His example of a “Creative Person” is someone who offers a spontaneous variation on a recipe. What kind of definition is that? Does the author mean “creative person” or “poser”? It’s a pointless, meaningless example. It is impossible to build a convincing argument when your foundation is this weak.

This flaw in the argument is known as the “straw man”: because the author cannot find a credible real world example to make his point, he constructs a phony example, then argues against it. This is an extremely weak way to build a case.

Your overlong blog post amounts to nothing more than a windy complaint. You have proved nothing about creativity in education, business or any other field.

This is a wee bit of a generalization Dyske surely. You could just as easily argue that educators have a vested interest in keeping the definition of creativity a mystery. But no matter, let’s not quibble.

Well, that’s true. A lot of public school teachers here in New York oppose standardized tests because they get paid all the same no matter what they achieve. I guess it depends on what the reward is for the teachers.

Rote learning is a very poor way to acquire knowledge and even when knowledge is acquired there’s no guarantee that understanding or the ability to apply this understanding has been developed. Few educationalists or cognitive scientists advocate such techniques anymore. Confucius knew this long ago:

I guess this is an area where my “background knowledge is [indeed] lacking”. I meant to refer to the subject that CAN be taught, and when it comes to this area, I have no objection or disagreement with most teachers. Perhaps rote learning isn’t the best approach, but for certain things (especially in music education), some rote learning appears to be unavoidable.

“The educators of “creativity” has a vested interest in fixing the definition of creativity so that they can measure it and vindicate the value of their practice.”

This is a wee bit of a generalization Dyske surely. You could just as easily argue that educators have a vested interest in keeping the definition of creativity a mystery. But no matter, let’s not quibble.

“Yes, true, you did enable him to be creative, but as I have argued before, rote learning of foundational knowledge and skills often enable people to unleash the creativity they have.”
Rote learning is a very poor way to acquire knowledge and even when knowledge is acquired there’s no guarantee that understanding or the ability to apply this understanding has been developed. Few educationalists or cognitive scientists advocate such techniques anymore. Confucius knew this long ago:

“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”

I don’t teach creativity but I would hope to offer students ways to recognize, review, refine, expand, understand, articulate, apply, enjoy, take ownership of, take pride in etc etc the products of their creativity. If this helps to hone their creativity or if, on the contrary, creativity is utterly impervious to such attempts to galvanize and enhance it, no matter – there are undoubtedly cognitive processes which process and channel this creativity that teachers can certainly influence and I’m sure you would agree that we should seek to do this in the most intelligent and effective way possible.

Let me tell you what I HAVE taught. I taught a man who couldn’t write a grammatically correct sentence how to use grammar. Then I taught him to think in ways he had not previously thought. Then I gave him exercises to broaden his horizons. He went from being a person who couldn’t write a sentence that could be understood to being a travel writer with a flair for writing in fresh ways.

This is a good example that I can use to discuss the finer points. I doubt that anyone would describe teaching of English grammar as teaching “creativity”. I assume that you would agree with me here too. What you cannot prove here is whether his “flair” was taught by you. So, can you actually take credit for that? Yes, true, you did enable him to be creative, but as I have argued before, rote learning of foundational knowledge and skills often enable people to unleash the creativity they have. That is, they might have creative potential but may not have the means to express it. So, once they learn the means, they begin their own journey to creativity. This does not prove that you taught him how to be creative.

The same holds true for music. And, it’s even more so because music is more technical than writing. It requires more training of foundations. A lot of rote learning and exercises in fact. Once this is achieved, their creativity may have the means to express itself. But again, this does not mean that you taught them how to be creative. You may have encouraged them, but there is no way to conclusively prove that you taught them. As far as the students are concerned, why would they care if you “taught” them or not? It’s only YOU who care.

The process of “breaking the rules” for instance, is a rote process also. It’s like the cliche of “think outside the box”. A truly creative composers, like Schoenberg, for instance, rewrite the rules; like a paradigm shift. Much of Jazz improvisation is boring because we begin to see the pattern in how they “break the rules”.

Still, if my definition, which is a broader one than in a standard dictionary, is limited, and the word itself cannot be defined to your (or anyone’s) liking, then, most certainly, it can’t be taught.

Let me tell you what I HAVE taught. I taught a man who couldn’t write a grammatically correct sentence how to use grammar. Then I taught him to think in ways he had not previously thought. Then I gave him exercises to broaden his horizons. He went from being a person who couldn’t write a sentence that could be understood to being a travel writer with a flair for writing in fresh ways.

I’ve taught numerous musicians to improvise. First, they have to know what they can and cannot do with their instrument, and they must know that extremely well. Then they must know the rules of traditional musical (especially jazz) improvisation. Then they have to reproduce that. Then they have to practice breaking those rules in ways no one has broken them before. Then they have to develop a taste for that. I have taught players who play with the Navy Blues, the Commodores, the President’s Own, and dozens of jazz bands nationwide.

In each of these cases, people everywhere proclaim how “creative” these people seem to be, when they were not before they were “taught.”

Perhaps it is NOT creativity I teach. But, whatever it is, it helps.

Unfortunately I am not well read. I am interested in the disciplines associated with creativity, and so I’ve read the literature. Nor am I a particular authority on the subject, though I have my experience as well as my opinions.

You seem to have your opinions. You also have the ability to creatively use logic to support your opinions. I simply think your background knowledge is lacking on the subject; I offered only the major writers in the field as resources for you to expand that background knowledge, not to display my own.

By now, everyone objects to the narrow definition of “intelligence” that IQ implies. Duane is no exception, but what the critics of “intelligence” does not often realize is that expanding the definition does not address the fundamental reason why people are objecting. Once people become familiar with your new expanded definition of “intelligence”, they’ll soon enough find it too limiting too, and start objecting once again. Someone else will come along and “shatter” your expanded definition and make you sound like a narrow-minded bigot.

What is naive to me is this “persistent” desire to fix a definition of something in order to measure and control. This is what I’m objecting to. You want to prove that “creativity” can be taught, so you want to be able to measure the “improvement”, which in turn requires that you fix the definition of “creativity”. By doing so, you begin to promote normative behavior and normative cultural institutions towards the idea of “creativity”. This is exactly what happened with IQ to which many people now object. And, ironically these critics are committing the same crime they accuse of others; the only difference is the way they try to fix the definitions. The problem isn’t how the definition is fixed, but the very act of trying to fix it.

You say that you can’t define creativity, but on the other hand you say it shatters definition. I hope you can see that this isn’t really much help in this discussion. What happens if we make a distinction between the humdrum but essential human trait we call creativity and the exalted “immeasurable” thing of which you speak – let’s call it genius?

No. “Genius” is a wrong word because it usually implies inborn talent. I am not claiming that “creativity” cannot be developed. I’m just saying that it cannot be taught. Duane too, I think, misunderstood this point. I think he thinks I’m saying one cannot develop creativity, and must accept whatever creativity you are born with. I’m not saying this at all. I’m saying that creativity is a journey that you must embark on your own.

“Creativity” cannot be defined because truly creative people redefines what creativity is. It’s the same deal with the word “art”. “Creativity” must transcend its own definition in time and space, and it needs to subvert and challenge what it means to be creative. If creativity were allowed to remain static over time, it will be the end of creativity. It needs to be a self-subversive process. The same is true of “intelligence”. The definition of it will never be fixed. The desire to fix it would always be challenged by the equal amount of desire to escape that straightjacket.

The educators of “creativity” has a vested interest in fixing the definition of creativity so that they can measure it and vindicate the value of their practice. But this has negative implications in time just as the definition of “intelligence” had with IQ. In other words, the educators who are bent on vindicating themselves are more concerned about themselves (their reputation and authority) than they are about their students. The students do not care if their teachers are vindicated or not. Standardized exams exist mainly for the accountability (and vindications) of the teachers, not because they are good for the students. Fixing the definitions and attempting to measure “improvement” would only lead to more such exams that only serve the educators.

If you do truly care about your students, leave the definition of creativity alone. Let it be whatever it wants to be. It means you could never be recognized clearly or be credited properly for your efforts and contributions, but that’s ultimately better for the students.

If anything “the humdrum but essential human trait we call creativity” should be renamed as something else. This type of creativity is not particularly useful in real life. It’s like those art directors at advertising agencies who keep using the cliche “think outside the box”, not realizing the irony of his inability to use more creative way to encourage creativity in others. Such users of cliche are rarely creative. It’s like a photographer who literally tells the model to “relax”.

The same holds true of someone who reads a lot of books but cannot make their ideas his own and effectively apply them in novel contexts. So, all he does is to use the books like a shield to hide behind, hoping that the books would do the fighting for him. If he thinks he is creative, he should apply what he learned from the books in a creative way and effectively prove, show, or explain his points or the flaws of others, instead of dismissing them as “dogmatic”.

You’re persistant, I’ll give you that! I don’t think Duane is arguing that reading books makes you creative. I think he was suggesting that these might provide a clearer picture of what creativity is. However I would agree with you if you’re contesting “the argument from authority” which underpins this position.

You say that you can’t define creativity, but on the other hand you say it shatters definition. I hope you can see that this isn’t really much help in this discussion. What happens if we make a distinction between the humdrum but essential human trait we call creativity and the exalted “immeasurable” thing of which you speak – let’s call it genius?

Do we really have an argument? I don’t think so.

Best

Jim

Let me elaborate why I say the definition of creativity you provided is strictly your own personal definition. By that, I do not mean that only you have that definition. I mean it is the definition you happen to subscribe to. By measuring the “improvement”, you are implicitly assuming that your definition is universal even though it’s not. That is where your argument is flawed.

In your definition, the operative term is “new”. How does one define something as “new”? For anything to be defined as “new”, there must already be a cultural framework that can recognize it as such. For instance, if you were to take Duchamp’s urinal to a society 1,000 years ago, nobody would recognize it as “new”. It would just be a strange object. Nobody would even recognize it as a piece of art. What is perceived as “new” is actually not really “new”, and it is largely cultural, contextual, time-dependent, and ultimately subjective.

By being taught and measured by you and your definition of “new”, your students are merely conforming to your cultural framework that defines what you see as “new”. A truly creative person should “shatter” the limitations of your framework and develop his own. That is what I would call “creativity”. As long as your students are being dictated by your definition of “new” and “creativity”, they are just being a rote learner of your “creativity”.

Anyone who thinks he can be taught by you to be creative would never truly be creative. By the same token, anyone who thinks reading more books will make him more creative is also misguided. Only when he is ready to throw both of these ladders away, will he ever be truly creative.

But it appears to me that you are not particularly interested in the discussion; you seem dogmatic in your stand.

Why would you say this? If I was not interested in the discussion, why would I respond to you? I saw a flaw in your logic, so I pointed it out. Why does that make me “dogmatic”?

Are YOU interested in discussing this? Or, do you just want me to know how well-read you are? If you are indeed a creative person, you should know how to argue with your own words and logic without relying on the authorities of others.

The definition of “creativity” above is YOUR definition. I cannot define “creativity” because the very act of defining it contradicts the very nature of creativity. So, I cannot “improve” or measure it.

Teaching people to be creative is very similar to teaching people to solve problems: the same principles are used; the same practices apply. The kind of synthesis of knowledge that leads to the production of new ideas, approaches or actions applies to creativity and problem solving.

But it appears to me that you are not particularly interested in the discussion; you seem dogmatic in your stand.

If you really are interested, read the research of Paul Torrance, Otto Rank, J.P. Guilford, Arthur Koestler, Jacques Hadamard, Marie-Louise von Franz, Alice Flaherty, Genrich Altshuller, Daniel Pink, R. Finke, D.K.Simonton, and M.A. Runco. If you would read just one book, make it ‘Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius’ by R.W. Weisberg (1993).