Can you Teach Creativity?

[AreBee]

Ken,

...the fatuity of many artist's statements in galleries...

...and websites.

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.

artybollocks

[kencameron]

Ken,


artybollocks

Thanks. I had forgotten how scarily plausible the results are. If it weren't for the standard format, am not sure I could pick them from real examples.

[Rob C]

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?

Excuse the numeration, Ray - just to make response clear.

1. 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? But I don't think that's how the problem is faced or seen. I think the call's made over a longer period, and from personal experience of how one deals with one's life and the options that occur within it, especially during youth when time is accelerated, messages about self rapidly understood and paths for life can be set.

2. Again, I think the reply is that the thought comes from simple observation: some folks do things one way and others not. It's a sum total of personality. I don't see that teaching comes into it - especially for anyone who believes that the subject can't be taught! Perish such a cynic could be inflicted upon our innocents within a teaching context!

On a slighty trivial level, there are those who dress like bag ladies (or men) without the economic need and those who can make even that level of choice seem considered and well put together: consider the work of brilliant fashion stylist Caroline Baker during the bright-if-brief trajectory of Nova magazine. Some folks can buy the best ingredients and make a lousy meal where yet others can make a bowl of soup that tastes fantastic. Creativity is part of who we are, not of who we are not.

And it can be seen in tangible things too: if you want to pay mega bucks and get yourself a Bentley off the shelf - or as close as that's possible - you have one sort of mind; if, instead, your fancy goes towards an old, restored muscle car with a beautiful paint job - especially if you were involved in the work - then that, to me, makes you more of a creatively inclined soul than the Bentley fan. That some successful artists may buy Bentleys simply indicates that their accountants hold sway or that they aren't into cars, only transportation, ego and/or the needs of career self-promotion. (For the sake of this point I am assuming the person making the choices can afford the Bentley but selects the other option because it means more to him. Hell, it may even cost more than the Bentley!)

Rob C

[Ray]

 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?

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.

Everything we know is through a process of education, including self-education, or simply learning, one way or another. A person who considers himself to be creative has been taught (or has taught himself) in a positive way that he is creative, which probably involves some degree of encouragement and admiration of his creative efforts by others.

A person who considers himself to be uncreative has not been encouraged. He's probably been brought up in an environment where his creative efforts were ignored. He probably was creative when young, but gradually assumed he had no creative talent because the people in his immediate environment, including  parents, friends and teachers, placed little value on creativity, or perhaps didn't even recognize the child's creativity, as Van Gogh's creativity was not given much recognition during his lifetime.

I imagine there have been many creative people throughout the ages, in a similar situation to Van Gogh, whose works have been lost forever because no-one at the time considered them to be creative, just rubbish.

[RSL]

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

Yep, Jeff, it's my opinion, based on 86 years observing the human condition. I'd agree that you can teach people to make better use of their creativity, but creativity, like musical ability, is inborn. If that's "baggage" then so be it. If your question wasn't merely rhetorical you can at least partly answer it by checking my web. Of course if, as you say, you already know I'm wrong, then there's no point trying to discuss it, is there?

[Rob C]

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 to 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? It doesn't solve my lack of creative abilty in that genre, and neither do I feel shame about it, just frustration and disappointment. Had I the choice, I'd be a musician any day before a photographer; I think it a far more valuable asset.

If you take the example Telecaster quoted recently, about his guitar playing compared with his friend's playing, I'd interpret that to mean that the friend has great musical dexterity but not creativity, whereas Tele has the creativity but without the same degree of dexterity. Yet both can play. Same with photography.

Rob

[kencameron]

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

Could you 'understand perfectly well what musical creativity is' if you had no personal experience of any kind of creativity, in any field?   For Ray's point to survive your line of argument, would it not be enough for your experience of photographic creativity to be what allows you to understand what kind of thing it might be in music or other fields, but without being able to exercise it yourself ? And isn't there a case for supposing that if one had no experience of this thing called creativity it would be hard, or at least harder, to understand what people meant when they talked about it - just as if one were blind from birth, it would be hard to understand what people meant when they talked about sight. One could of course observe it (any kind of creativity) but a dimension of understanding would be missing. I think that everyone has some capacity for what I call creativity, but not to the same degree, and not able to manifest for everyone in all fields. Like you, I can't play an instrument and strongly wish I could, and that yearning is based on a sense of how wonderful it would be able to play and invent there, as I see others do and as I do to a modest extent in other places.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...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?

[RSL]

I think that everyone has some capacity for what I call creativity. . .

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.

[kencameron]

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.


Edit: I expressed myself very poorly above. I blame a sullen teenager whom I had to wake up and get to school, while trying to post. What I meant to say was that I think creativity is innate (present) in everyone, while I suspect Rob thinks it is innate (present) in some people but not in others, so that in describing creativity as innate, I wasn't agreeing with him.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If you say that something is innate in everyone, I am not sure what you are saying that is particularly meaningful in this discussion...

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).

[kencameron]

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.

I am not sure we are that far apart, despite appearances. I think that creativity is a capacity that is innate in everyone. Like, say, breathing. There is nothing wrong with the use of the word "capacity" for something that is innate. You are picking an imaginary nit there.  I think it is innately present to a greater or lesser degree, that it manifests in people's lives to a greater or lesser degree depending on circumstances talents, opportunities, that high degrees of creativity certainly skip generations as is the case with say intelligence. I think that creativity is like intelligence in this respect, that everyone has some but some have much more than others. Rather than saying "there are different kinds of creativity" I would say that there is some common thing called creativity that manifests in different areas, sometimes just in one, sometimes in more than one. I do also suspect that if you are highly creative in one area you are at an advantage when it comes to working creatively in others, although some things may be totally blocked, as playing an instrument for Rob. Where I suspect we differ is that I think creativity is something you can have more or less of, while you see it as more like pregnancy - either you have it or not.

[kencameron]

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.

[Ray]

Some of you people, Rob, Russ and Slobodan in particular, are falling into the either/or trap. You seem to be saying that everyone either has an innate talent for some activity, music, painting, whatever, or they don't.

That view seems nonsense to me. Everyone has some degree of innate talent for just about everything, with a few obvious exceptions resulting from genetic disorders. For example, it would be difficult to argue that any truly tone-deaf person could have any talent for playing the piano, or could even enjoy listening to music, although such a person might enjoy the lyrics.

But even with this condition of tone-deafness, there is confusion. It's not either/or. There are degrees of tone-deafness. There are also people who can play the piano quite well, expressing a reasonable degree of talent and creativity, but who describe themselves as being tone-deaf. How is that possible? It's because they don't have the ability to sing in tune. They don't have sufficient control over their vocal chords to reproduce the correct notes. In fact, such people are not tone-deaf at all. They've misdiagnosed their own condition, or have unquestioningly accepted the opinion of the choir master when they've attempted to sing in a choir.

The inescapable fact is that absolutely everything that everyone does, thinks, makes, creates, and so on, directly involves his genes and innate talents. I cannot think of any exceptions.

Likewise, whatever anyone does, thinks, makes or creates is also directly (and indirectly) influenced by his educational environment (using education in a broad sense). Nobody lives in a vacuum. It's inconceivable that anyone, however talented he might be innately, could exercise any worthwhile creativity in any subject, whether mathematics, painting or music, without having been exposed to the traditions of those subjects.

Whether or not a person fully exploits an innate talent will depend on personal motivation and the influence of parents, peers and teachers. Person A with less innate talent than person B might in practice be more creative than person B as a result of his exposure to better education and more encouragement.

I hope that is all clear. 

[RSL]

Except when that skill is producing original and unusual ideas, or making something new or imaginative.

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.

[Isaac]

A skill doesn't produce original or unusual ideas or make something new or imaginative. That's creativity.

"Creativity" doesn't produce original or unusual ideas or make something new or imaginative.

People do.


skill : a ​special ​ability to do something

creativity : the ​ability to ​produce ​original and ​unusual ​ideas, or to make something new or ​imaginative

[Ray]

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.

[kencameron]

An interesting extra question here, and here, which I stumbled on in thinking about  what creativity might be.  Can software be creative?

[Rob C]

Gentlemen, we are running around in circles and have definitely reached the time when we want to count our points and cut out...

Seems we all know what we mean, some can express it clearly, and others not so much, but, in the end, nobody has changed anyone else's mind one iota. It's simply a rerun of what is art, what is talent, what is good and what bad? There is no conclusion with which we can all agree -or ever could.

Rob

[AreBee]

History repeats.