A Miami Ad School student asked me the other day to define a “Creative Technologist” because he was struggling to define it himself.  I fumbled a few crap explanations, paused for a moment, and then responded flatly, “Me too.  It’s semantics.”

Creative Technology is a legitimate, valuable role in great companies but there are lingering questions of A) how “creative” must one be, B) does “Creative” refer to “creative thinking” or visual design, C) does “Technology” refer to programming or familiarity with “technologies” and APIs and D) how competent does one need to be in any one of those criteria? 

It’s probably just that: competent.  (And able to—quickly—learn as circumstances require.)

A lot of folks also claim there’s a “strategic” element to the job as well.  Clearly even its criteria, beyond simply deciphering the words in its name, are to be questioned.

Truth is there’s no litmus test, and the spectrum of competency will vary among people.  But, Hell, that’s to be expected.  And that’s OK!  Some art directors are amazing “concept people” and mediocre designers, and visa-versa.  And likewise, some art directors are excellent at strategy.  Arguably, critical thinking and strategy is inherent to great communication, be that through a visual, verbal, technological or other medium.  

This presentation by Richard (Schatzberger) doesn’t really answer that student’s question either, but it’s one of the better attempts I’ve seen to define it.