In recent Mental Spaces, I’ve explored how the creative process is shifting — from creativity as an interface, to the maker as a mediator, to ownership in hybrid environments, and the move from making to enabling.
But ideas only gain real strength when they land in practice.

So this time: practical pathways to explore, test, and deepen these concepts.
Not as fixed answers, but as open invitations.

About this series – TECH × CREATIVE × MAKER Mental Spaces

Mental Spaces are thoughts taking shape on paper: mental zones to create, to imagine, or simply to be still. They offer space to think — for the maker, the artist, the designer — and for the technology observing alongside.

In this blog series, I reflect on the evolving relationship between humans and machines, on creativity as an interface, and on the act of making in a time when systems often seem smarter than we are.
These texts are not statements, but suggestions. Not answers, but openings.

For those navigating the tension field of TECH × CREATIVE × MAKER.

Four Research Directions

1. Creativity as Interface — The Language of the Unexpected
How do makers operate as “programmers of meaning” in a world filled with generative technology?
What you could do:

• Develop workshops around “creative prompting” and co-creating with AI.
• Research how creative decision-making shifts when technology “thinks along.”
• Visualize creative thinking processes (mapping tools, mind-tracks).

2. The Maker as Mediator — Navigating Between Systems
How can makers bridge ethics, technology, and imagination without losing their authenticity?
What you could do:

• Facilitate FieldLabs where students explicitly explore ethical tensions during the making process.
• Develop reflection tools (dilemma cards, mediation scripts).

3. Who Owns the Outcome? — Ownership in Hybrid Creation
In an era where technology acts as co-author, we need to redefine creative ownership.
What you could do:

• Initiate mini-research projects where students track how they experience ownership during hybrid projects.
• Develop shared authorship and creative responsibility codes within collaborative making processes.

4. From Making to Enabling — Creative Governance
How can we design systems that not only assess what is made, but how and why?
What you could do:

• Introduce flexible “studio formats” where students design their own learning rhythms, based on the Sketching – Tinkering – Exchanging model.
• Research what happens when assessment frameworks are loosened in favor of process guidance.

Possible Methods

• Living Labs: Temporary open environments where experimentation, reflection, and failure are safe and encouraged.
• Design-Based Research (DBR): Iterative cycles of designing, testing, and refining in practice.
• Creative Studios: Modular projects where students build their own learning paths.
• Reflective Interventions: Embedding ethical questioning, process reflection, and ownership dialogues throughout project phases.

What This Requires

• Professional trust: Allowing room for the unexpected.
• Modular structures: Flexible frameworks where different rhythms and depths coexist.
• Process-oriented steering: Focusing on learning, not just outcomes.
• Technology as dialogue partner: Engaging technology critically and creatively, not just using it.

Closing

Maybe these ideas are not just future scenarios for education.
Maybe they are an invitation to look differently — right now.
To recognize that innovation is not only about new technologies, but about how we allow technology and imagination to co-create space.

What infrastructures are we building today, so imagination can thrive tomorrow?

Maarten Meijer — an Imaginologist. A conceptual thinker who moves between creativity, systems and strategy. I design visions, frameworks and futures that challenge the expected and open new possibilities.

My mission is simple: To initiate creation.
By disrupting fixed patterns, I help people think differently — to imagine what could be, and make it real.