Teaching creativity
 

Years ago I participated in an faculty committee reviewing undergraduate requirements for medical students.
Of course, there was a lot of discussion about science and math courses.
But I advocated for the requirement for arts and music based on the idea that once
entered medical / dental school, there was little or no time left for students to explore the fine arts.

Now, I'm distressed that our public schools are short-changing students due to budget cuts,
and the fine arts are not doing well in the competition for teacher-time and effort and funding

Yesterday, our Oregon Public Broadcasting had an episode about teaching creativity in schools.
Maybe this is happening in your school systems, but if it is not I believe it should be.

FYI before you watch the program here
Prineville is a old, small town in Central Oregon - ranching, timber, cattle, sheep
Rex Putnam is a Portland high school being hit by extreme budget cuts

It is a shame if our public teaching institution have lost sight of what creates a successful person, and a successful culture, to the point that they don't realize that creative thinking is what spurs invention and innovation. This is short-sighted thinking--a symptom of our "bottom line" culture that is being left in its own self-imposed dark ages. Memorization of facts, and high scores on a test that you have been trained to take (like a monkey) creates a useless person. Useful only to a soulless machine state.

However, as the parents of children, we can, and should take the driver's seat in the task of traning the next generation of adults of to "think" effectively. My family has struggled financially to exist on a single income, so that one parent can be on hand 24/7 to address any "teachable moments" that occur during these formative years.

With human knowledge growing exponentially, and what we thought we knew changing rapidly, (plus revising to be politically correct), there's a lot of pressure on schools and students, for both time and resources. The three R's are not even being taught well in a lot of poorer school districts.

I saw an article recently where a CA school district were wailing because they couldn't afford instruments for all the students. WTF, when I was walking uphill both ways, we had to buy or rent our own instruments. I think sticking the taxpayers with the instruction is quite enough.

Yes, music and arts should happen at home, except lots of parents were never expose either, but the taxpayers are struggling too. I've been paying a fortune for a long time to fund these schools, and I've been angry more than a few times about how they piss away money. No, Johnny doesn't need a brand new computer, he can use the one Jenny was using last year, same as the textbooks. No, we don't need lights on the outside basketball courts, when the kids go home in the middle of the afternoon, and the courts are locked up after school.

It doesn't require an unberable burden of resources to introduce elementary school children to classical music, teach them who Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are. Teach them how to sing do re mi fa so la ti do. Show them what a color wheel is and how it works. What the primary and secondary color are. These are basic things that just require someone to consider them important enough for us to put an hour of the school day aside to show the children these things. Give them the chance to develop an interest.

All of these things I am doing at home, but every parent isn't going to do that.

I disagree. By the time med students, or engineers, get into college, they usually have a good idea on what they want to do and the classes they take are on their dollar. Instead of art or music classes they could get out a semester early, and avoid a semester worth of loans, or take more classes that will (hopefully) make them better at their profession. Even if they are forced to take those classes, which my classmates and I were, we took them pass/fail and did just enough to pass. I have an interest in a lot of the liberal arts classes but I'm going to choose studying structural design over John Locke any day of the week. I would recommend liberal arts classes that do have medical or engineering relevance though (drawing, powerpoint stuff, public speaking, etc).


In elementary school, I would agree with art classes if the budget allows but there should also be an emphasis on problem solving in the curriculum. If we are just going for creativity, problem solving takes just as much as art. But, I think there is more reasons to teach art at a young age than just creativity so I wouldn't cut it out all together.

The trouble is that students are not medical or engineering students when they get to college... they are (only) high school graduates.
Some have ideas about what they may want to do, but those ideas are often immature and/or unrealistic
and/or coming perhaps from pressure or tradition of their parents, etc. etc...

Our family took the positions that undergraduate college was a place and time
to explore the world outside of the family, and not just a job-training program,
even if they wanted to eventually go into medicine or other graduate training.
The same can be said for colleges known for engineering or agriculture or business management or whatever.

A student can justify job training almost anywhere along the pathway to adulthood,
but it turns out to be very difficult after using the college years for job training to then try to go back to college
to pick up courses missed in history or literature or philosophy or art or music or whatever.

I believe that after a some years of actual employment in any field, people start looking for other areas of self-fulfillment, and
if they have not ever explored the fine arts or creative pathways
they are at a loss compared with those who have explored and tested their breadth of own interests.
It's those other interests that often can lead to what I perceive as contentment.

Cribbing this post in its entirety from another forum:

After I submitted my post above, I realized I had not included the pic's that I thought would help make my point.

Here they are...
These are two bridges in Portland across the Willamette River, built about the same time (1925 - 1929).
But one is and always has been an eye sore.
The other gets raves from residents and tourists alike.

There are parks beneath each bridge with grass and benches and parking.
The St John's Cathedral Park is often crowded while the Sellwood Park is usually deserted.

I contend the differences are based on history and art and religion and design, beyond just the knowledge of structural engineering.

:notworthy

I have to look around in my notes from school (furniture design) where I read that in Victorian times the shape of the mouldings, cornices, and other architectural details were not simply ornamental but had symbolic meanings and referred to broader concepts. Looking at a Victorian building with an educated eye one could essentially "decode" a message.

Here is a link to other Victorian symbolism:
http://victorianhairjewelry.com/symbols.html

When I was younger I worked at a high end woodworking tool store and we had a bunch of tools wired to peg board as samples. One day I had to get a new caliper from stock for a customer and he said it wasn't the right one, even though the stock # matched. I checked the new tool against the old one on the peg board and was disheartened to see how cheaply made the new one was.

The old caliper had a beautifully turned adjusting knob with fine knurling and a delicate bead and cove detail, the handle had a small turned finial, and the whole thing was polished. The newer one in comparison, from the same company, had a die cut flat knob with coarse knurling, a stamped caliper and a small steel dowel as a handle. Probably made with five steps as opposed to fifteen or twenty. Score one for the bean counters who do not factor in the lifetime of handling and working with an object of beauty.

Early American Furniture is segregated into different periods and the first period or style of furniture is often called "Survival." It's the Pilgrim's equivalent of cement blocks and pine boards for a bookshelf, characterized by lack of ornamentation and finish, it is wholly utilitarian. It wasn't until later when houses were built, fields were planted, and people had a leg up that furniture began to become decorative. It seems strange that we've regressed in many ways to an aesthetic that is so primitive and brutish.

You really only see such crappy work as the second bridge when you look at eastern germany and russia during communism.

Ok, this is up my alley. I teach visual art, and recognize the unique sort of knowing that happens with hands on creative studio practices. That said, creativity isnt just part of arts education (although, in schooling it is most often where its able to exist) Creative thinking should be supported, invited, encourages across and through all primary education. thinking such as metaphor making, perspective shifting, question finding or raising, and good old reasoning are practiced in creative arts, science, design practices. And those are the practices that make up 21st c life...at least a participating, functioning, agentic life...which is what I would hope for all kids.

But back to the art programs in K-12...for some kids art is the critical link that allows, invites and motivates them to find meaning in their schooling. Along with art studio practices are moments of expression and if lucky, a pivotal moment of , for lack of any other way to describe it, an aesthetic experience of possibility, value, validity, future. The payoff for both teacher and students.

There is much focus on art studio habits of mind: looking at the processes of art learning, rather than sole focus on products. Naming these maps them out but when rolling, they're fluid and spiraling rather than linear.

develop craft-- engage & persist--envision---express--- observe--reflect--stretch & explore-- connect with art worlds.

So support arts in schools=== quality teachers are more important than snazzy gear. And visiting artist and field trips are not enough to cover for the elimination of a comprehensive arts program. Visual arts and language arts have never been closer in content, processes and in real world creative literacy application. I think that's pretty cool.

But they work, they are cheaper to build, and way cheaper to maintain. And with the money left over you can build a park with fountains, sculptures and swans, out of the way of the damn traffic.
But I do agree on the tactile pleasure of using my old school machinist tools.:blush:

I'm not sure I see the connection between art and critical thinking, except expanded knowledge/experience shows there's more than one way to skin a cat. But however kids get it, the younger the better, methinks.

It's a shame that most (make up a big percentage for the internet) kids, don't have the luxury of using their undergraduate years to find themselves and their social status. No, most have to struggle to even get in four years, and then struggle to get out from under the massive debt. That means learn something useful, get out as quickly as possible, and get a job.

regarding critical thinking...
When engaged in actively making meaning from something like art with multiple possibilities you have the great potential to exercise many forms of critical thinking. When that process happen within a group of people- as shared audience or collaborative makers, its really rich. Its what so many do here with image of the day....it sparks connections, personal narrative, cultural references, it leads to judgment, debate, and the negotiation of what this thing might possibly merit and mean to anyone or everyone

OK, so it is the expanded scope of possibilities then, either by personal broader experience/knowledge or by collaboration.

Hey, isn't there something about art by committee? :lol:

Actually, the St Johns bridge was built as it is because it was lighter
and therefore less expensive than the older Sellwood type.
It's construction was completed early and under budget.
But it's artistic beauty was not requisite for a suspension bridge design

While some students entering 4-year colleges may be there for some sort of job training kind of experience,
I think you see such attitude and experience more at the community college level where costs are lower
and the age of the students tend to be older.
Many students at community colleges are already working...
at jobs they either don't like or they are specifically in need of job training,
OR they are students taking college credit courses for financial reasons (e.g., still live at home).

Occasionally even TheCellar is more fun when philosophy and art are in a Dwellar's toolbox... link

Ideally, I don't disagree with you but I have my stance because I didn't really learn anything in my classes outside of engineering. I can also say with a pretty large amount of confidence that others in my field will say the same. The only class where I felt I learned anything was a history class and that is because I was interested in the topic and the TA was excellent.

What it comes down to is that people are going to learn in what they are interested in. If an engineer or medical student is interested in art or music, by all means let them take it because they will most likely get something out of it, but if an engineer or medical student is not interested in art in music, forcing them to take a class won't accomplish anything. As I said earlier, I have no problem with allowing students to take classes outside they are field for exploration or interest reasons or forcing students to take classes that will build a skill set (public speaking or writing for example) but I don't see much actually getting accomplished from forcing students to take classes outside their field for exploratory reasons.

And some students do come into college knowing exactly what they will do. Some take a few years to find it.

I disagree. People are different. Some people find enjoyment in fine arts, some people find enjoyment in math. And keep in mind by math I mean actual problem solving, not long division.

This is getting a bit off topic, but engineering is much more than just math. Everything must be taken into consideration when an engineering company gives out a proposal for a bid on whatever needs to be designed. If the bridge is out in the middle of nowhere, the cheapest bridge is probably sufficient. If the bridge is in the middle of the city, architecture, aesthetics, and historical factors should always be taken into consideration. If you don't another company will get the job.

And the terrifying thing is that often the visually/aesthetically illiterate are making judgment calls about whether these projects are approved.

Our infrastructure is falling apart, in many cases, because people more worried about aesthetics and environmental impact, drag projects out for years and drive the costs so high, the projects never get done. Often the engineers don't even propose repairs, knowing the shit they'll be up against. They let things deteriorate until the inevitable necessity generates public/political pressure to cut out the bullshit and get it done.

Can you teach creativity? Or can you just provide an environment in which it is encouraged/allowed to develop/nurtured?

They get plenty of art instruction time at my kids' school, but it seems to me to be far less creative than many of their other subjects. "Draw this" "use this technique" "learn the complementary colors on the wheel", :Learn the fact about the life of Van Gogh" Even in the higher grades where it's an elective.

And I'd've been really mad if I was forced to take art at uni. an option, great, but mandatory? No. Of course in the UK, students specialize much earlier. it didn't even used to be mandatory past 9th grade.

Funny, while all this discussion of theories of teaching and learning is taking place, I'm either attending a uni staff training course where I have to reflect on my personal philosophy of teaching or developing the curriculum for a topic in philosophy of Education.

I don't want to come over all professional expert on this stuff because the discussion is really good as it is. In fact, maybe Imma cite youse guys.

Part of the problem is that opening a new civic feature wins votes, but closing a bridge for six weeks to do maintenance ticks people off.

Do we say spineless politicians? or stupid voters?

Our infrastructure is not falling apart because kids make macaroni collages in grade school. Our infrastructure is falling apart because of MBAs.

Amen !

Both.

Yes, and lawyers.

Regarding the post about Craigslist ads ---

The same could be said for (ahem) writers.

There are endless ads on Craigslist and other job sites asking writers to do stuff for free, and for piddly, insulting rates that might as well be free.

Granted, sometimes all they want are words on a page, not quality words. But I am SICK of talking to people who think they can hire a skilled copywriter for $15/hour. Yes, they can hire a copywriter for that rate, or even less and they might not be educated enough themselves to know the difference between the output of, say, ME, and some guy in India.

Fortunately there are plenty of folks out there who don't mind paying for the real thing, but it's frustrating to wade through the crap just to find them. If you let it, it can lead to second-guessing yourself and wondering if you're right about your own value.

Which is kinda where I am now. I'm better than I've ever been, but having more trouble than I ever have. :(

It's the economy, and bastards trying to take advantage of the it's-the-economy-mindset, Juniper, not you.

You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people Like you! :D

regarding the question of if creativity is "teachable"...our idea of teaching can be limiting, through our own experience of schooling through direct instruction/demo-- and that is an effective strategy for some things-- how to thread a sewing machine, how to add and subtract, etc.
I am a big fan of making stuff. Good teaching also includes creating or designing opportunities for creative experience- think lab or studio, or challenging play. I think it is helpful to make the examples of creative work visible and to instill reflection/critique as part of the process. I think that's how creativity is fostered, demonstrated, risked, learned. Its hard to assess, can sometime be very educational yet product-wise seem a horrible failure, doesn't fit basic skills models of teaching. For many this is the meaningful life stuff that engages them, pushes them outside of school and work. Too bad they can't merge a bit more.

Daniel Pink is the dude that's often charged with saying that the MFA is the new MBA...not sure I necessarily like what all that implies...but its interesting.
This is a great piece about creative motivation, creatively delivered. hope the linkie works

That video is SO cool. Really inspiring. I've heard about Daniel Pink but never really looked into his stuff, now I'm going to have to do that.

About the MFA, though -- I'm reading a book now called The Portable MFA and the author says that basically if you do the MFA (as a writer, anyhow) you're worse off than you'd be without it because you end up with nothing of value plus $50K in debt. Want to improve your creative performance? Read and write. A lot. I can groove to that.

I'm going to get an M.A. anyway. Screw the F part. ;)

Anyone else remember the Why Man Creates movie from high school. I love The Ediface section.

Arabian one: I've invented the zero!
Arabian two: What?
Arabian one: Oh, nothing, nothing.

You can watch a clip here.

I remember a parallel idea from my (required by my major to broaden my mind just like Lamplighter wanted) Psychology class in college. The basic principal, backed by several studies, was that people's enjoyment of a tedious task was inversely proportional to the amount they got paid for it.

For example, give a bunch of people a little picture puzzle to put together, maybe 150 pieces. Pay some of them $1 to do it, some $15, and some $50. When asked afterwards, the people who got paid more would report that they didn't really enjoy the task, it was dumb but whatever. The people who were paid less reported that they actually had fun, and some even asked to get to do another one. The theory is that in the absence of real reward, the brain will fabricate internal rewards in order to justify having done the task in the first place. This is slightly different than the video, since that was looking less at personal enjoyment and more on successful performance. But of course his idea is that enjoyment will lead to more successful innovations.

But I think the big problem with his philosophy is lifestyle inflation: he says pay them "enough to take money off the table," so that they aren't specifically worried about the amount of money they have. But it's my experience that over time most people inflate their lifestyles such that soon they are worried about the money again. Say you quietly, unofficially put caps on your employees' salaries, and once they reached that point they only received other "benefit raises," like more autonomy, etc. It would work for awhile, but I think at some point even your best employees would get lured away by soulless jobs that paid more. They might end up being less happy in their new jobs, but they'd still decide to go there anyway because people will believe that the money will make them happier. You can make the supposedly ideal work environment, but you can't necessarily make people see that it's ideal.

I guess if the money is big, the finished puzzle becomes the focus, but small money means the journey is the focus. Interesting, but trying to determine the proper size of large and small, would be difficult with all the variables.

That doesn't explain why a wall street trader making 10 million a year, having more money than they could possibly need, will leave for a job paying 11 million. There's more at work there, ego, bragging rights, fear of being ridiculed/loss of prestige, for not chasing the bucks.

There's probably more to it at that point, I agree. But I bet that guy would also tell you about this incredibly sweet classic car that he just needs to add to his fleet of 30 other vintage pieces. And you know, it really would make sense to have a second vacation home up in the Hamptons so that they wouldn't need to arrange for travel every single time they go...

On the flip side, there are certainly others in this world who would point to you or I and say we are filthy rich by their standards, and certainly have all that we could possibly need.

It's true, we do have everything we need, and much more, so it's a matter of what you want vs need, methinks. The fly in the ointment would be if I'm not happy with what I've got, I probably won't be happy with what I want.

Unlike zippy-t, who's happy period. We can all envy that bastard. :D