My short answer is no. In order to teach “creativity” we have to define what “creativity” is. Otherwise we cannot claim that we are teaching it. In speaking of creativity, we often hear the expression, “Think outside the box.” My wife is sick of hearing this phrase because it was used in every meeting at the advertising agency she used to work at. It is such a cliche that anyone who uses this phrase cannot possibly be creative. In this manner, every time you define anything, it becomes a formula. The very reason why we define anything is to make it possible to repeat. So, once you define what “creativity” is, it immediately becomes a formula, and anyone following, repeating, or conforming to it becomes less creative. Therefore, “creativity” must remain undefinable, which in turn means unteachable.
Here is an example of someone attempting to define what creativity means. Anyone who faithfully follows his criteria of a creative person, cannot possibly be creative. The author provides some examples of how creative people talk. Here is an example:
Creative Person: “Why don’t we add a little garlic?”
Ordinary Person: “Because the recipe doesn’t call for garlic.”
Especially in the US, a “creative type” has become a stereotype. We see it on TV shows and on Hollywood movies all the time. We all know, by repeated exposure, what “creative types” are supposed to say in this type of situation above. Yes, a “creative” person is supposed to be spontaneous and adventurous, so he is supposed to say, “Hey, let’s throw some garlic in there and see what happens!” In most of these “creative” moments, people are just playing a character of a “creative” person. They are not being creative at all. Our public image of a “creative” person is itself a cliche, and many people vainly and mindlessly conform to it. This is why it’s not possible to define what “creativity” is because the moment you define it, it ceases to be creative. And, this is why it’s not possible to teach someone how to be creative.
When I cook something for the first time, I follow the recipe strictly so that I understand the writer’s original intention properly. If I decide to cook the same thing again, I might do something differently, but at that point I would know whether my change was creative or not. If you haven’t tasted the original dish (how the author of the recipe intended it to be), how would you know if what you did was creative or not? Without that knowledge, it would just be a random act. In fact, you are just trying hard to conform to the perception of a creative person, which is very uncreative.
“Creativity” is a cultural construct. For something to be recognized as “creative”, there must be historical/cultural precedents, which means that, before you can break the rules, you must understand the rules first. Even if you come up with something recognized as “creative”, if you didn’t understand the historical precedents, it could just have been dumb luck. In such a case, you would not be able to repeat the same level of creativity in the future. (Because it really wasn’t creativity in the first place.)
The typical misconception about teaching “creativity” is that exposing kids to creative things would make them creative. If this were true, let them just sit in front of a TV and expose them to a variety of TV shows and movies. Putting someone creative, or something creative, next to your kids does not magically make them creative. In fact, you might end up raising a kid who expect amusing, creative things to be served on a silver platter to him, and forever complain about being bored. Making them go through supposedly creative processes wouldn’t do it either.
Jung describes this phenomenon eloquently in his book “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.” He tells a story of a sorcerer and his disciples. One day, the sorcerer attained enlightenment. His disciples asked him how he did it, but the sorcerer made no reply. They discovered peculiar diagrams in the cave where the sorcerer attained enlightenment. They said to themselves, “That’s it!” and began copying the diagrams. The point of this story is that by repeating the diagrams, they have reversed the entire process. The diagrams to the sorcerer were effects, not the cause of his enlightenment. The same can be said about creativity; copying a creative person’s process does not make you creative, because his process is actually an effect, not a cause.
So, I’m skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to teach someone how to be creative. Even the most creative people in history, like Duchamp, Warhol, Wittgenstein, Einstein, Mozart, Stockhausen, Shakespeare, Joyce, etc., wouldn’t be able to teach anyone else how to be creative, let alone some teachers that we’ve never even heard of.
Additional Notes (Jun-4-09)
If you were to claim that you are “teaching” someone something, you have to be accountable for it, and be able to take credit for it. If you cannot be accountable for the result, you are not “teaching” anything.
Creativity is something unique to each individual; it’s like mutation in evolution. It is preposterous to claim that you taught someone to develop that unique individuality. And, if you are going to claim it, you better be able to prove it; otherwise you are taking credit for someone else’s work.
To be creative is to transcend every prescription, and that includes a prescription about “creativity”. If you transcended something, for someone to be creative, he needs to transcend your transcendence. If he repeats your transcendence, it’s not creativity. And, if he does transcend your transcendence, then obviously you didn’t teach him how; because you cannot teach someone to transcend you.
Another stereotype of being creative that bothers me is that being creative has to involve something that looks creative, such as being a visual artist. For me being creative is the ability to look at a situation that may be hopeless, such as being stuck in the pouring rain without an umbrella, and how one solves it. Right, plopping a kid in front of lots of cool videos will not develop them in the same way as helping them to solve problems and create things creatively.
For those who don’t understand this or agree with it, let me explain it another way: At the end of the day, you just have to think outside of the box.
This essay needs the inputs from decades of research on creativity. Debunking amateur impressions not actual research definitions of “creativity” is all too easy and does not impress. Major corporations of late measure creativity of various outcomes, products, persons, ideas on a 22 level validated reliable scale. It took 22,000 hours approximately for 11 scholars over a 7 year period to develop this scale–for amateurs to “scoff at” and “de-bunk” it in a few casual lines of attitude and prose epitomizes non-professional writing, thought, and lives. This is why we have universities.
Dear Mr Suematsu,
I’m one of those teachers you’ve never heard of!
Whilst I might agree with you that creativity cannot be taught I also think that your arguments are unnecessarily reductive. It appears, at some level, as though you’ve a serious axe to grind with the “profession” of teaching which is obscuring your evaluation of its underlying value and importance.
We all need stimulus, challenge, encouragement, feedback etc. to help us develop and mature. Whether you find this through literature, friends, parents or sibling makes no difference, one can still view these people as teachers.
Your idea that teachers should be able to “prove” or qualify their contribution to a students knowledge is frankly ridiculous – this simply isn’t how learning works, especially in the case of qualities such as creativity, imagination, inventiveness etc. This highlights a fundamental flaw in your argument which the question itself. Asking if creativity can be taught is like asking if you can teach imagination, genius or idiosyncrasy – this is what Wittgenstein would have called a “nonsense” question which can easily lead to false premises and false conclusions. It’s not as if your likely to find many teachers (if any) who actually aim to “teach” creativity, to impart it like some kind of skill. It doesn’t follow though, that it’s pointless to try to study creativity as a phenomenon. Nor does it follow that there’s nothing that your own creativity might gain by such knowledge.
Your use of the Jung analogy is compelling but I think the inference that “copying a creative person’s process does not make you creative” is again too reductive. We all learn by emulating, mimicking and copying. Just watch a baby or young child and see how they mimic what you do, what noises you make, what words you speak, even the way you dance! You start by following the rules (as you yourself describe about cooking) and once you’ve gained confidence with the rules – and if you have a little imagination or curiosity – you begin to improvise. Seeing someone improvise can, and often does, inspire others to attempt the same condition even if they never fully attain it. What’s that if not teaching by example?
“Duchamp, Warhol, Wittgenstein, Einstein, Mozart, Stockhausen, Shakespeare, Joyce” (all men I notice) may not have been able to teach anyone how to be creative (not directly anyway) but they’ve undoubtedly inspired millions to do things which they would never have dreamed of doing otherwise.
I’m fairly sure you’d agree that creativity can be encouraged, fostered, nurtured, developed, challenged, instilled, inspired or conversely suppressed, repressed, manipulated, distorted, or discouraged. And I assume you would also agree that some people might be more or less equipped to support, help or hinder this than others, through greater skill, knowledge, experience, sensitivity, insight etc?
If your problem is with the designation of “teacher” then, to a limited extent, I may have to agree with you. The limited idea that teachers impart knowledge doesn’t very well reflect the role that teachers fulfil, especially in art schools, but there’s certainly a lot more to teaching than simply imparting knowledge or skill and I think anyone who has ever had a genuinely good teacher would know this implicitly.
It so happens that you’re not alone in being sceptical about the title of teacher – in fact many “teachers” prefer the terms educator, facilitator of learning, lecturer, tutor, pedagogue etc. I wouldn’t even be surprised if your own previously suggested terms “host” or “moderator” have been seriously considered as alternatives. Personally I feel the impetus to adopt such alternatives is an unnecessary compromise which fails to recapitulate a word which represents, in good faith, an honourable and valuable “profession”. In a world where teaching is ever more under the spotlight, I believe we should be championing teaching and teachers, not fiddling with nomenclature.
As a “teacher” at a University I often do feel like a moderator, but then again, I often feel like an administrator, a counsellor, a social worker, a psychiatrist, an art historian, a devils advocate, occasionally an artist and frequently a student myself. I’ve had many teachers in my life. I’d even include you (in a way) amongst them – not because you’ve imparted knowledge as such, but because through some of your writing you’ve provoked me to come to a better understanding of the things I believe in and wish to share with other people. This is what it means to profess – and professing is something you do a great deal yourself Mr Suematsu.
Sincerely
J. Hamlyn
Dear Mr. Hamlyn,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. First, I should mention that I wrote about creativity on another blog of mine: “The Chinese Lacking in Creativity?”
As to the points you raised: it appears to me that we agree on most of the points I raised. I think the only issue is the meaning of the word “teacher”, and what is expected of a “teacher”. I think Wittgenstein’s “nonsense” applies here too (as well as to the question of “creativity”). In a way, all this just comes down to a matter of semantics.
In your response, you used “inspire” as a concept interchangeable with “teach”. Indeed, this is where I have a practical problem. Naturally, the word “teach” has family resemblances of meaning, like any other words. The danger of family resemblances is that we often have two very different concepts tied together by the fact that they share the same word (which is another common cause of “nonsense”). The fact that they share the same word may be completely arbitrary, and in fact, merely cultural. In other languages, they might have completely different words.
I would argue that “inspire” and “teach” are two separate concepts, or rather that, they should be analyzed separately because there are certain practical implications. For instance, suppose someone offered to “inspire” you for a fee, how would you feel about that? I think most of us would feel uneasy because we do not consider inspiration as something we can buy with money. This is where the distinction between “inspire” and “teach” has a practical significance.
Suppose the same person offering to “inspire” realizes that selling his service as “inspiration” is not going very well, so he changes his marketing strategy and start using the word “teach”. He is still doing the same thing, but the only difference is that he changed the word. This is relatively easy to imagine if you watch any of those televangelists, like Joel Osteen, or motivational speakers like Anthony Robbins. Many people feel uneasy about paying these people. Part of the reason is because “inspiration” is not something we can control. If we are inspired, that’s great, but if we are not, there is nothing we can do about it.
In comparison, teaching math or how to use a computer program, is much more controllable and predictable, so, most of us do not feel uneasy about paying to take classes or even hire a private teacher.
When I see schools claiming to “teach” creativity to my kid, I feel suspicious. I agree that someone could “inspire” my daughter, but would I pay for it? I don’t think so, unless she was already inspired by that person.
If you’d agree that “creativity” cannot be taught like the way we can teach math, then when someone says “I teach creativity”, we should keep in mind that the word “teach” in his statement has a different meaning. What he really means by it is that “I inspire creativity”. That is a more accurate and honest statement, but why wouldn’t anyone say that? It’s because it sounds pompous and egotistical. Why? Because inspiration is not something anyone can control. So, to claim that he can inspire us, is indeed egotistical or even delusional. For this reason, most people would not state the truth, and use an expression that sounds more acceptable: “I teach creativity”. They can get away with it only because “teach” and “inspire” do share some family resemblances. But in my opinion, they are not being honest. This is why, to me, making the distinction between “teach” and “inspire” is important.
Thanks very much for your prompt and considered reply.
You’ve written on this subject on so many different blogs in such subtle variations that it’s difficult to know exactly where to point my remarks. However, since I started here, this is where I’ll continue.
Since this site is devoted to software toys I’d like to relate to you an anecdote which I frequently mention to students as a way to get them to think differently about how they use their studio spaces.
A creative consultant was once invited by a toy company to advise them on ways to improve their business. The company had started out designing and making toys in a workshop but due to changes in technology etc. they had adopted computers as their principal design tool and contracted-out the production of their toys to other companies. Despite early success, as time progressed the company experienced a gradual decline in its customers and had attempted various methods and means of increasing efficiency, innovation etc. without significant success. As a self-styled “creative” company they were initially extremely sceptical about inviting another creative individual to scrutinise their business. Surely they thought, we should be able to perceive the problem and invent the best solution or no one can. Many arguments ensued before eventually, they decided, under threat of closure, to bring a creative consultant in.
After spending time getting to know the staff and carefully observing the various processes of the company, the creative consultant made several recommendations. Many of these were simple managerial or operational changes, but there was one suggestion which was unexpected. Previously, all workstations in the company had been surrounded by the usual office paraphernalia: shelves, software manuals, angle-poise lamps, plus one or two personal mementos. The creative consultant’s suggestion was to fill the office with all manner of toys and games from all manner of toy companies. They installed a mini basketball net, covered the walls with a variety of multicoloured games and they even put aside a period each day to play with the toys and test them – sometimes to the point of destruction. The purchase of these toys and the regular upkeep of all the latest fads and gimmicks actually cost the company a significant amount of money but they honoured the suggestion all the same. After six months the creative consultant visited the company again to find that their productivity, job satisfaction and market success had expanded beyond all expectations.
This is actually a true story which, even if it were apocryphal would, I hope, highlight the extent to which I believe you have missed my point. It may well be the case that you cannot teach creativity but there are some people (call them what you will) who have an ability – a talent even – for drawing forth creativity. I probably don’t need to tell you that the etymological root of the word “educate” literally means “to lead out”. This is what I believe good teachers do – they don’t simply impart stuff – they “lead out” such qualities as curiosity, creativity, talent, imagination and self confidence.
You’ve written: “The bottom line, at least for me, is that creativity cannot be taught. So, lets not bother or pretend, and stick to teaching what can be taught.”
I think you need to define what you mean by “teach” here because it seems to me you’re in danger of missing something vitally important and more worryingly you’re tending to perpetuate a reductionist vision of the value of teaching creative subjects.
“There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live.” James Truslow Adams
You come across a little like the people in the toy company who distrust other so called “creative types” having anything to do with their own creative affairs. I can understand this. I’d also be extremely sceptical about people who say they “teach creativity”. But as we’ve already established, the terms are inadequate, but this shouldn’t lead to a conclusion that creative workshops are valueless. If you send your kid to one of these classes then you need to ask them what they get out of it. If they seem to really value the experience I would say you have to trust that it’s a good thing and allow them to continue (unless there’s something which they’d clearly benefit from even more). What a shame it would be if a child was denied creative opportunities simply because their parents had such a limited understanding of the nature of teaching that they were convinced that creativity couldn’t be taught and was therefore a waste of time.
Dear Mr. Hamlyn,
I actually do not disagree with anything you are saying. We seem to be misunderstanding each other because of the differences in the way we are defining certain words. I am trying to define “creativity” and “teach” in a more specific way than you are. I see an argument as a process of defining words in more specific (and often more personal) ways.
Your example of creative consultant is a very interesting one. As a matter of fact, at my last full-time job, I persuaded my boss to hire a consulting firm who specialized in creative businesses. Any creative firm could experience a situation similar to “writer’s block”, and getting an outside perspective is very helpful when that happens.
But we should not confuse this with teaching creativity, or rather, I personally do not see this type of consulting as teaching creativity. It is possible for a company, or an individual artist/writer, to put themselves into a condition where their creativity is being stifled. This can happen for many different reasons, and they often do not have the objective distance to see what is stifling their creativity. But this can be rather obvious to an outsider.
So, it’s perfectly possible, for instance, that one of the employees of this toy company could go visit another toy company and identify their problems, and recommend certain changes, even though he cannot see his own company’s problems. The advantage here is the objectivity. It’s not about the consultant being more creative. Many artists, writers, and musicians do this for one another. In this process, nobody is teaching how to be “creative”.
So, I see great value in this type of consulting, especially when such a consultant is voluntarily brought on to help (not forced on by someone else).
“This is what I believe good teachers do – they don’t simply impart stuff – they “lead out” such qualities as curiosity, creativity, talent, imagination and self confidence.”
I could not agree with you more. Yes, that is exactly what great teachers do, but truly great teachers would never claim such things about themselves. That is where my issue is. Nobody could really claim such a thing, because “leading out” such qualities is not something we can control. Imagine someone coming to you and saying, “Pay me $1,000, I’ll lead out curiosity, creativity, talent, imagination and self-confidence from your kid.” Even if I’ve seen this person do it for some other kid, it doesn’t mean that it would work on my kid. My problem with this person would be that: 1. I don’t think he understands the true nature of creativity, imagination and self-confidence. And, 2. He is certainly over-confident, if not arrogant.
It’s true that we can create an environment that encourages kids to be more creative. It’s is also true that we can create an environment that encourages kids to be more aggressive, passive, gentle, rough, loud, quiet, physical, mental, etc, etc.. But this does not mean that these environments actually change their characters. There are many fathers who try to “toughen up” their sons by exposing them to tough situations. In some cases, it works, while in other cases it doesn’t. It’s utterly unpredictable. In fact, the effort to “toughen up” may backfire and make them weaker. By the same token, putting our children in a creative environment does not necessary make them more creative. They might show an increased amount of creative output, but it may not be making them any more creative than they were before.
Many famous artists, writers, and musicians grew up in an environment that did not encourage creativity. In fact, some of them became creative despite constant discouragement they faced in their childhoods. James Joyce is a good example. His hatred of the Catholic school experience was made into a novel. Wittgenstein too grew up in a disciplinarian family where 3 of his 4 brothers committed suicide. On the other hand, many rich Americans are sending their kids to schools and workshops that presumably make their kids more creative. I would bet you that most of them would turn out just like everyone else. No matter what you do, there is no guarantee that it would predictably or even statistically produce a creative person.
As to your concern about my daughter: If she tells me that she wants to study something, I would not get in her way. I would support her with whatever she wants to study or pursue (provided that I could afford it). I would not let my own opinion interfere with her development. It’s quite possible that if I encourage her to be creative, she ends up feeling discouraged. And, the opposite might happen too. So, why bother? Let her choose her own path. If she turns out to be a very creative person, it would be 100% her own achievement.
Ultimately creativity is a journey that you have to take on your own, alone. That is the whole point of creativity, to find and know who you truly are. Nobody can (nor should) help you in that process. All that a teacher can promise you is to impart all the tools you need along the journey. He may be able to inspire you but that is not something he can promise you (at least if he is honest).
It is very much like “Satori” (enlightenment) in Zen. A Zen master would say, “As long as you think I can ‘teach’ you how to achieve Satori, you never will.” A great master might be able to lead you there, but ultimately you will have to do it yourself. And, those masters who could potentially lead you there, would not promise nor claim such a thing. To be “creative” is to know and be who you truly are, and nobody else can do that for you. This is why those of us who are in the positions to “teach”, should not even pretend that we can teach “creativity”. It would only confuse the students, and possibly get in the way of their journey to creativity.
Hi again,
Thank you for replying once again. I don’t wish to hog any more of your time and I feel this debate could really do with some input from other voices so this will be my last post here.
I agree with much of what you say, but we still seem to be at cross purposes. Let me try to summarise our positions:
You’re arguing that people who claim to “teach creativity” are suspect because creativity cannot be taught.
I am
1: calling into question the logic of the initial question (“can creativity be taught”)
2: defending/championing the idea of teaching as something more expansive and multi-faceted than mere rote instruction or skill training.
Let me now try to clarify the first point:
Creativity is a disposition and dispositions such as motivation, curiosity and receptiveness cannot be taught. However, on this basis your question is predetermined to have a negative outcome and is therefore barely question at all.
And point 2:
I fully accept your remarks about Satori although unsurprisingly my British pragmatism tends to encourage me to dismiss it as mystical twaddle. As an aside I will take issue with this though:
“To be “creative” is to know and be who you truly are…”
Surely you mean “To be “enlightened” is to know and be who you truly are” – I’ve encountered plenty of incredibly creative people who don’t have the slightest idea who they truly are.
And finally:
“This is why those of us who are in the positions to “teach”, should not even pretend that we can teach “creativity”. It would only confuse the students, and possibly get in the way of their journey to creativity.”
Absolutely – I couldn’t agree with you more….except for one small point – you are suggesting that some of us “pretend” to teach creativity. I really think we need to get beyond this issue because it’s incredibly unhelpful and undermining to a group of people who contribute an extraordinary amount to society and are increasingly underrated and undervalued.
If we see teachers as simply automatons who just transfer knowledge and skill into our children then we’ll fail both our teachers, our children and our society in general.
Unfortunately we seem to be in a situation where education is being increasingly required to produce “results” and justify itself financially and this is especially difficult for creative subjects for the very reasons we have been discussing. In the US I think this situation is even more pronounced than in the UK where we still cling to the last vestiges of the principle of free education for all. However, even here in the UK the effects of the commercialisation of education are beginning to have profound effects on the quality and kind of education young people receive. Oscar Wilde was absolutely right when he wrote: “the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
Best
Jim (<a href=
“http://thoughtsonartandteaching.blogspot.com”)
Dear Mr Hamlyn,
This has been very helpful for me in organizing my thoughts about creativity. So, thank you for that.
I’d like to respond to some of your points:
Perhaps my question is indeed nonsensical, but if so, it is just as nonsensical as asking “Can kindness be taught?” “Can generosity be taught?” “Can courage be taught?” or “Can wisdom be taught?”. I think these are all interesting questions that are worth asking. I feel that creativity is only one of many.
As I explained before, it is easy to fall victim of Wittgensteinian bewitchment* with creativity, because the word has two different meanings that only loosely overlap. When we use the term “creative” to refer to a business like graphic design or toy design, we are using the word to describe a particular field. As a field, graphic design has a plenty of people who are not creative. Some designers simply apply what they have learned in school and nothing more. In other words, graphic designers are not any more creative than those in other fields (like finance, medicine, engineering, etc..) This is where the term gets quite confusing. So, when someone says, “My child is very creative,” it could mean two different things: 1. He likes to do artistic activities like painting, singing, or dancing. Or, 2. He is able to go beyond what he has learned from other people, and come up with his own unique way of solving problems. These two are VERY different. In fact, I feel that they shouldn’t share the same word. In the former, he may be involved in so-called “creative” activities, but he may just be repeating what someone else has taught him. This is one of the traps that I’m trying to avoid. Your example of “creative consultant” falls in this category. What the consultant is offering is not particularly “creative” even though it is in a field that is called “creative”.
“2: defending/championing the idea of teaching as something more expansive and multi-faceted than mere rote instruction or skill training.”
I think everyone has had one or two teachers who imparted something far beyond our expectations of “teachers”. My daughter too had some teachers who were priceless to her. But, it is also true that such experiences are not confined to teachers. I’ve met many people who profoundly influenced my life. These special people are special no matter what their occupations are. You could meet a baker who utterly transforms your life. So, your concern about your career being more expansive and multi-faceted is not limited to the field of teaching. We all strive for the same.
But at the same time, each occupation comes with a minimum set of expectations. If you are a baker, you should be able to bake breads. They do not have to be the world’s best breads, but at least they should be decent enough to eat. This is what we expect of you as a baker. But you might offer something far beyond that. Your bread might be truly unique, or one of the best in the country. You might even offer baking classes for your neighborhood children, supply your breads to homeless organizations, and train under-privileged people to be professional bakers. All these wonderful things are not expected of a baker, but some people do actually offer them. I see them as gifts, not requirements. I do not think that we should take these things for granted.
The same goes for teachers. I think what we expect of teachers is to teach the skills and knowledge that are clearly teachable. But if some of them go far beyond those expectations, they should be considered gifts.
I would have an issue if you want to claim that ALL teachers offer these great things because many of them clearly don’t. If a math teacher cannot teach math to his students, then we wouldn’t call him a “teacher”. He wouldn’t deserve that title. But it’s perfectly acceptable if he cannot inspire his students to be mathematicians. That shouldn’t be his responsibility. Failure to inspire does not strip him of the right to call himself a teacher.
If the title “teacher” were to include the ability to inspire his students, then obviously a “teacher” would be an amazing title, but do all teachers deserve such a title? Unfortunately no. In fact, this is not just teachers; it’s true with all the other occupations and careers. Not all graphic designers are inspirational. Not all bakers are inspirational.
“Surely you mean “To be “enlightened” is to know and be who you truly are” – I’ve encountered plenty of incredibly creative people who don’t have the slightest idea who they truly are.”
To be creative, is to go beyond rote learning, which means to put something of your own into what you produce. Even a simple observation about the world can reveal something about yourself. What is interesting about Wittgenstein’s observations is not so much their truth values but the way all of them together reveal about who Wittgenstein is. It is the particular angle and perspective that he brings to every subject that fascinates us.
To observe something about the world in our own ways, requires us to know who we are. We cannot separate the two. The more we know about ourselves, the more creatively we can see everything around us. That’s what creativity is. It’s something that cannot be obtained from rote learning; it’s something uniquely our own. If you don’t know who you are, you wouldn’t know how to be creative. By “know”, I don’t mean in a logical sense. Your self-knowledge could be intuitive. You may not be able to articulate logically who you are, but that is not what “knowing” yourself really is anyway.
My statement was a bit misleading; By “to know who you truly are”, I did not mean to say that you know EVERYTHING about yourself. It could be a tiny little thing that you learned about yourself. Nobody knows everything about oneself.
As for the financial aspect of teaching and education:
I was just talking to my wife about the positive impact that this recession has had on our public schools. Because many people no longer can afford to send their kids to private schools, they are sending their kids to public schools and getting more involved with improving the schools (volunteering and donating). I’m very happy about this. This is the way it should be. It’s too easy to try to solve everything with money. Wealth stifles creativity. I think seeing the parents and teachers trying to creatively solve various problems, would probably inspire our children to do the same. The problems and difficulties we face in our lives are opportunities for us to express our creativity. So, I’m quite optimistic.
* Referring to Wittgenstein remark: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”
I an editor of the magazine Ceramic Review. Imuch enjoyed reading your initial piece, and think it may make for a strong feature in thje magazine under a column ‘Off-Centre’, in which writers are invited to express ‘opinions’. Might this be of interest to you?
Emmanuel Cooper
A powerfull imagination is a gift , any teacher who says ” I can make your child creative ” is a lier . Hundreds of funny comments have been written by me on a cats website : http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com …….. Where did my powerfull imagination come from ? My father . In schools art is meant to look like photo’s , in music teachers notice that a child has musical talent but will he or she be able to write saleable music and finaly in English you forget about creativity and worry about your spelling and punctuation .
I have taught (English, music, writing, improvisation) for over 40 years. I encourage you to read the works of E. Paul Torrance.
In 1966, Torrance and his associates invented the “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking”. This test helped shatter the theory that IQ tests alone were sufficient to gauge real intelligence. The tests solidified what heretofore was only conceptual – namely that creative levels can be scaled and then increased through practice. (In addition to developing the most widely used tests of creativity, Torrance also created the Future Problem Solving Program.)
His work has made mine more simple. I have seen the results of creativity training; not only does it improve the disciple I may be teaching, but also general problem-solving skills, and social skills as well.
You may believe what you like. I hear it constantly: “She has no talent.”
“He has no creativity.” It is my experience that both “talent” and creativity CAN be taught.
Hi Duane,
Perhaps at the most mundane level of what we call “creativity”, that’s possible, but in order to “improve” or “increase” “creativity”, you must first define what “creativity” is. Otherwise you cannot measure the improvement or the increase. And, what you define as “creativity” would always be YOUR definition of what creativity is. Or Torrance’s or whoever wants to measure it.
A truly creative person would “shatter” your definition of “creativity” and therefore be immeasurable by your definition. Anyone who conforms to your definition is simply doing a rote learning of your “creativity”.
Creativity is typically used to refer to the act of producing new ideas, approaches or actions. It is not a simple definition, like a group of facts.
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).
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.
@Duane,
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.
Dyske, Dyske, Dyske,
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
Well, yes, “persistent”; that’s how everyone describes me. Not sure if that’s good or bad. I’m just pointing out the flaws in someone’s logic. I never quite understood why doing so is labelled as “persistent” or “dogmatic”. If one is not interested in knowing the flaws of one’s logic, I’m not sure why one should bother debating anything. So I persist. If anyone wants me to stop, all you have to do is to stop yourself. If someone posts something here, I feel obligated to respond, especially when the commenter leaves an email address to be notified of my response.
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.
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”.
Hmm. If creativity cannot be defined, then neither can dozens of other common nouns in English. Perhaps I can tell you what creativity is NOT: it is not genius; it is not innovation; it is not growth, or translation, or change.
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.
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”.
Hi again Dyske,
Point taken about the word “persistent” though this was meant as a compliment. If you’re dogmatic then I’m pedantic or is it the other way round – I’m not sure but perhaps trying to pigeonhole one another isn’t helping either.
“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.
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.
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.