Course Connections

This may be a bit of a cheat entry, but I'm finding that some of the topics and, certainly, most of my thoughts in this course are intersecting with those from my other course. The following was my response to the second discussion question this week. It really related to some of the things we discussed as we debated what is and is not creative, specifically the notions of reproductions losing their creative appeal or maintaining an aesthetic arrest (love that term).

Q: Sturken references Walter Benjamin who claims that "[...]the meaning of an original image changes when it is reproduced" (p.124). It is easy to assume that something is "lost in translation" when an image is reproduced, but it's possible to gain something as well. How can the reproduction of images, a new literacy, be beneficial?

I think my almost immediate reaction to this is to think of Andy Warhol. I find his life and work fascinating. His most famous pieces (Marilyn Diptych, 100 Soup Cans, 100 Coke Bottles and 100 Dollar Bills) are examples of a reproduced image (not his own original design), which is simply and literally reproduced within the creation of a single piece of art. It sounds hokey and shallow, but that act of reproduction was an artistic act for him and, ultimately, for our society. (Whether you think it was good art is a moot point; it is accepted as art.) It was the birth of pop art, and I think it’s fascinating. His work was meant to make us stop and think about our commercialized world; interestingly, I think he even intended that we celebrate the democracy of it.

His explanation (found in his 1975 publication, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: From A to B and Back Again ): “What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”

I appreciate that in this question, image reproduction was called a new literacy. I think of the mass produced t-shirts that our school makes to sell for sporting events. The images on those shirts are going to hold a powerful personal, maybe even political, meaning for students in our school. Some will identify with school pride or ‘spirit’; others will connect with more negative feelings, like a dislike for everything that is saccharine and fake about high school and the popular crowd. There’s no doubt, though, that a student is ‘reading’ that image in a unique way because it is common in their world.

I know this next comment might be a slight oversimplification, but here goes anyway…

I can’t afford an original. But I have a Picasso print, purchased with frame from Ikea, in my workroom. I’m glad that there are cheap reprints of important visuals. I have Van Gogh and Seurat posters stapled to the walls of my classroom (not far from a giant “The Simpsons” poster with all the characters from any episode gathered together). We had a discussion in my creativity class about whether if something’s reproduced, it loses its merit as a creative piece. I like to think not. Just because something becomes iconic (and I loved the distinction in our readings between iconic and symbolic – I may use that in my class), it doesn’t lose its aesthetic value. Often, it has simply become more accessible for mass scrutiny, enjoyment, and interpretation.

I think we have to remember with any type of communication (verbal, written, visual) we only ever have control of one half of the communication – either we’re communicating or we’re ‘getting’ /interpreting the communication. Once we’ve spoken, written, or visually represented something and sent it out into the world, the objectification and subjectification (a word?) of it is beyond our control. It may speak to people or it may not, and what it says will depend more on their perceptions than anything else. So to have someone reproduce your idea in a way that alters it, adds dimension to the original idea. We have new perspective, we think about our perspectives, we become familiar with the image or symbol or icon. I think this familiarity in itself is quite beneficial. I’m happy that so many people are familiar with “The Scream” in whatever incarnation they found it. Hopefully, they felt connected because of the shared sentiment because we probably don’t feel connected often enough.

Reading II - M.U.S.I.C. article

Another reading I completed for this week's class was Dr. Henry's article, "Enhancing Creativity with M.U.S.I.C.", based on the five areas he discovered that are integral to creative activity. I was especially glad for the practical suggestions to teachers for how to use the model, for how to foster and enhance creativity in the classroom and within their students.

Interestingly, I often feel that much of what I read and study in the M.Ed. is not based in practical usage. It exists only in the realm of theoretical constructs, or most discouragingly, as simply unfavorable critique of current structures and systems. It was refreshing to have an academic article that addressed an issue in a more head-on and practical way, while still having its basic underpinnings in educational theory and forward momentum.

Reading - Out of Our Minds

I'm feeling a little bogged by my reading load. I am doing the media literacies course, as well, so I've had quite a few different things to read the last while, and to be honest, they're starting to run together in my head, especially since I have troubles being truly captivated by anything that's nonfiction. Fiction is my spoonful of sugar to help the message go down, I guess.

I picked up the Ken Robbins book and manage a few pages of that each evening. Not surprisingly (I've seen and been impressed by a few different presentations/talks by Robbins), I have found that many of his ideas and work speak to me and my experiences and thoughts on the subject of fostering creativity, specifically in education...which means a shift in current educational practice. And I've really only made it through the introduction!

A few key things I've underlined so far:

• "Creativity can be developed, but it must be done sensitively and well."
• "Many people have very deep anxieties about education. It's one of those issues like religion, politics or money that get among us."
• "Human culture is as rich and diverse as it is because human intelligence is so complex and dynamic."
• "Creativity is not a purely intellectual process. It is enriched by other capacities and in particular by feelings, intuition and by a playful imagination."
• "Creative insights often occur by making connections between ideas or experiences that were previously unconnected. Just as intelligence in a single mind is interactive, creativity is often interdisciplinary."

These are just little 'nuggets', not necessarily key, tethering principles. When I have more time, I'll expand on the overarching ideas that are particularly resonating.

Assessment

The M.U.S.I.C. assessments completed in class were quite interesting. I especially like that we got to discuss with each other about it. So often, you complete a survey or an interest inventory or something of the like in a class and then just move on, like the significance of it all is immediately available and needs no further analysis.

I think that for most of us, we were not surprised by the areas that were our weakest or our strongest. I think on some levels, we know ourselves quite well, but we do need to regularly reexamine to ask whether we like ourselves that way. (I don't mean that in a self-loathing way...just that personal inventory of any aspect of ourselves is only useful with the inherent question of, "Am I okay with that?"

For example, I've known since I was in high school that I wanted to be a published author. I remember that when they 'presented' the grads after the ceremony, they read little blurbs about us, which included our future plans and goals. We wrote them ourselves, and some were blatantly silly just to fly in the face of the seriousness of the occasion. Mine wasn't. I wrote that I would be a NY Times bestselling author. The teacher who read the blurbs (my English teacher, interestingly enough) had no qualms about reading anyones plans, silly or not...except mine. He just didn't read it, and when I half-jokingly asked him about it later, he just shrugged.

Anyway, sob story aside, I knew that I wanted to do that. I also knew I was scared to death of it. If I'd done this inventory five years ago, ten years after high school graduation, I would have likely scored lower in courage, BUT more importantly, I would have been okay with that. I didn't feel a pressing need to change that about myself and go after that goal just yet. Today, however, this has changed. This past spring, something finally clicked, and I feel like now is my season to overcome this and to get the stick-to-itness that I'll need.

I'm hoping that will be one of the many things I might build on through this course. Moreover, I'm still a teacher, so I'm wanting to learn the skill of helping my students with the same hang-ups or any other impediments to their creative success.

Procreation

I've been thinking a bit about just the word creativity. I found the dictionary definition (from dictionary.com) interesting, especially the third one.

1.	the state or quality of being creative.

2.	the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts.

3.	the process by which one utilizes creative ability: Extensive reading stimulated his creativity.

So, if one analyzes things in terms of the 3rd definition, you could argue that one could be creative, but not have creativity if that ability is not actually in use. I like this idea. It's a little like love and other positive, powerful forces for good. You could have them, but they aren't actually effective unless they're being exercised. I think about this often when it comes to light. Technically, the antithesis to light is not, in fact, darkness as we often think of it (as an entity with it's own properties, or even in the mythical sense, its own powers). Darkness is only an absence of light. So it's the natural state - actually fairly benign, except that it's quite apathetic... and light is the remedy for that apathy. The antithesis of light, then, is actually lack of light.

And the antithesis of creativity is actually just lack of creativity, or perhaps more pointedly, a lack of creation. So I can be a creative person, but if I am not engaged in some kind of creation, I no longer possess creativity. I'm feeling like my reasoning is becoming a little convoluted, but it's making great sense in my head.

The etymology of the word 'creativity' is important. It's interesting to me that it comes from the word 'create' - I love that most words come from verbs. (It should be indicative to us, then, that a state of action or being is of primary concern, not the actual arrival or status - the noun, which is just a byproduct.) From there, I think of the times I have been a part of creating something or have been witness to creation. Some moments, I would argue have been actual moments of (yes, capital-C) Creation.

Anyway, these admittedly random musings about words came from a recent consideration of the idea of procreation. I've been acutely attuned to ideas of procreation for over five years now, as long as my husband and I have been hoping to have a child. I've experienced the longing, even the pressing emotional need, to be a part of that type of creation. I love that we call it procreation. (Like we become 'professionals' by taking part - an amusing take. More likely that it is seen as a good thing... Yikes, I dislike that word "good" there. I've been thinking about this prefix more deeply than that, but it's proving to be difficult to articulate.)

It makes me chuckle to think of the different ways that I am very 'pro' creation. It's more than just the rational objective of preserving our species (and here I refer to all kind of creation, procreation, even creativity). It's about a psychological need, an impulse, an irrational desire that leads us to our greatest potential for passion, love, suffering, growth, and disappointment. It it the stuff of life. It is light, illuminating our dark places. It's antithesis is not some super-scary thing; it's just apathy, a lack of creation.

We do not 'see' or experience creativity, then, without the illumination of creation.

Feet on the Path

In Wednesday's class, there was some discussion about what qualifies as creativity...can a person who is creating something (even skillfully doing so) be devoid of creativity?

This made me think a great deal about some of the TED talks I've been watching with some of my students. We focused on a series with the common theme of "Serious Play" and with a focus on design. In particular, there was one given by legendary graphic designer Paula Scher (famous for the citibank logo and her work with typography-heavy posters and buildings). Her contention is that our creative work is done when we do play (fitting with the running theme of the presentations), but that there's a difference between 'serious' play and 'solemn' play. She refers to an essay by Russell Baker on the contrasts between these two. Children are serious when they play, adults are often solemn. Serious play involves gambling; solemnity is safer and reserved. (Jogging is solemn; poker is serious.) My favorite: "Going to educational conferences to tell you anything about the future is solemn; taking a long walk by yourself during which you devise a fool-proof scheme for robbing Tiffany's is serious."

Anyway, Scher goes on to display and discuss her work, especially the four times she considered it to be serious, rather than solemn. Her solemn work was very successful, very beautiful and very in demand, but she didn't feel as rewarded by it. The main element she felt was important in serious play/design was not knowing what you were doing because it was a new or unique challenge. Then you become so immersed in the project, no other project exists for you.

I thought of her presentation when it was discussed in class the idea of being skilled but not creative. Of the examples presented and from the notes/schools of thought, it seemed to me that the common element in true creativity is challenge - doing something that makes you stretch makes you 'think outside the box', as the cliche goes. Creativity makes you a little (or a lot) uncomfortable, I think because it is a process of growing.