You can’t program a child to become creative.
That's not an example of "program a child to become creative" -- it is an example of program a child to play Mozart melodies.
Can you Teach Creativity?Can creativity be taught?
Perhaps not, but it can be unlocked, which amounts to the same thing.
Not quite: only the individual concerned holds the key.
At a stretch - very long one - a third party can say: hey, man, you've got a key in your pants!
There is now this species called the "coach". They make money telling people they have a key in their pocket, and not to doubt it. There is no money, or very little, in confirming in fact that the pocket in question is empty, or that there is conseiderable doubt as to what the key is good for.
It is consequently possible that there is a certain bias in operation.
. . .there is conseiderable doubt as to what the key is good for.
Personally I think most people, and most cultures, overestimate the importance of innate skill when it comes to creative pursuits and underestimate that of sheer determination. You can do a lot with a little if you're bullheaded enough and are given the opportunity to be so.
Agreed...and in point of fact one CAN learn to be MORE creative. When I went to college I had to take some liberal arts classes in addition to my photo classes. The single most important class I took wasn't a photo class is was "The Psychology of Creativity". In that class, I learned many tools to allow (force) myself to be more creative...one of the biggest is to daydream about assignments and project and make a list of things to do. It may sound lame but it allows one to focus on something and daydream about how to do something. The second most important tool was to get over the fear of creativity. Children by nature are curious and creative but the social aspects of being a teenager drums that out of you. You then need to learn how NOT to be afraid of being different. In fact I revel in being different. I alway try to find different ways of solving problems and think out of the box.
Yes, I've been creative all my life; art lessons when I was a kid, resisting my father's pressure to get a real job, going to RIT to study photography and...The Psychology of Creativity :~)
I don't get why some of y'all are so determined to attribute creativity solely to "innate talent" when it's clearly a matter not only of that but also of upbringing, cultural environment and economic opportunity...
You were fortunate to state MORE creative: that's a different bag altogether from treaching how to BE creative.
Honestly, I think all people have the creative gene...unfortunately I think social pressure forces many/most people to avoid being creative to better fit in. Those people who do demonstrate a lot of creativity tend to be shunned initially then finally praised for being creative. I talk to a lot of photographers at workshops who claim they aren't creative until I point out that engaging photography as a pursuit proves that are creative. It often takes them back...and then I get into the fear of creativity. At the end of workshop I see a lot of creative results (and proud newly for creatives :~)
Thank you. I was going to suggest that it would be useful to hear from teachers and students of "creativity" courses. It would be interesting to hear what the teachers thought they had helped their students discover and what the students thought they had learned.
For mathematics, as discussed earlier, it's clear: some people have more innate talent.
I'll share this anecdote from my personal experience. I am too lazy at the moment to analyze whether it supports this side of the argument or that... make up your own mind.
During a marketing course in my business school, we had a visit from a company that organizes creativity trainings for corporations. I am not sure now whether they used the term "creativity" or something to that effect, though.
So they walked into our class of about 80 people and divided us into groups. Gave us pencils, yellow pads, and a scenario: we are a creative team in charge of coming up with an idea for a new candy product. The goal is for each member of the team to jot down a few ideas. After 10-15 minutes, they asked us to show just how many ideas we had on our yellow pads. The average number was about 4-5. Then the door burst open, and a bunch of assistants ran in with plastic bags the size of Santa Claus' ones and started merrily running around, throwing things into the air for us to catch. They were... toys. Kids' toys, to be precise (in case you were thinking...). We were then asked to repeat the exercise, after playing with the toys and passing it around in our group. The result: each yellow pad contained now 10-15 ideas on average. The winning group's idea: Color-Me-Next-Morning Candy. A candy that will change the color of your pee next morning. Hehe... think of it what you will, but the main difference is the sheer number of different, wacky, crazy ideas that resulted from that simple exercise.
Another story they told us: when a group of high-level executives comes to their remote-resort creativity training, all dressed up in designer suits, $200-ties, etc., they are hosed down (sprayed with water) right after embarking from a shuttle bus. Shocked and dripping wet, they are given a change of clothes, jeans and t-shirts, in all kind of wacky combinations, and asked to sit down in a room... with no chairs. On the floor. With plenty of props. Shaken out of their stiff environment, thrown out of their comfort zone, they are then asked to start brainstorming.
Robert, what can any teacher say other than justify his job, such as it is? Yet, as you suggest, it would indeed by nice to hear them go about it.
As for the 'students', they paid their money... few people are willing to admit to their follies.
As far as I can see, this idea about 'everybody can do everything' is a modern phenomenon that's cousin to the ethic that everybody's a winner, that there are no seconds and thirds, and that shame must attend anyone not capable of everything. How silly! We are who and what we are: individuals, with different abilties and failings, each of us distinct from the other, however much we think we may have in common through human heritage.
Well, ok but, but aren't you then saying that you can't believe what anyone ever tells you then?
It's not necessary to believe that "everybody can do everthing", I don't think. Did anyone claim that? It would be useful if one ended up "better" in some way after taking such a course. It might even be sufficient depending on one's aims and requirements. I make no claim one way or the other, having never participated in one.
Maybe because it is like pregnancy, you can't be a little this, a little that.
Besides, it is clearly far from "clearly," as the OP article suggests. As a minimum, it is contentious.
How, exactly, is, for instance, economic opportunity linked to talent and creativity? If anything, it would be a negative correlation, hence the terms "starving artist" and "spoiled brat."
But even with lawyers, seems it's natural talent if they are going to do it well. I remember my granddaughter sitting out on our terrace during lunch; she was what - maybe eleven years old? - and her head, as her young sister's, was ever in a book. When food arrived, she'd decide a topic on which to hold forth, and I'd do my best to pick holes in it. There were usually but two results: she'd achieve victory by throwing me completely off balance by moving her argument sideways, like a crab, as I was vainly and confidently looking ahead in a straight line; she'd get so frustrated with me that her tears were close and I'd get that stabbing look from my wife and shut up. However, that didn't mean she'd lost: far from it; it meant I'd had to get 'blind' as a last, miserable resort! Out of the mouths of babes etc.
As I've recounted, she finished her law degree top of the class, was headhunted and now works in the "Golden Circle" of firms down in London.
Hmmm...
Hehe... think of it what you will, but the main difference is the sheer number of different, wacky, crazy ideas that resulted from that simple exercise.
Accepted and now please put that into an argument that has something to do with -- Can creativity be taught?
Exactly. The original question gets instantly paraphrased to align with whatever the heretical view is within the dogma system. "Creativity can be taught" is read as "everybody can do everything" or "there is no such thing as innate talent in mathematics" or "anyone could be Picasso if they worked hard enough". Straw men spring up all over the landscape and are blown away.
IMO to the degree that this stuff is contentious it's so only amongst opposing ideologues who can't bring themselves to see beyond the boundaries of their respective dogma systems. "Either you exit the womb with your abilities fully burned into your neurons, no expansion or augmentation possible…or you exit as an empty vessel, capable of whatever you (are allowed to) put your mind to. Either Picasso is a genius from Day One or anyone can be Picasso. No middle ground, no ambiguity, no room for further insight!"
-Dave-
Teaching, or encouraging certain people to be less creative might be considered necessary in the interests of economic development. Lots of jobs require a strict adherence to existing rules, procedures which can be very unsatisfying for those of us who are creative. ;)
Some thoughts that ran threw my head. What's the difference between creativity and art?
A business who creatively adapts a new marketing technique to sell his product is being creative. We all are creative in that sense. Everyone who does things creates new and different methods or adapts existing methods. My wife does that all the time with cooking recipes.
How is that different from the painting artist who naturally can draw? Is that creative or just artistic? Where does one end and other begin? IS their overlap? Are they the same or really different? Are we confusing the two?
So you don't think scientists or mathematicians can be creative (as something quite other than a synonym for intelligence)?
As I see it, the word creativity is (should be?) limited to the creative arts such as music, painting, photography, literature, architecture;
The relationship between creativity and rule-breaking is certainly interesting and not one of identity. Keeping to rules can surely be a creative choice - lots of great artists choose to work within conventions - but maybe not because they don't know any other way or because they regard breaking the rules as forbidden. And I suspect that even in jobs that require a strict adherence to rules, it is best to do it consciously and with awareness that the rules aren't being kept for their own sake.
So you don't think scientists or mathematicians can be creative (as something quite other than a synonym for intelligence)?
Keeping to certain rules because you find them useful and because you like the results, or because your audience likes the results, is what many artists do. Such artists can be creative within the rules they have accepted.
If the situation changes, regarding the economy, or the artist's own satisfaction with the rules, which he might begin to find restrictive or boring or purposeless, then the creative person will change the rules. The less creative person will tend to cling on to the old rules.
Perhaps the Impressionistic and Symbolic painters, and Picasso in particular, are good examples here. As I understand, Picasso's early works were representational and photorealistic. The realisation that photography could do the job much more efficiently was a motivation for him to change his style in a creative manner.
It's interesting to speculate, if the camera with recording capabilities had not evolved, would Picasso have continued to paint in the representational style?
No. I mean in their day jobs. I guess your answer would be clear, as you would confine creativity to the arts. I think that misses a characteristic of good work that other fields have in common with the arts. If you have a look at the history of mathematics, for example, you will find that the idea of creativity plays a significant part, and I think that those who deploy it to assess the work of mathematicians are pointing to something real.
If you mean outwith their 'day job' then yes, of course they can;
Rob C
You might not be able to teach creativity, but you can probably teach a pretty decent facsimile of it, and like sincerity, if you can fake it well enough, you're made.
I think there's an important concept here that needs clarification. Teaching is a process that has to involve learning, by definition. If nothing is learned, then nothing has been taught.
....
The question, can creativity (or how to be creative) be taught, is essentially the same as the question, 'Can one learn how to be creative?'
I think the answer must be 'yes', to varying degrees depending on the motivation of the student.
It also occurs to me that creativity often isn't taught on its own. What is taught is "creative writing", or (creative) art, or (creative) photography, with "creativity" as one dimension of the overall approach. To my knowledge the most interesting information about this emerges from creative writing schools, no doubt because writers write, often about themselves. There does seem reason to think that in all these areas, talent can be nurtured and developed and that the concept of "creativity" captures something important about the process.
I have purposely waited to enter this thread...I'm glad that I did. To talk about creativity is not what Artist's talk about. It's a Huge wast of time and is irrelevant to the creative process.
Peter
To talk about creativity is not what Artist's talk about.Are you sure about that? Googling "artists on creativity" provides a long list of counter examples. And I know at least one successful practicing painter (sales, independent gallery representation etc) who works with some of her peers teaching art therapy courses which focus on unlocking creativity.
Peter
But, every man Jack of them was already deeply in love with at least one of the arts. As a kid. That's another of those pesky Catch 22s...
Rob
Ken's point that there are plenty of "artists" who talk about creativity doesn't refute Peter's point.I believe it does. Peter made the sweeping claim that artists don't talk or think about creativity and that doing so plays no part in their creative process. He now seems to be saying that artists in his circle don't, and I have no argument with that, although I am a bit concerned about his view that everything said outside his circle is noise. My observation was that many recognised artists have written and thought about creativity. It would surely be surprising if they hadn't, as doing so simply amounts to reflecting on the essential nature of their distinctive abilities. Your observation (with which I entirely agree) about the fatuity of many artist's statements in galleries simply shows that not everything written by people describing themselves as artists is of value. No inconsistency between that and what I am arguing. Isn't there an on line generator of artist's statements somewhere? I believe I saw one, but have lost the link and would love to find it again.
And of course these classes are free? If not, thats a teaching business.I don't understand the point you are making there. The classes aren't free. Why should they be? The artists in question have found another way of making a dollar which is based on understanding of the creative process they have developed through their work as artists and which probably could not have been developed in any other way. Seems fair enough to me, and if I wanted to do any such course myself, I would need persuading before I chose a teacher whose work as a practicing artist I didn't respect.
Peter
The idea that you can "teach" creativity is absurd on the face of it.
...the fatuity of many artist's statements in galleries...
Isn't there an on line generator of artist's statements somewhere? I believe I saw one, but have lost the link and would love to find it again.
Ken,
artybollocks (http://www.artybollocks.com/)
1. If one thinks one isn't creative and one believes that creativity cannot be taught, then one cannot possibly ever know what creativity is, and one cannot therefore even know whether or not one is creative.
2. If a person is creative (or believes he is creative) but also believes that creativity cannot be taught, one has to wonder why that person would come to such a belief. Is it because such a person has spent a lot of time trying to teach creativity, but to no avail? If so, does that mean perhaps the person was a bad teacher?
I think that's an odd logic: how could one know whether or not one was creative yet not know what creativity might be, other than as something known to be lacking in self, which I think one would unavoidably recognize?
And you saying that is not proof...it's simply your opinion and one that kinda shows your baggage. Are you creative? Do you want to be more creative or are you satisfied that there's nothing you can do to become creative? I already know you are wrong...
Edit to fix a typo
That's my point, Rob. To be aware that one is lacking in something, one has to have an understanding of what that 'something' is, that one lacks.
But my point isn't the same as your's appears to be: I read you to think that for you know/understand what creativity is, then that means that you must have it. I disagree: I understand perfectly well what musical creativity is - l loved jazz from the age of 16 - but that doesn't mean I have musical creativity in me: I can't play any instrument at all, and it's not for want of trying! It's just beyond me, so why deny others have similar limitations in various fields?
Rob
...I think that everyone has some capacity for what I call creativity...
I think that everyone has some capacity for what I call creativity. . .
If so, it would be only possible if that capacity is innate, which would be what Rob is saying, no?If you say that something is innate in everyone, I am not sure what you are saying that is particularly meaningful in this discussion. And I am not suspect that Rob might have a slightly different take on what he is saying. He will no doubt clarify, if he thinks it worth while.
If you say that something is innate in everyone, I am not sure what you are saying that is particularly meaningful in this discussion...
Creativity isn't a "capacity." It's an innate quality. You inherit it, though sometimes the quality jumps a few generations.
But nobody's addressed the fact that there are a lot of different kinds of creativity. Some people are born musicians, but have no interest in visual art or writing. Others are born visual artists with no interest in music or poetry or prose. Others are poets but have no interest in prose, visual art, or music.
On the other hand there are all sorts of combinations of these things. There are musicians who also can write well; writers who are visual artists, etc., etc., etc. But whatever combination of these things you happen to enjoy, you were born with it.
What I see in this thread -- from Schewe and well as from others -- is the idea that you can teach skills and enhance skills through teaching. But a skill isn't creativity. Creative people sometimes don't have skills that will let them exploit their creativity until they're introduced to an area of interest. Then, sometimes, there's an explosion of creative productivity.
The point I am making, Ken, is that, while creativity is innate, it is not universal, though I thought that doesn't need restating, being obvious. "Not universal" in the sense that you are rarely, if ever, gifted with creativity in all your endeavors in life (music, photography, sports, math, etc.). We are usually born with a talent for something, not everything. So, the bottom line of this line of reasoning is: if you are born with a talent for photography, you can expand it, unlock it, enhanced it with technical skills etc., but if you are not born with it, you can't be taught to be creative photographer, just a more or less successful monkey (in the sense: monkey see, monkey do).It's a bit tricky, what is and isn't obvious to others. I am certainly constantly surprised that the truth of my views isn't more widely recognised. I agree that very few if any people are 'gifted with creativity in all (their) endeavours'. I don't think of creativity as being the same thing as talent. I see creativity as a capacity to do things in a particular way - freely, inventively, with energy and originality, with an element of play and a capacity to find new angles and make new connections. I think everyone has the capacity to do some things in this way and that it can be observed in small children ("creative play"). I agree, though, that it is much more likely to manifest when you are doing something for which you have a talent (and that struggling to do something for which you have no talent probably kills it). I think it can be taught in the sense that it can be nourished, enhanced, supported, and that everyone can be helped to discover it in themselves, but also think that some people will always have more of it than others, just as some people will always have more talent in particular fields than others. In the end we may just be using words in different ways.
Except when that skill is producing original and unusual ideas, or making something new or imaginative.
A skill doesn't produce original or unusual ideas or make something new or imaginative. That's creativity.
You seem even more confused than usual in that statement, Isaac. A skill doesn't produce original or unusual ideas or make something new or imaginative. That's creativity. Skill allows the creative to do those things, but without creativity skill is only involved in things like changing flat tires or running a drill press in a factory.
Russ,
With all due respect, I think you are being naïve. Give me an example of a great work of art which did not depend upon a degree of skill. The painter or photographer requires a skill to recognise a pleasing, meaningful or interesting composition which is relevant to his immediate goal. The painter needs the skill and dexterity to place the blobs of paint on the canvas where he wants them to be placed. The photographer needs the skill to operate the camera, frame the composition, press the shutter at the right time, and process the resulting image to his own satisfaction.
To separate artistic talent from skill is a nonsense. They are both inextricably intertwined.
...without creativity what the skilful artist is able to produce is t he kind of crap you see in flea markets.
"Creativity" doesn't produce original or unusual ideas or make something new or imaginative.
People do.
...without creativity what the skilful artist...
… but, in the end, nobody has changed anyone else's mind one iota.
IMO to the degree that this stuff is contentious it's so only amongst opposing ideologues who can't bring themselves to see beyond the boundaries of their respective dogma systems.
Okay. A slip of the finger.
Yes (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=74139.0).
Raise your hands, oh you wise ones, who changed your mind one iota, due to your open-minded curiosity! Do I see your hand up, Isaac?
Yes (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=74139.0).
Besides, I was referring to issues raised in this thread.
Raise your hands, oh you wise ones, who changed your mind one ioata, due to your open-minded curiosity! Do I see your hand up, Isaac?As someone suggested, that's not setting the bar very high. I probably have had my mind changed something not too far short of one iota, in the general direction of recognising that there is something to be said for the "either you have it or you don't" perspective on these issues (as well as plenty to be said against it). But I am certainly here to improve my own understanding rather than change anyone else's mind. A (slightly) more realistic objective, maybe.
| synonyms:bit (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+bit&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIHzAA), mite (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+mite&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIIDAA), speck (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+speck&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIITAA), scrap (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+scrap&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIIjAA), shred (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+shred&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIIzAA), ounce (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+ounce&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIJDAA), scintilla (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+scintilla&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIJTAA), atom (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+atom&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIJjAA), jot (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+jot&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIJzAA), tittle (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+tittle&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIKDAA), jot or tittle, whit (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+whit&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIKTAA), little bit, tiniest bit, particle (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+particle&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIKjAA), fraction (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+fraction&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIKzAA), morsel (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+morsel&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoILDAA), grain (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+grain&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoILTAA); soupçon (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+soup%C3%A7on&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoILzAA); informalsmidgen (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+smidgen&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIMDAA), smidge (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+smidge&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIMTAA), tad (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+tad&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIMjAA); archaicscruple (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+scruple&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoIMzAA), scantling (https://www.google.com.au/search?espv=2&biw=1280&bih=705&q=define+scantling&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2gOGknf3KAhVHUZQKHWSkC0wQ_SoINDAA)[/t][/color] |
... I did enjoy the list of synonyms for "iota" produced by googling it...
In the study, researchers looked at genetic material from more than 86,000 people in Iceland and identified genetic variants that were linked with an increased risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The investigators then looked for these variants in a group of more than 1,000 people who were members of national societies of artists, including visual artists, writers, actors, dancers and musicians in Iceland.
The study revealed that the people in these artistic societies were 17 percent more likely to carry those variants linked with the mental health conditions than were people in the general population, who were not members of these societies.
So, are we born creative or not? While factors such as upbringing play a crucial role in your brain's development, the work done by scientists in Scandinavia, Germany and the US has shown that having the right genetic makeup can make your brain more inclined towards creative thinking. The rest of us have to "learn" to be creative.
Hey! If it's true that creativity cannot be taught, maybe that's a wonderful blessing. There seems to be some scientific evidence that genetically based creativity is linked to mental disorders such schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
If that's true, I guess I'd prefer to 'learn' my creativity. ;)
http://www.livescience.com/51125-creativity-genetically-linked-psychiatric-disorders.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/sep/19/born-creative-study-brain-hemingway
I batteried everything up, fitted one transceiver to the camera and the other to the jack plug socket of my monobloc and nothing happened. Yes! End of euphoria, made even worse by realising that there seems no solution in the form of a simple cable that will allow me to fit those Wizards even to the other unit, a Metz 60 CT 1/2.
So yes, mood swings are for real, and rather than signs of mental disorder perhaps more correctly seen as signs of rapid appreciation of changing circumstances.
Rob C
Crikey! Rob. How could you allow such a trivial thing to affect your sense of euphoria? Sounds like you need to read a bit on Buddhism and get your priorities right. ;)
With the right attitude you could have enhanced your euphoria and had a good laugh at the absurd complexities of modern appliances. ;D
Don't tell me about the Buddha: we lived in India, remember, and my mother was an avoid reader and seeker after knowledge, and, consequently, had a lot of Christmas Humphreys hangin' aboot the hoos, as she did of lives of artists. (Maybe she was more to blame for what became of me than my Vogue-collecting aunt!) Further, as I am already reduced to being somewhat of a sedentary creature due to circumstances slightly beyond my control (read Internet, not to mention cardio-vascular adventures), emulating the teachings of the wise one, were I indeed seduced into following his way, would turn me into an even more sedentary person, but of amplified girth - see The Man himself.
Rob
.....emulating the teachings of the wise one, were I indeed seduced into following his way, would turn me into an even more sedentary person, but of amplified girth - see The Man himself.
Rob,
One aspect of creativity is the ability to take whatever you see as useful and beneficial from a set of teachings, and bend it to your own purposes. (See! I've just proved that creativity can be taught.) ;D
In relation to Buddhism, I was not suggesting that you convert to the religion, but embrace that aspect of the Buddhist teachings which could help your mood swings, such as gaining control over your mind and not allowing anger, frustration and disappointment to spoil your day.
As I understand from the earliest writings on the subject, the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) had no intention of creating a new religion and did not want his followers to create statues of him. He was reluctant to even bother attempting to teach others about his methods because he didn't think anyone would be able to understand him. Apparently he had to be persuaded by others to begin teaching his methods.
Hey! It's just occurred to me. Perhaps the Buddha initially had a similar attitude to yours, that creativity could not be taught. You either have it or you don't. ;D
Kencameron makes an interesting point with his Wikipedia link. That fat, laughing Buddha is sometimes referred to as Maitreya, the Buddha who will appear some time in the future after everyone has forgotten about the current Buddha. Considering the current degree of obesity prevalent in modern societies, when or if that future Buddha appears, people should find it easy to identify with him. ;D
Crikey! Rob. How could you allow such a trivial thing to affect your sense of euphoria? Sounds like you need to read a bit on Buddhism and get your priorities right. ;)
With the right attitude you could have enhanced your euphoria and had a good laugh at the absurd complexities of modern appliances. ;D
Ray
Full-on euphoria returned; not due to The Man, but, to the local tv chap who, for €6 made me the connector for which the Barcelona Wizzy agent wanted €66 + 20% VAT and a pre-order with no real idea of delivery. It, the locally made one from my own collection of ancient cables and connections, works perfectly!
The other Man is in his heaven and everything is in its proper place. At least, chez moi!
;-)
Rob
Buddhism teaches you to be able to do that. (Provided you are willing to learn.) ;)Which suggests another question: Can you teach Buddhism? :D
Which suggests another question: Can you teach Buddhism? :DOne common answer to this question is that that you have to learn it from an experienced and skilled practitioner, who has in turn learned it from another such, in principle going all the way back to the Buddha, in practice going back to some notable teacher in the more recent past. See the Wikipedia entry on lineage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineage_(Buddhism)). A sort of apprenticeship system. This is distinct from learning about Buddhism, as an academic subject, and is based on the assumption that Buddhism (like other religions, maybe) needs to be thought of as something you do rather than (or as well as) something you believe. Students (in this sense) of buddhism look to their teachers to embody the teachings rather than simply knowing about them. Maybe some comparisons with Christianity there.
Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. It has no deity or deities. Buddha was a teacher, not a god.The first sentence is false, the middle one interesting and arguable, the last one true. An upward trajectory. But the US government's classifications for tax purposes have no authority or interest outside that context.
The US government has classified Buddhism as a religion for tax purposes to allow tax exempt status.
Good night
Rich
The Buddha certainly described himself as a teacher and a human being, not a God. He said that his teaching did not concern itself with whether not there is a God, and that the question was not one worth getting one's knickers in a knot about (not his exact words), but based on the earliest texts he didn't choose to question the Hindu polytheism that most people accepted at the time he lived.
Coming late to this topic I seem to have missed the boat and it has become a discussion about teaching Buddhism.
On the subject of creativity though - I think most if not all people have a certain amount of creativity within themselves. For the reasons, possibly amongst others, outlined in the article from the OP this creativity is largely stifled in most adults. If one can unlock the creative ideas then they can be translated into actual creativity such as painting, photography etc. I have lots of creative ideas, but I'm lazy. So the ideas stay in my head. Does that make me uncreative?
Can creativity be taught? Not the basic process. But surely teaching above the basic level is about encouraging a pupil to unlock their own barriers to expressing themselves. So I would think a good teacher could show a pupil how to use their creative ideas in a practical way. Creativity is only apparent when it is expressed. I may or may not be creative, but nobody will know unless I do something tangible with my thoughts. A good teacher could probably do that.
Most of what I see in photography that is called creative is merely replicating what other photographers have already done. Particularly in subjects like landscape photography with known locations and 'tripod holes', ten-stop neutral density filters and Silver Effects Pro. I'm not denigrating landscape photographers in general - I just use that as an example. And many of the pictures are beautiful too.
I make a living from photography and sometimes I do need to be a little creative, especially on a location shoot with un-cooperative subjects, an ugly location and a rain clouds appearing. I don't class myself as especially creative and most of my work related and personal photography is not what I consider creative.
Jim
Good post which I cannot criticise, although your last sentence might be considered as excessively humble. ;)
That's not quite true. There is a subtle distinction to be made between the Hindu concept of reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of rebirth...
...What's perhaps more interesting is the evidence that the Buddha was in revolt against the Hindu caste system
The link below isn't the one I wish to refer you to, but the one I want comes up at the end of this link, in a little rectangle amongst others, entitled: "Saul Leiter in Conversation with Vince Aletti". All you need do is open the link provided, and then push the progress bar to the end until it catches up with the show - moments. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I can't catch a direct link to the "Conversation".Great interview. Direct link to it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUwFf4iv9E).
Rob
Great interview. Direct link to it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUwFf4iv9E).
Ray, it must really hurt when such accidental shots by a guy who doesn't know what he wants to say are still held in higher regard ;)
"Saul Leiter in Conversation with Vince Aletti".
Is that the video you find so interesting? I have to confess I found it a bit tedious. The guy often didn't seem to know what he wanted to say. Perhaps it was just the effects of old age.
I was surprised at some of the examples of Saul's images that were shown in the video. They reminded me of some of my own shots that I occasionally take by accident when I carry two cameras around my shoulders and accidentally trip the shutter when walking around or climbing over objects, resulting in shots of reflections on windows, or a composition of a piece of ground surrounded by seriously out-of-focus objects.
Perhaps I should not delete such photos. ;D
"Saul Leiter in Conversation with Vince Aletti".
Is that the video you find so interesting? I have to confess I found it a bit tedious. The guy often didn't seem to know what he wanted to say. Perhaps it was just the effects of old age.
I was surprised at some of the examples of Saul's images that were shown in the video. They reminded me of some of my own shots that I occasionally take by accident when I carry two cameras around my shoulders and accidentally trip the shutter when walking around or climbing over objects, resulting in shots of reflections on windows, or a composition of a piece of ground surrounded by seriously out-of-focus objects.
Perhaps I should not delete such photos. ;D
Maybe you shouldn't! Teacher, teach thyself? ;-)
Here's a link to one of his books on colour:
http://jongorospe.blogspot.com.es/2013/05/saul-leiter-early-colour.html
It's the second video down.
Rob
Thanks for the link, Rob. Unfortunately, the images are too small to appreciate. My general impression is that most of Saul's images are of trivial nature and rather meaningless. That's my honest opinion, although I suspect if I were to search his entire works I'd probably find a few images that are interesting.
Thanks for the link, Rob. Unfortunately, the images are too small to appreciate. My general impression is that most of Saul's images are of trivial nature and rather meaningless. That's my honest opinion, although I suspect if I were to search his entire works I'd probably find a few images that are interesting.
"Rob C's law" (as I shall henceforth think of it) certainly applies. I would, however, be genuinely interested to know the names of a photographer or two most of whose images you consider non-trivial and meaningful (not to pick an argument, just to better understand where you are coming from).
That's easy. One photographer in particular whose work I find non-trivial, meaningful and sometimes even inspiring is me. Not Man Ray, but Me Ray. ;DOr, if you want to sing it, "D'oh! Ray Me!''. No argument with that. But I did enquire about "the names of a photographer or two...''.
Whilst processing some RAW images today, of a recent trip to New Zealand, I came across the following shot which immediately struck me as being similar to some of the shots by Saul Leiter.
It was taken by accident of course, but what's surprisingly is that the floor is in focus. I've assigned another button on the camera for focussing purposes, separate from the shutter button, so I must have accidentally pressed two different buttons in the correct order. ;)
So what do you think? Should I delete this, or does it have some semi-abstract merit? ;D
No, just feel happy I got there too.
;-)
Rob