Saturday, October 19, 2013
Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been Creative?
Butts In the Seats: There was an article on Salon this weekend which noted that while people in creative fields are facing increasingly difficult times, the amount of literature/media celebrating creativity continues to increase. The author basically concludes that the idea of creativity is valued, but society doesn’t really actively seeks out and support creatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
When I was little I was very creative, and I think that lasted until middle school. The middle school I went to was terrible and certainly did not encourage thinking outside the box or anything artistic. Writing in high school brought back a lot of what I had lost but not nearly all of it. College is completely different. My first year I did the same soul crushing stuff I normally did in the math department, with on exception. I took Basic Design with Susan Tsu. The whole course was about thinking outside the box and it got me back into it. I would be comfortable calling myself a creative person now, still not artistically skilled, not really a great drawer or painter or the like, but I can come up with the ideas.
I would definitely have to say that even if you weren't exceptionally creative when you entered school at CMU, the professors and classes at CMU pretty much will make you a creative-minded person. Even though I believe that it is easier for people who are naturally creative to survive in the arts world, I do believe that there is a way that anyone can become creative if they want it badly enough. Creativity can come in all shapes and sizes. The classes that we have taken so far have really furthered my creativity. Susan Tsu's, Basic Design was a wonderful way to begin exploring design here at CMU, and Olivier's Nose was a class unlike anything I have ever heard of before. CMU really nows how to cultivate a creative mind.
I have often wondered about this question. The article does well when examining how people are not encouraged to actively become creative, but I was confused as to the definition of creativity. The article paraphrases creativity as physically creating a product (art, music, dance, movement/acting, etc), but there is another side of creativity that separates itself from mere reproduction; that is originality. If creativity is defined by creating an original product/idea, I would have to say that no one is creative. I wouldn't even define myself as creative. I am always influenced by the past and present, so I cannot confidently say that I am original or creative. I think this is a very important issue in the art world. Many say that they are creative because they have thought up and created something new to the world, something never seen before. But the fact is, it probably has been seen and made before; we are just too ignorant to realize this. We are always consciously and subconsciously inspired by the world around us, so the idea for our creation was not "original" at all. I think the term "creative" is overused for this reason.
Keeping in mind that the survey was specifically for participation in the arts, inclusive of viewing and not exclusive to creating art, who's to say that it doesn't foster creativity? I don't want to be making a meta "what is art" comment here, but creativity includes the ability to perceive a situation from a new point of view. Frankly, some of my most creative classes have absolutely nothing to do with fine art. But then what is taught that could so full of creativity, you ask? A different way of thinking. A new vantage point to a problem. A way to find a new, complex, strange, perplexing, yet somehow simple solution. All it takes is the right mindset. And to me, that should be just as creative as sketching some clouds.
This is sort of a hard topic to address. Is it good that people listen to TED talks and NPR? Yes. Do people sometimes think that just listening is enough participation? I'm sure that they do. I think I do too sometimes. Sometimes I listen to a TED talk and think, look at how smart these people are. They must have the solutions. If we've got thinkers like this, spreading their ideas, everything will be okay. But of course it isn't enough to just listen. We need more creative solutions than just those presented to us by these talks or radio shows and we need more people to actually take action and get behind things.
I really don't think you can discount the creativity of being a receptor of art or as the author dubs it "passive". I think that there is so much creativity in experiencing art or something creative, that it's just as significant of an experience as someone who is doing the actual creating. So much of art is based upon the interactive experience between the artists and the observer. Fundamentally what would become of creativity if it wasn't observed and interacted with somebody else? I know you can argue that it is still fulfilling to the creator, but that to me makes creativity to be self serving, and I really don't think that to be the case.
Like Lindsay I was a little confused on the author's idea of creativity. His idea seem to be the desire or the practice of making art. He explained that going to events was just participation while the only way to be creative was to do something along the lines of "picking up a guitar, writing poems and short stories, sketching the clouds." While I agree going to events is just participation and does not build creativity, I don't think all practice of art build creativity as well. I think creativity is something extremely hard to measure.I think it is a mindset and a way of thinking. I don't think that by drawing a hundred pictures of clouds I am creative. I think it is an additive process of looking at what you have and how to improve it. I believe that creativity will does this several times not just once. I think it is the process of seeing new things, and in different ways. By drawing a hundred pictures of clouds and seeing new things in each one, none of which are in the clouds then I am creative.
I believe that everyone has the ability to be creative but that some people are more restricted than others when it comes to accessing this creativity. Meaning, some people are more comfortable with consistent structure and repurposing or enjoying what has already been created than synthesizing something new. I do not believe there is anything wrong with either person. I do believe however that many people in steady jobs look down at people in the arts as getting "silly degrees" yet they go home and watch a movie or listen to music that is created by artists. It doesn't seem fair to discredit these artists' time spend honing their craft when you wouldn't be satisfied with their level of performance if they hadn't undertaken this training in the first place.
This question haunts my mind a fair bit now days. I know I have the artistic skills so back up my creativity, but do I really even have creativity. Its one of the things that has hindered me from making a decision to go into design. I have no doubt i used to be creative, i can remember when I was little creating things in my mind all the time and making them come to life, but now ive been bogged down by life and responsibility and i think that clouds my creativity. Im constantly thinking about things and my mind is constantly going, where as when i was little my mind was so free. And then you have to ask your self, what even is creativity? how do you define that? And is anything even remotely new anymore? In the amount of years that have come and gone can we really do something new and innovative?
I read a similar article to this last week, and I came to the conclusion that everyone is born with the ability to be creative and to live a creative life, but that society inherently pushes most kids in a more science or general educational direction. For a lot of people it really depends on where/ who you live with that determines whether or not you feel like you can really embrace the creativity that is within. I think everyone who is attending theater school here at Carnegie Mellon has lived a life in which they were supported in their creativity. Everyone here feels like they can be who they are and pursue their creative goals even when the majority of Americans do not see theater as a livelihood or accepted lifestyle. I think even though people are not as encouraged to be artists in today's society, those who actually pursue what we do are admired or even revered. People should always be encouraged to be creative and to invent new ways of thinking.
All through middle school and high-school I attended gifted and talented extracurricular classes. Creativity and thinking outside of the box was always a returning motif in many of the classes. I think that like the author of the article said, everyone believes in the importance of creativity. However, no one has really defined what creativity is. Just like the article say, you can call many things creative but most of them aren't really so.
I think that there is much more to the study of creativity than what this article shows. I'm sure that there are books about it in the library.
Creativity is a very hard term to define. To me, I think that creativity is when a person thinks in an untraditional way in order to create something. Here at CMU, I feel that we are encouraged to release our creativity, and absorb the creativity of others. By doing this we will push the boundaries of theater to places they have never been. Thus using our creativity to create new and innovative projects and performances.
Post a Comment