Creativity is kind of a funny thing*. I had a choir director way back in the day say to my mom that anyone who can talk can sing. This isn't true. My mother, bless her heart, can't sing on pitch to save her life, try as she might. But while my mother can't sing on pitch I can't draw anything beyond stick figures despite the fact that my mom majored in studio art.** I also can't compose music*** despite the fact that my dad majored in music composition. But what I can do (besides sing) is write. In spite of the fact that I shouldn't be able to write as well as I do, I write quite a lot. For me, my writing is the only original creative outlet I have. I might not be able to write a piece of creative fiction, but I can sure as hell tell you about my day in an interesting way.****
What interests me about creativity is the way people define. Society almost automatically ascribes creativity to people who are some how involved in the performing or fine arts (and somewhere in there people who write books, poems, and short stories). The person who created the internet wasn't creative, he was very skilled at his job and was quite possibly a genius. But not creative. The men who figured out DNA weren't creative, nor was whoever actually invented the telephone.***** They were just really smart and very, very talented. Einstein has never been described as creative, just as a genius. And this divide intrigues me. Why can't scientists or mathematicians be described as creative? Because let's be honest, they are creative, very creative. Yes, artists are creative, but so are biologists and geologists.
So that's my deal. I think anyone who expands human knowledge is creative and that creativity should not be limited to the fine and performing arts (and writers.) There will those who disagree (or think I'm making a really lame point.) But I stand by my idea because it means that the people who major in computer science and biology are equally creative as people who major in theatre or studio art. And I like that principle.
*I literally had this conversation in my Intro to Theatre class two weeks ago. Most of what you'll read is based on that discussion.**Therefore I should have natural skill at drawing things beyond stick figures.
***See previous footnote.
****But not today. Today was really boring.
*****I've watched way too many episodes of QI and therefore know too many random facts. I'm pretty sure Alexander Graham Bell didn't actually invent the telephone though. Pretty sure.
3 comments:
In school we're told that the creative people are thinking with the right side of their brain, and the analytical folks, the scientists and mathematicians are thinking with the left. I like your theory about defining everyone's work as creative, because I think you're right. There's nothing less beautiful about the theory of relativity than a piece of poetry, at least to an audience of fellow scientists.
I do disagree with the assumption that because you cannot draw now, that you never could be able to, or that your mom could never sing. I think with practice and the will to want it (and put the time in) anyone can do those things. But my guess is your mom maybe never took lessons for several years and sang every day. Perhaps you'd like to draw, but really never took the time to get basic training and draw something every day for 3 years. It's ok to not have that goal, to not have that be an interest, but I do disagree that it defines your abilities. Sure Mozart was able to compose at a ridiculously early age, there will always be those prodigies. But that doesn't make the ability to do these things beyond the grasp of any person that decides they want it bad enough to become passionate about it and pour themselves into the study of that discipline.
@Tim I know on a technical level I can do anything I want but on practical terms, we all have limitations on what we can and can't do (taking into account the number of opportunities given to a person and the fact that humans only live for a finite time and there are only so many hours in the day.) If I took the time I could probably compose something I didn't hate or learn to draw things beyond stick figures, but given the fact that those things don't come naturally to me and other things do, I'm probably going to go with what comes naturally. This is my very convoluted way of saying I agree with you but only up to a point.
I agree that more scientists should be able to be called creative and not just smart/intelligent!
and yes, I lack much skill in drawing, but prefer to take photos, so it works out :)
Post a Comment