greater or lesser credence to the creative efforts of creators, as can be evidenced by the way in which some pop musicians have become legends, i. e., Lennon and MaCartney, Bob Marley, Elvis Presley, etcetera. Only in retrospect, have their works proved to have some lasting impact in their field. As strange as it may seem to us today, it was not obvious at the time of their first records that they had any more chance than many other pop stars of achieving lasting fame.

Similarly, the passage of time can raise the notoriety of any creator above the level of their creations in a variety of different creative arts, such as: literature, art, jazz, classical music, etcetera. There are two reasons for this:

1) At the time of creation, there is much other work being created. This acts as noise, which can mask out true innovation and brilliance.

2) Creativity is not a continuous and constantly successful process. A true artist is recognised only over a range of work, which may include several failures.

If we now look at the work of innovators in the field of information technology, we find something similar. There are so many innovations and new directions happening all around us that it is difficult to spot the winners from the losers. Who can really judge at this moment in time who will emerge as the successful auteurs of the Information Age?