Creativity is the most valuable resource we have available.
It is the foundation upon which both the arts and sciences are established.
There is no situation in the world where the phrase, "Oh, what a predictable solution!" is considered praise.
And yet, institutions, I would say categorically kill creativity in youth.
Sir Ken Robinson makes one of the most compelling appeals to redeveloping the school model in order to capitalize rather than economize our growing workforce in an ever-changing world:
If you don't have time to watch the entire TED talk (which is brilliant) here are some key points:
- Creativity (defined) is the ability to come up with new ideas that have value
- Creativity is impossible without the ability to fail or to make mistakes
- Failure and mistakes are precisely the thing schools stigmatize every day
- Creativity is not learned, but natural, and can be schooled out of children
Here is a chart of the Scientific Method:
I've made it color coded for convenience and to be less scary.
It is a flow chart, essentially you come up with an idea, draw on past experience, test it, figure out of it is working, and if it is, draw conclusions, and finally share that with others.
Now this chart daunts middle/high schoolers of all ages.
AND YET! AAAAAAND YET!
Babies do this.
That's right.
Fucking babies:
Babies perform research.
They have rich, detailed ideas about how the world works, and when it doesn't fit into their mold, they engage with it, expecting further discoveries.
Creativity and research go hand in hand since we are infants.
To squash one will kill the other.
It is so innately human to be curious about the world, to feel awe in the face of wondrous objects, and to search for truth and replicate it.
And yet we deny children and teenagers the ability to search for their own unique perspective on the world: schools cut funding to sports and arts programs, colleges are reduced or combined, and parents and teachers tell children that their hobbies are not careers.This is the single greatest calamity to happen to the education of our youth, a remnant of the Industrial Era where our education system is lodged, where children are run with factory bells to train them (can you say: Pavlovian conditioning?), where maths, sciences, and finally the humanities are given importance, rather than equal or individual study.
Keith Johnstone, an improviser and theatre teacher, says this in his seminal work Improv:
I once had a close rapport with a teenager who seemed 'mad' when she was with other people, but relativly normal when she was with me. I treated her rather as I would a Mask--that is to say, I was gentle, and I didn't try to impose my reality on her.
I'm remembering her now because of an interaction she had with a very gentle, motherly schoolteacher. We were in a beautiful garden (where the teenager had just seen God) and the teacher picked a flower and said: 'Look at the pretty flower, Betty.'
Betty, filled with spiritual radiance, said, 'All the flowers are beautiful.'
'Ah,' said the teacher, blocking her, 'but this flower is especially beautiful.'Betty rolled on the ground screaming. Nobody seemed to notice that she was screaming, 'Can't you see? Can't you see!'
In the gentlest possible way, this teacher had been very violent. She was insisting on categorising, and selecting. Actually it is crazy to insist that one flower is especially beautiful in a whole garden of flowers, but the teacher is allowed to do this, and it is not perceived by sane people as violent. Grown-ups are expected to distort the perceptions of the child in this way. Since then I've noticed sch behavior constantly, but it took the mad girl to open my eyes to it.I say let us be gentle with one another, let us not insist or push our own realities on one another.
In so doing, I hope that we can understand one another and learn from one another.
No one can teach you to be creative, no one can teach you to be an artist, no one can teach you to be a scientist; you already are one.
And no one can take that from you.
My chemistry teacher in high school discussed this at the beginning of every year. Explaining that babies would use the scientific method; specifically on gravity, testing again and again whether and how things fall. But, he said, adults who already knew about gravity would get fed up and frustrated and stop them from trying it so many times. Ie: "You're making a mess" "I'm tired of cleaning up after you" "I can tell you how it will go".
ReplyDeleteI remember that he used to teach class by giving us material to read and then asking us to come with questions about the material. I remember being so frustrated because I understood so little that I couldn't figure out how to form a question. Plus none of my other teachers had ever taught that way: "what do you want to learn more about?"
I remember being frustrated because I didn't know what I would be tested on and I was usually so good at tests.
But when I became a graduate student who got to write essays and answer more complex questions. I came to really love the question asking format. Now moving into performing in an environment where I am asked questions, I find that initial resistance bubbling up in me again. It's a difficult thing to contend with when you've been taught for most of your life that there are correct answers given to you and that you are first given info by a teacher/director/"adult".
It makes me think of Martin Buber's I/Thou relationships. Teachers and Directors and Students and Actors--how do we go about creating I/Thou relationships within power dynamics that have relied on the assumption of unequal roles? How do we account for the imbalance of knowledge/experience? What type of steps do we take and experiment with?
Haha, back to the scientific method for social interaction... I suppose we become masters at experimenting ... a lot of courage huh?
I've found some interesting blocks and tensions from actors, directors, students, and teachers whenever this approach is used.
DeleteI find I prefer the questions, I prefer saying, 'I don't know'.
It is wonderfully liberating knowing one is not responsible for the answers and therefore everyone can and (hopefully) does contribute.
However, in regards to actors, I have found that sometimes saying, 'I don't know' immediately puts them ill at ease.
Ingrained bias towards the system, towards expectations creates a very stressful atmosphere.
It usually manifests with the words, "I don't know what you want."
It can be terrifying to take artistic leaps of faith; I know that; we as actors/people know that.
So it is not surprising when actors respond with fear in the face of the unknown, but relying on past rehearsal (lines must be memorized), relying on 'certainties' (like concept), I have seen good artists turn to something less, and, on occasion, respond with accusations, ultimatums, and downright bitchiness.
I've always liked the I/Thou understanding.
How do we create these relationships within hierarchies?
I prefer the Buddhist mentality: treat everyone as if they are a buddha (because they are). Assume, on principle, that everyone is teaching you something useful with every action they do.
Is this easy? No. Is this easy to remember every moment? Fuck no.
But if you come to the stage with various experiences/viewpoints with which to share and commune, a richer, more full experience will be had by all.
It is possible for everyone to be a master and a student at all times.
I'm thinking primarily of academic theatre where directors tend to be teachers and therefore use rehearsal as class and the reverse, but any institution/individual that sees themselves as dominant in some way will create an unproductive, possibly harmful relationship with its artists.
But even when that dynamic is set up and for whatever reason you choose to stay, treating it as a life lesson in patience, compassion, or whatever creates a calmer atmosphere where you can work towards a better experience for all.
Should everything be free from stress, structure, and reprisal? No. There is no social group on the planet for which that is true.
I suppose always consider two things: what is best for the group (which is a rich ecosystem of various persons interacting and sharing), then, what is best for you (which is a rich ecosystem of various molecules interacting and sharing). Whichever need is greatest in your eyes wins.