The word inspiration has loosely come to mean what it is that gets one started on a creative endeavor – the spark that gets one up and out of the easy chair and into the studio, laboratory, study or shop. This idea of inspiration is technically incorrect.
Another misconception is the idea of dramatic inspiration that sends the creative person into a state of whirlwind and frenzy. This is a romantic notion that has even, indeed, been perpetuated as truth by some philosophers, psychoanalysts and even some creative people themselves. We can see that this is really not the truth because if studied closely these people are all working and brooding over their subject matter most all of the time. Their minds are open to searching for answers even at times when they are not actively aware of it. Their minds become open, fertile and receptive to generate new ideas, or solutions. So the lightening bolt of inspiration that comes from “out there” that is delivered all at one time and interpreted automatically is really a fallacy because it comes from within.
There have been creators that perpetuated this myth. For instance William Blake said that one of his poems came to him completely in a dream. However, dreams come from within – not from “without”, or “out there”. It is common knowledge to those who have studied dreams that the mind continues to work while one is asleep and that dreams are a result of this state of thinking. There have even been studies that show we can train our minds to think lucidly while asleep. Blake didn’t “receive” the poem from “out there” in a dream – he thought it up from within. Another example is Samuel Coleridge who insisted he received the inspiration for his poem “Kubla Khan” because he was in a drugged state. I assert that any ability he had to conceive the poem came from his mind’s ability to work in spite of his drugged state, not because of it. Also, it was his ability to think in spite of the drugs that allowed him to recall the poem and interpret it so that it made sense and had a desirable style. Thus, his “inspiration” came from within – not without.
Perhaps both of these poets worked from their subconscious somewhat, but the subconscious is still from within and there are better and safer ways to get to one’s subconscious than drugs and alcohol. Personally I find that I am often inclined to produce creative thinking when I am washing dishes. Yes, it that mundane and mindless task repeated over and over that allows me the time and freedom to open my mind to creative thought. I don't set out to do it and I often don't realize I am doing it until it is over. I don't believe it is the soap bubbles that generate these ideas or some genie of the sink - it comes from within. Sometimes it happens while I am driving and that can be scarey when you think about it. How many times have I left things at work because I was thinking about a creative problem while gathering up my articles to take home? I don't want to count them. Perhaps this is where the term "absent minded professor" derives.
These inspirational myths are more than wrong; they are dangerous. Many students and others seeking inspiration and increased creative ability have turned to drugs and alcohol in their process. For example we can take the case of Jackson Pollock, the artist and infamous alcoholic. His best work was done while he was in a period of sobriety. He did create some art while he was intoxicated, but if any of it can be considered successful it is in spite of the fact that he was drunk – not because of it. Jackson Pollock, also known as Jack the Dripper, achieved world wide acclaim and became America’s first internationally known artist. Yet, it was when he started drinking again that his career and personal life crashed and so did he in a fatal car wreck.
Inspiration is so much more than a beginning spark, or automatic interpretation. It is what drives one to create and to continue at it until the creation is felt as finished, or the problem is solved, or understood. It is indeed a dramatic experience from within, but it is not the dramatic lightening bolt sent from out there in the atmosphere that feeds the whole idea into the mind at once. Inspiration means that the idea which is conceived, or the problem, ways heavily enough upon one’s mind to propel the creator to keep working. It is a drive to action that sustains action. In cases where the inspiration is strong it can result in a frenzy of work. This frenzy can sometimes mimic manic disorder in appearance, but it is always totally rational in actuality. Inspiration can result in a sense of relief when processed to the point of a completed thought – also known as the “Aha!” moment. The “Aha!” moment does not always come during the process of the work. It may come while one is at work, or it may come at the end or completion of the piece - or it may come months or years later - - or not at all .
I suppose there are many times that creators may never feel that sense of “Aha!”. I suggest that in a case such as this the creator might still come to acceptance in terms of a project’s completeness. The creator’s peers may even applaud the finished work, but the creator may never feel completely finished without the “Aha!” moment. I can attest to this experience with a painting of my own. My professors, my peers and the public all liked it a great deal. I was pleased with it, but I lacked a feeling of completeness about the piece. It was about five years later when I was in an artistic and analyzing frame of mind that I studied the piece once again. I came to realize that all the artistic elements that I had produced rather subjectively (even some that I had not previously recognized) fell right into place during artistic analysis. Then I understood why it was so successful - Aha! Sometimes we become too close to our own creations and we need to achieve some distance from them before we can be completely objective about the situation. Once again, my friends, it all boils down to hard work. I wish you inspiration with your endeavors.
Note:
When I refer to “the creator” I mean the creative person who is working on a project. This is of course not to be confused with The Great Creator, God, Jehovah, Yaway, The Alpha and Omega, The Great I Am, The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth – the one for whom I tremble in awe and devotion and reverence. One of the things that intrigues me about creativity is this creative link we share with Him (Her?) that can be thought of as one of the attributes we share “in his likeness”.
A fifty+ woman works through life issues to rediscover her identity and find new happiness.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Note 5: Translogical Modes of Thinking
The creative person will engage in unusual and special types of thinking during the creative thought process. These types of thinking are different from our everyday logical thought processes. They have been labeled translogical modes of thinking by Dr. Albert Rothenberg. They occur during a rational and conscious frame of mind. The creative person is neither undergoing some transformed state of being where the muse inputs the completely formed idea, nor is the person undergoing a form of psychosis. The person must be rational and completely in his/her mind or what results will be of no value - in short, a mess. These processes are special but it would seem that we are all capable of them. The degree to which we successfully use the processes is certainly individualized.
The Janusian Process:
One process that seems to commonly occur for most successful creative people occurs early in the development of the idea. It is called the Janusian Process. It is named for the Roman god of doorways, Janus, who appears as looking in opposite directions at the same time. The Janusian process involves an intellectual examination of opposites. Antithetical elements or factors are then developed into a creative product. The Janusian process is usually not evident in the final product, but is a springboard for the mind to begin working and continues to occur at crucial points. Here are some examples of the Janusian process - a process of examining opposites.
* The writer, Richard Wilbur, said he had been walking on a beach and noticed some stones. As he touched them he noticed they were soft and felt like human skin, yet they were hard and heavy. They were certainly weapons if used in that way, but also soft and sensual at the same time. Pondering this idea led to the idea of sex and violence in the world, which he ultimately utilized separately in a poem.
* The musician, Leonard Bernstein, demonstrated the simultaneous use of the opposites (or antithetical factors) of diatonicism (tonal relationships between notes within traditional scales) and chromaticism (relationships between various keys) in the construction of all types of music.
* The artist, Cezanne, made great strides in the field of color theory when he used opposite color palettes juxtaposed against each other in the same paintings to create vibrating tensions between warm and cool colors.
* The scientist, Albert Einstein, realized that if a man fell off a roof of a house, there would be no gravitational field in his vicinity. That man could be considered as being at rest even though he was falling. The understanding that two completely opposite things could coexist at the same time led to Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity.
The Homospatial Process:
The homospatial process derives its name from it's prefix - homo, meaning same. What happens during the homospatial process is that the idea that has been forming takes shape mentally for the creative person. Many times this involves what we call the mind's eye. The person literally sees an image, or perhaps hears the tune, or feels the solution in some other way involving the senses. This is not an answer from outside the body, it is a result of hard work in the creative process. This usually happens after the Janusian process has occurred. Perhaps producing a mental image is where the idea of a muse importing an idea into our heads comes from, but rest assured this is a result of hard creative work. We produce the image; we don't receive it.
As a visual artist I have sometimes gotten what I call visual images inside my head. I am talking about what Dr. Rothenberg has described here. They are nice, rational experiences and people are always in their right minds when they experience them. Dr. Rothenberg states that these experiences are always occur as fleeting moments. I have tried to hold onto the visual image for a bit when I get one and alas, he is correct. They indeed are fleeting and there is no way to make them stay that I know of. That is when one must pick up one's tools and work it out. Here are the words of the famous sculptor, Henry Moore:
This is what the sculptor must do. He must strive continually to think of, and use, form in
its full spatial completeness. He gets the solid shape, as it were, inside his head - he thinks
of it, whatever its size, as if he were holding it completely enclosed in the hollow of his
hand. He mentally visualizes a complex form from all around itself; he knows while he
looks at one side what the other side is like. (Henry Moore, quoted in Rothenberg, 1990:
28)
Here are some words from Ludwig van Beethoven: "the underlying idea [of a musical work] ...rises...grows, I hear and see the image in front of me from every angle, as if it had been cast." (Ludwig van Beethoven quoted in Rothenberg, 1990: 28)
And so it is for us - off to work we go!
These comments and findings are a result of reading:
Dr. Albert Rothenberg, M.D. Creativity and Madness: New Findings and Old Stereotypes. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990)
The Janusian Process:
One process that seems to commonly occur for most successful creative people occurs early in the development of the idea. It is called the Janusian Process. It is named for the Roman god of doorways, Janus, who appears as looking in opposite directions at the same time. The Janusian process involves an intellectual examination of opposites. Antithetical elements or factors are then developed into a creative product. The Janusian process is usually not evident in the final product, but is a springboard for the mind to begin working and continues to occur at crucial points. Here are some examples of the Janusian process - a process of examining opposites.
* The writer, Richard Wilbur, said he had been walking on a beach and noticed some stones. As he touched them he noticed they were soft and felt like human skin, yet they were hard and heavy. They were certainly weapons if used in that way, but also soft and sensual at the same time. Pondering this idea led to the idea of sex and violence in the world, which he ultimately utilized separately in a poem.
* The musician, Leonard Bernstein, demonstrated the simultaneous use of the opposites (or antithetical factors) of diatonicism (tonal relationships between notes within traditional scales) and chromaticism (relationships between various keys) in the construction of all types of music.
* The artist, Cezanne, made great strides in the field of color theory when he used opposite color palettes juxtaposed against each other in the same paintings to create vibrating tensions between warm and cool colors.
* The scientist, Albert Einstein, realized that if a man fell off a roof of a house, there would be no gravitational field in his vicinity. That man could be considered as being at rest even though he was falling. The understanding that two completely opposite things could coexist at the same time led to Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity.
The Homospatial Process:
The homospatial process derives its name from it's prefix - homo, meaning same. What happens during the homospatial process is that the idea that has been forming takes shape mentally for the creative person. Many times this involves what we call the mind's eye. The person literally sees an image, or perhaps hears the tune, or feels the solution in some other way involving the senses. This is not an answer from outside the body, it is a result of hard work in the creative process. This usually happens after the Janusian process has occurred. Perhaps producing a mental image is where the idea of a muse importing an idea into our heads comes from, but rest assured this is a result of hard creative work. We produce the image; we don't receive it.
As a visual artist I have sometimes gotten what I call visual images inside my head. I am talking about what Dr. Rothenberg has described here. They are nice, rational experiences and people are always in their right minds when they experience them. Dr. Rothenberg states that these experiences are always occur as fleeting moments. I have tried to hold onto the visual image for a bit when I get one and alas, he is correct. They indeed are fleeting and there is no way to make them stay that I know of. That is when one must pick up one's tools and work it out. Here are the words of the famous sculptor, Henry Moore:
This is what the sculptor must do. He must strive continually to think of, and use, form in
its full spatial completeness. He gets the solid shape, as it were, inside his head - he thinks
of it, whatever its size, as if he were holding it completely enclosed in the hollow of his
hand. He mentally visualizes a complex form from all around itself; he knows while he
looks at one side what the other side is like. (Henry Moore, quoted in Rothenberg, 1990:
28)
Here are some words from Ludwig van Beethoven: "the underlying idea [of a musical work] ...rises...grows, I hear and see the image in front of me from every angle, as if it had been cast." (Ludwig van Beethoven quoted in Rothenberg, 1990: 28)
And so it is for us - off to work we go!
These comments and findings are a result of reading:
Dr. Albert Rothenberg, M.D. Creativity and Madness: New Findings and Old Stereotypes. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1990)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Note 4. Creative Geniuses: Nurture or Nature?
It is a common idea that geniuses are born with genetically superior talents and abilities than other people and that their environment could not have produced such a sophisticated capacity in a person. Creative geniuses usually do show advanced abilities in certain areas, for example musicians would need to have manual proficiency in music, and writers would need a good facility of language. However, it is not true that their learning doesn’t count for anything. It is not true that creative people sit around waiting for that spark of inspiration to arrive fully developed. In short, they may be born with a strong aptitude for something, but all of them have undergone training and learning. And according to Dr. Rothenberg, virtually all of them go to college. Dr. Rothenberg also points out that virtually all creators have had their talent aided along by their upbringing and environment (1990: 10)
Dr. Rothenberg goes on to state that the major findings of his work “… are particular and specific thought processes used by creative people during the process of creation; this applies to the whole spectrum of disciplines, areas and media.” (1990: 11)
These special thought processes are what makes highly creative people different from other people. These special forms of thinking, or “creative cognition” as Dr. Rothenberg labels it, is responsible for two jobs. One process is responsible for growing creative ideas and the other is responsible for “producing metaphors and other unified structures in both artistic and scientific types of endeavor “ (1990: 11). Dr. Rothenberg admits he does “…not know whether the talent for having creative thoughts, the special factor of creativity itself, is inherited” (1990: 10). But. Rothenberg also states that at least one of these processes can be learned. Environmental influences, especially from the family, can in reality stimulate such special forms of thinking. A family that nurtures creative thinking will emphasize unusual modes of thinking. They often have significant inconsistencies in what family members say and feel and what they actually do feel. The child then learns to become insightful to hidden messages by the people in their family or environment; for example by taking note of body language. This type of family environment – where the child has to learn to be receptive to implicit messages from parental figures - could foster psychosis if both the parents are disturbed. However the creative person will have at least one mentally healthy parent.
Interestingly, the benchmark of family influence is that there will almost always be a parent who is interested in a creative field and then either did not try hard at it, or tried and failed. Pay attention here parents: these parents may have had other jobs but they played at writing poems, or journals. They told stories. They painted as a hobby. They worked puzzles, or carried out scientific experiments. The child saw the interest demonstrated by the parent, and while perhaps born with a genetic aptitude for that skill, the child learned the discipline due to his or her family environment. In many cases it could be seen as a creative person’s decision to fulfill that parent’s “implicit, unrealized yearnings” (1990:13).
Parents frequently ask me, “How can I encourage my child’s creative ability?” My answer, which is based on these readings and my experience as a teacher, is to demonstrate creative or original thinking to your child. Verbalize your thought processes to your child and let them see your creativity. Bring them into the conversation. Then give them the tools they need to begin something they are interested in. It needs to be something they want to do – not what you want them to want to do. Don’t be discouraged if they lose interest. Applaud their attempts. Find something good to say about their work – don’t be overly critical, but be honest. I repeat, always find something positive to say about a sincere attempt on their part- even if you just tell them it was a good try. Let them enter contests with their work. Encourage them by asking them what they think. Don’t become too controlling – remember there is a thin line between a family that fosters creativity and one that fosters psychosis! Let’s all aim for mentally healthy children!
Dr. Rothenberg goes on to state that the major findings of his work “… are particular and specific thought processes used by creative people during the process of creation; this applies to the whole spectrum of disciplines, areas and media.” (1990: 11)
These special thought processes are what makes highly creative people different from other people. These special forms of thinking, or “creative cognition” as Dr. Rothenberg labels it, is responsible for two jobs. One process is responsible for growing creative ideas and the other is responsible for “producing metaphors and other unified structures in both artistic and scientific types of endeavor “ (1990: 11). Dr. Rothenberg admits he does “…not know whether the talent for having creative thoughts, the special factor of creativity itself, is inherited” (1990: 10). But. Rothenberg also states that at least one of these processes can be learned. Environmental influences, especially from the family, can in reality stimulate such special forms of thinking. A family that nurtures creative thinking will emphasize unusual modes of thinking. They often have significant inconsistencies in what family members say and feel and what they actually do feel. The child then learns to become insightful to hidden messages by the people in their family or environment; for example by taking note of body language. This type of family environment – where the child has to learn to be receptive to implicit messages from parental figures - could foster psychosis if both the parents are disturbed. However the creative person will have at least one mentally healthy parent.
Interestingly, the benchmark of family influence is that there will almost always be a parent who is interested in a creative field and then either did not try hard at it, or tried and failed. Pay attention here parents: these parents may have had other jobs but they played at writing poems, or journals. They told stories. They painted as a hobby. They worked puzzles, or carried out scientific experiments. The child saw the interest demonstrated by the parent, and while perhaps born with a genetic aptitude for that skill, the child learned the discipline due to his or her family environment. In many cases it could be seen as a creative person’s decision to fulfill that parent’s “implicit, unrealized yearnings” (1990:13).
Parents frequently ask me, “How can I encourage my child’s creative ability?” My answer, which is based on these readings and my experience as a teacher, is to demonstrate creative or original thinking to your child. Verbalize your thought processes to your child and let them see your creativity. Bring them into the conversation. Then give them the tools they need to begin something they are interested in. It needs to be something they want to do – not what you want them to want to do. Don’t be discouraged if they lose interest. Applaud their attempts. Find something good to say about their work – don’t be overly critical, but be honest. I repeat, always find something positive to say about a sincere attempt on their part- even if you just tell them it was a good try. Let them enter contests with their work. Encourage them by asking them what they think. Don’t become too controlling – remember there is a thin line between a family that fosters creativity and one that fosters psychosis! Let’s all aim for mentally healthy children!
Note 3: General Findings about the Nature of Creative Individuals
I came across some significant general characteristics about creative people that I want to relay. I will be referring to these general characteristics in future writing so I think it is important to list them here. There have been literally thousands of creativity books and articles written. In fact creativity studies pioneer, Dr. Albert Rothenberg, M.D., compiled a bibliography entitled Index of Scientific Writings on Creativity with 9,968 titles of books and articles. Even though there is a huge amount of studies in the area, Dr. Rothenberg found that there hasn’t been a lot of knowledge obtained from these studies. Thus, Dr. Rothenberg spent over 2,000 hours of his own conducting scientific interviews with highly creative people (1990: 7)
As a result of these interviews Dr. Rothenberg was able to reach some very clear conclusions regarding characteristics that underlie all types of creativity. Here are some of his pertinent points (1990: 8)
· There is no specific personality type associated with outstanding creativity. (see my notes in my previous blog: Characteristics of Creativity and Hype)
· Creative people, surprisingly, are not all exceptionally intelligent. Many outstanding creative people are only are only slightly above average in intelligence.
· There is no uniform personality style in a technical, psychological sense. Highly creative people are neither compulsive, nor impulsive. However, many interestingly enough, are somewhat:
o Rigid, meticulous, and perfectionist rather than free and spontaneous
o Some degree of inwardness and self-preoccupation does predominate among many, but
some are surprisingly extroverted.
o Generally highly creative people tend to be idealistic and strive for an ideal in their work.
o There is no particular ideological position or political position; although
authoritarianism is generally despised. This tends to be an inconsistency because many
highly creative people are authoritarian about matters of judgment and taste.
There is only ONE characteristic of personality and orientation to life and work that is found to be common with all highly creative people and that is MOTIVATION (1990: 8).
Dr. Rothenberg points out some characteristics about motivated creative individuals:
· They are extraordinarily motivated to work and produce, and even more than that they
are motivated to produce creations that are both new and valuable.
· The creative process always results from direct, intense and intentional efforts. The
commonly held belief that ideas just spring into creative people’s minds is a misconception.
· Creative people are always on the lookout for new valuable ideas and approaches and
solutions.
· They want specifically to create and be creative, not merely to be successful or effective or
competent.
There will always be a few rare moments of inspiration where creativity appears fully developed. These lightning-bolt types of ideas do not become produced creations unless there has been a great deal of preparation for them, or unless the person is able to elaborate and develop them after they appear. PAINSTAKING WORK IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE BEFOREHAND PREPARATION AND THE ELABORATION AFTER. (1990: 9)
These characteristics hold true for creative people in the arts as well as the sciences.
Again, according to Dr. Rothenberg, “Creative people want very much – perhaps it may be correct to say need very much – to create, partly because they have the talent to do so and partly because of strong environmental influences that instill such strong motivation. These strong environmental influences consist especially of the early family environment…”(1990: 9).
As a result of these interviews Dr. Rothenberg was able to reach some very clear conclusions regarding characteristics that underlie all types of creativity. Here are some of his pertinent points (1990: 8)
· There is no specific personality type associated with outstanding creativity. (see my notes in my previous blog: Characteristics of Creativity and Hype)
· Creative people, surprisingly, are not all exceptionally intelligent. Many outstanding creative people are only are only slightly above average in intelligence.
· There is no uniform personality style in a technical, psychological sense. Highly creative people are neither compulsive, nor impulsive. However, many interestingly enough, are somewhat:
o Rigid, meticulous, and perfectionist rather than free and spontaneous
o Some degree of inwardness and self-preoccupation does predominate among many, but
some are surprisingly extroverted.
o Generally highly creative people tend to be idealistic and strive for an ideal in their work.
o There is no particular ideological position or political position; although
authoritarianism is generally despised. This tends to be an inconsistency because many
highly creative people are authoritarian about matters of judgment and taste.
There is only ONE characteristic of personality and orientation to life and work that is found to be common with all highly creative people and that is MOTIVATION (1990: 8).
Dr. Rothenberg points out some characteristics about motivated creative individuals:
· They are extraordinarily motivated to work and produce, and even more than that they
are motivated to produce creations that are both new and valuable.
· The creative process always results from direct, intense and intentional efforts. The
commonly held belief that ideas just spring into creative people’s minds is a misconception.
· Creative people are always on the lookout for new valuable ideas and approaches and
solutions.
· They want specifically to create and be creative, not merely to be successful or effective or
competent.
There will always be a few rare moments of inspiration where creativity appears fully developed. These lightning-bolt types of ideas do not become produced creations unless there has been a great deal of preparation for them, or unless the person is able to elaborate and develop them after they appear. PAINSTAKING WORK IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE BEFOREHAND PREPARATION AND THE ELABORATION AFTER. (1990: 9)
These characteristics hold true for creative people in the arts as well as the sciences.
Again, according to Dr. Rothenberg, “Creative people want very much – perhaps it may be correct to say need very much – to create, partly because they have the talent to do so and partly because of strong environmental influences that instill such strong motivation. These strong environmental influences consist especially of the early family environment…”(1990: 9).
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Characterisitcs of Creativity and Hype
I became interested in creativity several years ago when reading through a text book that included ‘some’ traits of creativity. Some of the ones that come to mind were: 1) the ability to think of unusual or original responses to situations 2) heightened awareness, or sensitivity, to the environment around oneself 3) ability to understand how things work and how to fix them 4) ability to organize 5) productivity. Those are just a few characteristics off the top of my head. Perhaps it takes some combination of these and/or perhaps other characteristics working in a synergistic combination to get valuable creativity.
It’s funny though – that list didn’t include such characteristics as alcoholism and drug addiction, or anger management issues, oddness, promiscuity, homosexuality or madness in the list. There are several misconceptions – or myths - about what is involved in creativity. You’ve heard the stories - yes, Van Gogh did have mental illness, and so did a whole bunch of famous people, who were artists, writers, scientists and philosophers. Personally I see these issues as belonging to humanity as a whole – there are many people in the world with ‘issues’ and some of them are famous. Famous people are the ones we hear biographical stories about; especially the ones with ‘issues’. People don’t buy books about a nice, talented guy who got up every day and went to his studio, made terrific art and then came home to his wife and kids whom he adored – the end. That would be a wonderful life indeed, but it won’t sell as many biographies. I can’t help but wonder if our human fixations with things that are somewhat dark, or odd, or perverse, or just plain different don’t perpetuate stories that equate creativity with certain myths. It's like what a gay friend (who happened to be a hair stylist) said to me once, "Betsy, you know that idea about gay people being especially creatively talented? Well it's absolutely wrong. I had to fight for every once of creativity I ever got." Which I think goes to show that Thomas Edison was probably right when he said, "Success is ten percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration."
It’s funny though – that list didn’t include such characteristics as alcoholism and drug addiction, or anger management issues, oddness, promiscuity, homosexuality or madness in the list. There are several misconceptions – or myths - about what is involved in creativity. You’ve heard the stories - yes, Van Gogh did have mental illness, and so did a whole bunch of famous people, who were artists, writers, scientists and philosophers. Personally I see these issues as belonging to humanity as a whole – there are many people in the world with ‘issues’ and some of them are famous. Famous people are the ones we hear biographical stories about; especially the ones with ‘issues’. People don’t buy books about a nice, talented guy who got up every day and went to his studio, made terrific art and then came home to his wife and kids whom he adored – the end. That would be a wonderful life indeed, but it won’t sell as many biographies. I can’t help but wonder if our human fixations with things that are somewhat dark, or odd, or perverse, or just plain different don’t perpetuate stories that equate creativity with certain myths. It's like what a gay friend (who happened to be a hair stylist) said to me once, "Betsy, you know that idea about gay people being especially creatively talented? Well it's absolutely wrong. I had to fight for every once of creativity I ever got." Which I think goes to show that Thomas Edison was probably right when he said, "Success is ten percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration."
Creativity: what it is and what it isn't
I've been reading about creativity studies and it's a hard discipline to define at first. Creativity is something talked about on a fairly regular basis – it is highly valued in society. But, creativity can have entirely different meanings given the context of the discussion. Many people have the notion that creativity has to do with great artistic or scientific inspiration and production. In the business or military world creativity is strongly associated with problem solving, or strategic planning. Dictionaries simply explain creativity as producing things, or bringing things into being. This idea of producing something can be taken to extremes - from God's creation of the world, all the way down to mundane, everyday products such as humming a tune, or even making a mess. Messes are not of value….so not everything created is of value. Productivity alone does not equal creativity either. I could make several batches of burned cookies and none of them would be good, right? (this excludes all you people who like burned cookies) Also originality doesn't necessarily mean creativity. Just because one has an original idea doesn't mean it's a good one. Leonardo da Vinci tried a new mixture of paint (a combination of water and oil based paint) on his Last Supper fresco and it started peeling off even during his lifetime - thus not all new ideas are good. According to Dr. Albert Rothenberg, M.D., "Creativity is, therefore, the production of something that is both new and truly valuable"(1990; 5) I suppose the moral here is to keep on trying and working.
I think the whole country would like to see some truly innovative creative thinking about our oil dependency problem (as well as a whole host of other national and world problems). There is an idea floating around out there that we should gather up some of the country's most creative thinkers and sequester them in a meeting place where they would work on the problem just like they did with the space program and with the atom bomb. That would be a great example of creativity that brings forth the production of an idea that is both new and valuable, eh?
I think the whole country would like to see some truly innovative creative thinking about our oil dependency problem (as well as a whole host of other national and world problems). There is an idea floating around out there that we should gather up some of the country's most creative thinkers and sequester them in a meeting place where they would work on the problem just like they did with the space program and with the atom bomb. That would be a great example of creativity that brings forth the production of an idea that is both new and valuable, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)