On Production

Most of the work I have ever done has involved industry.  I like to make stuff.  And not only do I like to make stuff, I am also fascinated by the processes and tools used to make stuff.  I am always trying to refine my creation methods and develop new tools to support me in my creative endeavors.  

Sometimes I have heard people say things like "I don't care how you do it, just get it done and "all we're concerned about is the end product."  I think there is an important point in those statements, but I think their language is misleading.  It is true that the work involved in creating a product is simply a means to an end; the only reason you're doing what you're doing is for the end result.  However, the statements above imply more than just that, and what they imply is an inaccurate relationship between process and products.  

Through my studying of production and its many forms, I have come across a principal that at first looks absurdly simple and yet is more deep and meaningful the more I think about it.  This principle can be described as the following:

Process = Product

In other words, the process is the product.  They are interchangeable.  For instance, if any change is made to a process, due to the laws of causality, that change in the process will be reflected in the product.  Likewise, if I make any modifications to the product, I have, in essence, equally modified the process.  

Now, someone might say "Wait a minute! What if I have an assembly line and I replace one of the workers on the assembly line: Bob, with a new worker: Sue.  I would have just then modified the process without modifying the product."  But that argument is misleading.  If Sue performs her job so similarly to the way Bob did that there is no change to the product, then the process was not really modified.  But if Sue does not perform her role in quite the same way that Bob did so that the product changes to some degree then yes, the process was modified.  The scope of the process that is associated with that product only extends as far as any factors that actually affect the final product.  For example, within the described context of this scenario, the name of the person on the assembly line has no impact on the product.  

This principle can be seen reflected in the moviemaking process.  If a producer is making a movie, he doesn't simply look for the all-around "best" people to make a movie; he hires people that will most likely achieve the specific vision he has for that movie.  If it is a dark movie, he may look for a composer that tends to write dark music.  If it is an action movie, he may look for a director who has a passion for action movies.  

It is the same idea with molds.  I once was on a tour of a business that produces molds that in turn are used to produce various mechanical parts.  Near the beginning of the tour, the owner of the business explained to us tourists that a mold is not simply a hollow cutout.  I don't remember his exact words, but I think his general point was that a mold was all of the things that went into defining the final part that was produced.  

I think in his explanation he was mainly referring to the different physical parts that surrounded the traditional idea of a mold, though if one were to continue along in the same direction he was heading, that entire business is, in a sense, one giant mold.  For example, while the secretary may not be a direct influence on the molds produced by that business in that her operation does not define the distinctions between one mold that is produced from another, her function still influences the state of the molds that are produced by that business.  Unlike the specific physical parts of a mold that define the product's shape, her function is necessary for the operation of that business and thus defines a more general property of all of the molds: whether or not they exist.  

I have found this principle of "Process = Product" very useful in approaching artistic endeavors.  For example, I've heard that Stephen King generally writes his stories from beginning to end without having any idea what he will write next.  This results in stories that have a very natural, uncontrived flow, but at the same time lack a strong sense of purpose and cohesion.  As for me, I do not write stories in a linear fashion.  I start with the overall mental state I want my audience to arrive at through reading the story and then work backwards finding events and elements that, when put in the right combination, will achieve the desired effect upon my audience.  This tends to result in the opposite of a Stephen King novel: stories that have a strong sense of purpose and cohesion and yet feel contrived and surreal.  

Each of those methods of story construction result in very different types of products.  Sometimes I think people see writing as simply a matter of sitting down and putting a lot of time and effort into putting words on paper, and yet it is much more complicated than that.  The selection of the process that an author uses in how to go about putting words on paper puts strong constraints on what the final product can be.  

It is possible to change method halfway through production, but if you do so keep in mind that what you have done is selected a process that is a compound of both your first and second methods.  Even if you start from scratch when you switch to the second method, the product would probably still be influenced by your work using the first method, and thus the time spent using that first method would still technically fall within the scope of the process that resulted in the final product.  In other words, the use of both methods shaped the definition of the finished story.  

I could go on and on giving examples, but I think that should give a basic idea of the relationship between a process and its product