I read something a bit ago. It's public on FB so here goes.
The
Paradox of Creativity in Education. All humans have the potential and
ability to be creative, and we do ourselves a disservice when we refer
to individuals such as Mozart and Einstein as the defining examples of
creativity to which we should all strive to emulate. This genius bar
misrepresents the concept of creativity and distracts us from the
necessary conversations on how to foster the creative mindset and why
it’s so important to include in conversations around education.
According to James Kaufman, a psychologist and researcher at the
University of Connecticut who presented last week at the Partnership for
21st Century Skills Summit, creative people are more likely to get
promoted, be satisfied with their jobs, be in better physical health and
be more resilient. Those are all outcomes we hope for our children.
http://ow.ly/ranEh
Personally I am conflicted because I think our great artists have been those to emulate.
I can't imagine stating otherwise even if I am playing Malcolm Gladwell and challenging recieved wisdom. I gain too much from Beethoven.
But that's digression.
I agree with some of this-because fostering creativity and thinking creatively, in education, is something I do know about, and cherish.
What this for some reason made me flash to was a conversation years ago in a car with a friend of a friend. She was actually pretty mean about it- but what she said, (upon learning I was studying art, art education and also a young artist), was something to the effect that people might work whole lives hidden from "view" working creatively without recognition-and weren't those really the folks more important to life-or life well lived. Who, she questioned, got it right-those with acclaim- or the great masses of us-that you never knew.
I was much younger than she was then, didn't have a context for her anger, but I thought it was an interesting question. She was actually trying to force me into an adversarial conversation on creativity. She was an unknown writer in a man's world.
I had nothing for Lourdes at the time.
She was too unhappy.
Later that evening I thought about quilting, folk arts, craft in Appalachia where I grew up. Ingenuity in saving, making, inventing. Largely unknown. But healthy and thriving as what consumed folks. But I think hers was a personal confrontation with who makes great art, or modern art, or an art without a craft-folk purpose-perhaps.
Is this journal writing here even remotely creative or like my blog of poems often feels-
just extremely bad?
She was facing knowing she was no Hemingway. Or her doubt around this.
Did he relate to the life she was in? Or is it a living art that transforms us, where we can release the comparisons and just be with making and doing? Which stance serves us well?
These are tough questions.
Eastern perspectives, western-also define our considering these things.
"creative people are more likely to get
promoted, be satisfied with their jobs, be in better physical health and
be more resilient"
I'm not sure I believe this, period. Nor think it anything but insistence EVERY SINGLE thing in Common Core land be pitched in the college and career ready-ese that is being required of us now. Arts-good-get better efficiency from worker. Really?
It sounds like this is saying in a reflexive property, if it doesn't get you a promotion- it doesn't exist in value. What's Beethoven, we need skills so you can ratchet up the decor at the office party or on the presentation, find a new way to make a million. Or use the ipad in a way that sells even more.
I've seen that at the Common Core trainings.
Nice.
Art is "coming back" they say.
WHY DID IT GO AWAY I ASK?
And I'm not looking at data here-maybe art is terrific life granola as asserted--data was sort of cited, however Is this the data set that will win out in the end? And I can't assess that.
Reminds me of an article I just read-Why Yoga? No, not for the eastern reason for it. But to be there to counter the 99% antithetical life you are in, to gain a few more days out of your pancreas and stress responding system to get a good night's sleep (when you really need to understand a way to live a life in harmony). Oh go ahead charge the data plan, and get the newest technological wonder-live now. Yoga and then hit the bars.
As a person with art talent it usually resulted in considerable stress for me, starting with a dad who thought it was a huge waste of time-and unworthy of college pursuit- to jealous friends or ones with bare walls and empty wallets, or more likely teaching co-workers far from awe, it gave me more demands- like a peer teacher for 15 years mining my art teaching, my buying myself to do that art for us out of personal pocket and servicing their class for free too. No thanks for that. No $. No recognition. After all they couldn't do it. And they surely weren't going to be bothered to teach to my kids in another domain-why should they? I was given the OPPORTUNITY to use my skills. JOY. That is what a creative person faces.
And could I crochet or paint or somehow service in other ways in home and work too. Stress. It was a life art theme. I'm not sure that is resilience. Maybe I'll one day do a PHD on resilience and try to look at the question. It has been expensive to make art. Taken time, effort, thought. To almost no acknowledgement. I mounted a school wide art fair a few years ago-after being ASKED to. No one sent art, they weren't interested. After school, for free, for eight weeks buying materials I taught three days a week an extra hour and a half. Then I matted all the work. Then I hung with my daughter over 800 pieces- we matted like madmen. It was beautiful. Because one teacher "decided" I'd done the art on "teaching time" which was not what I did, she lined her kids up against the wall of art on purpose ripping about 30 pictures-damaging some permanently-there she showed me. The day after it went up I took it all entirely down. I'll never, ever do anything like that again.
Just this blog was a commitment of at least 20 hours at least a week on my time-more for my student one-and what happened rather than seen as a creative tour de force (which it is/was)-I'm ultimately scolded -saddened by the person who mined years of free art classes, paintings and generally used creativity-who questions it.
It has been difficult to process the dual nature of creativity-you are master of the universe and completely awful. Work in art often disappoints you, points out your flaws, it is like churning in mud much of the time. I hide 99% of what I do personally, hundreds of things, under my bed. You'll never know. It'll disappear in no time certainly. In fact I couldn't GIVE it away when I truly wanted to.
No one seeks out my creative ideas at work-you must be kidding.
Never.
I'm in trouble for having that line of thought.
I'm the most visible invisible person I've known demonstrating creativity.
This teaching world has punished many public school teachers for making art under NCLB -narrowed-referred to the arts as basically trivial. I was not alone. I was singled out for being more educated in art than anyone I know- and more skilled -and it was launched in my face as my deficit.
"I question your use of instructional minutes in art."
That has greeted my work to develop creative students at a high level. Well thanks.
I question it as well.
Go where you are wanted.
I'm not a fool, my work in art as a way to develop language, meaning, scholarly thought speaks for itself. It is/has been very good for children. Very useful. And it might help them define futures.
So what?It HAS changed lives.
Go ahead-talk about what you do not know-my blood pressure is headed through the roof. I'm not healthy from insisting on remaining creative in teaching work. If art is good for promotion, for health, for being resilient-that wasn't really feeling evident to me. I am far from promotion. I can never hope to even be restored to Leadership or a grade level chair position. Not in my life, no matter what. On the other hand as a young person I responded to adversity by creating. And in my youth it was a compulsion. It still is. I respond to life by creating.
This blog is a creative construct. A reaction to issues I cannot directly address, a way to BE CREATIVE in my teaching life- isolated in NCLB- and aware that the rigid mandating took away my profession-while many willingly cheated children out of the development of these creative capacities-something I view as important to recognize. Common Core, they say, is better.
But who says it ?
It's two ends of a burning rope actually.
To make someone creative is to open them to critique, exposure, risk, resentments, group condemnation, to free them to reflect, think, invent, be different and challenging, but it will cull them from a group quicker than you can say Jackie Robinson.
I don't think it's a way to get job satisfaction in factory and corporate models, perhaps, and I don't know a single artist ever that I thought of as a model for physical health.
That may be improving. Except in dance and not really in dance. Too thin. Often anorexic.
But if you want to talk about what it does-then prepare to look at life in a complex way.
An artist looks differently. Which isn't often cherished.
But it is necessary in change, and since we are always changing it's a pretty important thing.
It will be the creative person that is the odd one out in the grade level, say, where the norm is all striving to be on the same page. The artist will offend that impulse for sameness - but they will also be trying to think deeply in new ways. They will not be doing that for spite. Nor is their ability a shame thing. It is an accomplishment. It is a kind of genius. Isn't it?
But on point if you are living creatively I think what you are doing is learning to think, challenge, well...I'm thinking of my Dad's third wife. She was a dancer, American Ballet Theater, then a dance teacher. She took up quilting when she was with my Dad in her 50's. Her first quilt won state fairs and competitions in a state where quilters are legend. Each successive one more brilliant than the last. What I knew was she went into quilting already a highly competent creative thinker. She quilted like she choreographed, like she danced, because over her life (she danced young)-she developed her creativity. Janet may well be able to teach creativity or give a TED talk- of that I have no doubt- but more likely she is engaged in a creative life.
I don't think this brought her greater job satisfaction.
Crap I think work was sh*t for her. She got out never looking back.
And I think she strives for the heights through art actually.
I think that genius thing is in her construct of creativity. You are darn right.
I think what it did do was allow her the guts to risk to live creatively.
Not conforming to a clique. Health? Well high blood pressure. So, no, to ask that we teach the arts through kids lives and encourage arts isn't about selling it as the new grapefruit diet.
I don't think it'll solve global warming either.
I
worked at one point in my career closely with someone that lacked
creative impulses.
I studied them over a long time. They could manipulate another to achieve them doing something for them they ought to do for themselves, but as far as
designing lessons or creative experiences, no.
Not willing to try to cook, or to make, or to even think through that lens-when really it was a complete lack of acting on creative impulses- I'm sure for a variety of reasons-including failure to risk and open the direct connection to love necessary.
For creation is that impulse.
Modeling working creatively over time did
very little for them, it took too much from my health and happiness- but built a deep resentment-as their frame was set. In some ways this left almost nothing to be shared but resentment, competition and the usury frame our association took. But, in regards to the quote here, what I think about is how the person was a sort of a consumer of arts. If it made you look good-she'd get that. I wonder about arts and the Common Core. So far I read in Common Core nothing that sounds like what I know of art in life.
And a lot that sounds like that relationship we had.
Nothing of art's purpose as we have known art in every culture we've encountered it.
And that was not to get job satisfaction or have less heart disease.
I think it was to process
being human.
And I think we'll need our geniuses and our cultural valuing as a force-over our seeing art as something we can talk up as a new toy to possess and test and use. But..I've been wrong before.
View comments