I believe I am a gifted individual who has the ability to create a replica of what I see onto paper subrealistically. I like to change it around, play with it, until it pleases to my eye. I believe that is creativity, able to change, able to adapt, able to imagine. I took art in Junior High; I was not a talented artist, but an artist who is sure what his drawing utensil will produce when it slides across the paper. I cannot see what I am going to draw, but I improvise along the way. I make things surreal at times, and lifelike at other times. I have the potential to visualize and put my imagination on paper. I believe that's creativity.
However, schools kill creativity :http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html, and here's a website that shows that. Everything in school must be in perfect order or you get into trouble. If you do a math problem other than expected, you get reprimanded. If you draw a mechanical pencil when the instructions was to draw a 'pencil" pencil, you have to erase your paper. I mean, there are extreme limitations to what you can do. You are rarely allowed to compose your own story or writing in English class. You are rarely allowed to find a simpler way to solve a math problem. And in my book, that's strangling creativity.
I like to group the academic classes like this:
Logic -> Math, computer science, chemistry, physics
Creative -> LA, art, music,
Logic and Creative -> History, Science(General)
Other: PE
(If I could have drawn a Venn Diagram, I would've)
So, what's your point of view on creativity?
11 comments:
Very interesting and nonconventional post!
I think creativity results from honing the ability to think one step further. Creativity to me is the ability to approach a problem in a subtly different way, not necessarily knowing that this way is better, but trying something new for the sake of it being new. When you fail, you try again. And when you solve the problem, you call it creativity. The challenging part is not in trying and trying again (though this is hard if you are not very very motivated); the challenge lies in constantly thinking of new approaches. Creativity (to me) is the ability to see something ordinary in many different ways. Then Problem-Solving is the intuition that tells you which of these perspectives is the most helpful.
You excellently described this process as playing around with a drawing, changing it around until it looks right. This is a magnificent definition: short and brief, yet it contains more insight than the whole preceding paragraph!
I reiterate when I say that school shuns creativity for precisely this reason. If you are looking at something from a new perspective, that means that you are not looking at something from the perspective taught in the book. And facts and figures, not creativity and intuition, are emphasized in school because the former are much, much easier to test.
Finally, in defense of mathematics, I agree that, in school, it is simply a set of rules to be memorized, a set of directions to be followed. But venture outside of school math, and you find yourself in a whole new world, two-dimensional instead of one-dimensional: you are free to craft your own directions, develop your own paradigms, and learn your own math. Everyone who knows math knows the same set of facts, but many have a unique way of interpreting those facts. And the most unique perspective solves the most problems.
I'm surprised you put history as logic and creative. I'm curious: what's your logic?
Logic is more of a procedure, the exact opposite of creativeness. Logic requires you to use a certain step:Algebra for example. Creativeness requires you to implement part of your own thought process:Geometry.
Let's take a look at History:
Why do we learn History anyways? Here are the two most valued and important reasons: it helps us become aware of the status of the present, it helps us realize our mistakes and successes in our past and how we can use that knowledge to make living better.
(I consider) History to be part of both creative and logic because of what we can derive from it. We predict and scribe down what we think is going to be happen in history, and the process is both logical and creative. You need both to comprehend history.
Here's a question to you: is interpretation part of creative or logic.
hey benson!!
by the way, i think your blog is awesome, and i also think that LA should also go in logic, because half of LA is writing essays. In essays, the thesis must logically be explained so the reader would agree, right? and i guess writing could then go into creativity if you're writing a story...
well dont respond because i don't feel like talking about work related things that much. my brother and mom are enough:D
Saw your blog: too dry.
Think of English as a drawing. Your teacher assigns you a drawing topic, say "fish" The creative part would be designing the fish, giving the fish incredible characteristics that distinguishes it from other fish. However, the logic part would be minimal, giving the fish the "fish" look. Likewise, if you were to write about an argument against spirit day, then the logic would be extremely minimal; your three reasons. However, the creative part of it must be powerful enough to stand out. Anyone can provide reasons, but not anyone can give the reasons thorough support and color.
I'm not the one that should be talking about this, since I'm working in the creative part of writing too...
As an after thought, a friend and I talked about this: what is the point of English? Everybody in our English class can write English fluently and use any vocabulary wonderfully. All we are missing right now is learning how to write and express ourselves, and we never get to write freely. We never get to write something creative in English. In fact, we barely write!!!
Well I think the question boils down to how you define logic and how you define creativity. Any workable definition of those two words automatically answers questions of what subject belongs where. (I also think that it's important not to confuse logic with facts; one is reasoning, the other is memorization.)
In defense of algebra, I reiterate that math is the most dynamic mixture of logic and creativity you can find. In lower levels, only specific methods in algebra are taught. But in college and beyond, you need creativity to solve hard problems using the basic tools you learn. Geometry also has some methods, some perspectives, that every serious student should be familiar with. But, as you noted, it involves large amounts of visual intuition and creativity.
Applying the notion of analyzing subjects based on memorization, logic, and creativity, I think that the activeness of many subjects is not emphasized enough. Knowing a bit more math than they teach in school, I can see the differences between the school math and math outside of school. One of the most striking is that school math is memorization, while out-of-school math is creativity and problem-solving.
So it's not a big stretch for me to imagine that other subjects must be in a similar situation. I can't help but feel that other subjects are not taught fully in school, just like math. To the people who know about other subjects outside of what is taught in school: is this true?
In response to you question. I claim that interpretation is a logical process. By definition, interpretation is the processing of someone else's idea, not the creating of your own. You must use reason to test the validity of the given idea and determine why it holds. But extending the idea, taking it in a new direction: that's creativity. So, again, it's just a matter of definition, and a rigorous definition of "interpretation" immediately resolves the problem.
My personal opinion is that the terms "logic" and "creativity" should not be taken as opposites and should be applied very narrowly. Sometimes people fall into the trap of designating anything routine as "logic" and anything expressive or artsy as "creative".
For instance, in your fish example, I would classify drawing fish-like attributes not as logic but as factual knowledge, or memorization. After all, you are not reasoning out and logically arguing what makes a fish a fish; rather, you are simply copying down the fish attributes that you already know onto the paper.
And finally, your last question. I don't think I can give a good answer without knowing what exactly you are taught in your English class. Material differs from class to class, along with students.
P.S. Have you considered getting the "latest comments" gadget on your blog? It would be pretty convenient!
No, back to the fish-like example:
Drawing is similar to, but not exactly like writing. Each time you draw or write, the output is different. There is no exact defined procedure. We all know that a fish has a fin, eyes, curved shape, and a tail. It's quite a common object, but how you put it on paper is completely different.
I disagree. Logic and creative are opposites. Logic is procedure and argument. Creative is impromptu and extemporaneous. Logic and creative may work together, but are exact opposites. You have a right mind and a left mind. Obviously your right mind directs the flow of creativity, and the left mind conducts your sense of logic.
IQ tests is to test your ability to use your brain potential. However, there is also motivation change results ...
Your interpretation of the word "interpretation" is a bit narrow itself, because the word interpret means to provide meaning. Therefore, any meaning can go. What is the meaning of this illustration? What is your interpretation of the first amendment? What is your interpretation of logic? To answer these questions, you must use your logic sides to answer these questions logically, but you must use your creative sides to put your own spin to the writing...
Yes, creative and logic works together, and must work together or else the brain as a whole will fail. When we make a decision, our logic side makes a "logical" decision, and our creative side creates a solution like no other!!
$%&#!!! C'mon it's high school, and they still teach fundamental schtuff.
The problem with discussing questions like this is that a lot hinges upon rigorous definitions of the terms used. In fact, the original premise was the development of a definition of creativity.
Anyhow, I argue that logic and creativity are not opposites but rather related things. Logic is "reason", while creativity is "innovation". As you acknowledged, creativity and logic work together. An innovation can be driven by careful reasoning about ideas, and a brilliant idea can suggest new methods of argument. But opposites do not work together. You cannot have cold and hot together, you cannot have a lie that is a truth, etc. It is because of this contradiction that I claim that logic and creativity are not antonyms but rather two related sides of the same coin. (But do remember that I am arguing based on a particular definition of "opposites".)
Similarly, whether interpretation is purely logical or partly creative is also a matter of definition, or, as you put it, interpretation. From you comment, I agree that any (logical) meaning can go, and that giving a spin to an idea is a matter of the creative process. So we are really not in disagreement about whether a particular process is logical or creative; rather, we disagree about a definition. And, since definitions of this kind of thing are rather (by virtue of their being definitions) unprovable, I think that arguments about definitions are inconclusive.
And I agree that you should ideally never be bored to the point of frustration in school. If the material is too easy for you, but not for other students, and the gap is so big that you are frustrated and they are challenged, then that's a sign of a lack of personalization. And if everyone is bored, then that's just absurd. Same arguments apply for "hard" in place of "easy".
It's not that bad in school since all of my classes are accelerated, and I have gifted, so I'm in class with some really smart people.
However, the teachers fail to push people to their highest potential.
I actually don't think the teachers should push people at all. I again split my argument into two cases.
Suppose the student is not motivated. Then the only lasting result of teacher-induced pressure is that the student associates pressure with the subject itself. The student is then even less motivated. And, as I have argued before, motivation is far more important than any specific bit of knowledge because motivation allows for a lifetime, not an hour's worth, of learning.
Now suppose the student is motivated. Then the teachers don't need to push him because he will already push himself to see how far he will go in the subject. Any teacher pressure is redundant.
So the crux idea is that teachers should be careful to emphasize motivation and enthusiasm. They should focus on where the student will be in several years more than where the student is now.
Post a Comment