Alexandra Hamilton

TED Talks Critique 

September 9, 2014

TED Talks

The art of communication, and the stifling influence of the school system on  creative expression, are two topics explored in the TED talks videos. “How Schools Kill Creativity,” by Ken Robinson TED talk-Robinsonand “The Art of wearable communication,” by Kate Hartman,TED talk-Harmon demonstrate how  one speech can be didactic and engaging, while another can be absolutely absurd and egregious. The determining factor is presentation. A dynamic approach to exerting your viewpoint and offering factual support is necessary for a speech to be effective.  Without a well organized layout with significant variation of delivery methods, a proposal can become quite fanciful. 

Going into further detail, the basic components for both of these speeches can be broken down and analyzed. Ultimately revealing the specific recipe for success and for failure. Ken Robinson and his thoughts on creativity is an example of a well rounded speech that is both informative and interactive. He began by finding a way to immediate relate to the audience through shared experience and beliefs. By using this tactic Mr. Robinson is able to build his credibility with the audience and draw their attention. He does this by mentioning the TED conference and using specific examples of situations they have all witnessed as a result of attending the conference. By tying in these shared factual experiences to the main points in his speech, the audience is more likely to view his theory as a fact. 

Another method Robinson uses is telling stories. Anecdotal evidence that brightens his core message by inputting illustrative examples embedded into his speech. Along with story telling, Robinson uses humor as a way to create a friendly, joyous mood, which encourages the  to be even more receptive to his ideas. Robinson also employs the power of rhetorical questions as a way to engage the audience and encourage them to think about the points he is making. Overall, Robinson delivered a very entertaining speech that provided a clear message, with ample amounts of support, without be boring or impersonal. His style makes you feel as though you are having a very intellectual conversation with him instead of being lectured about pointless facts. He is a likable person and takes advantage of his extroverted personality as a selling point for his theories. 

Hartman’s speech went in a different direction than Robinson’s. Because her concept was so far fetched she needed to create a well structured proposal to make the audience take her work seriously. Her main focus was on her own personal experiences and findings through the artistic exploration of communication. In ten minutes she bombards you with visuals of the “art” she has created, and explains the purpose of each piece and its’ form and function. The concept itself is so absurd that the audience only knows to respond with laughter. This is not laughter brought on intentionally by Hartman. Unlike Robinson’s, Hartman’s audience is laughing at her and not with her. Despite this reaction, she continues to present facts and feelings associated with each of her devices; truly believing that they might actual be usable gadgets for general public consumption. I admire her courage to share these creations with the world, and her adherence to the beliefs she has toward communication and its relation to the human experience. However, her proposal is impractical and lacks real world application. Therefore you as the audience you ask yourself what exactly is the point? If nothing else the ridiculous nature of it can be humorous and entertaining. 

In conclusion, although topics are important and should be feasible, if the presentation is done well then any speech can become something brilliant. You should prepare something that you yourself would like to hear about, and create a variating style that keeps the audience engaged and open-minded.