Can creativity be learned?
I've always wondered if creativity is a talent someone is born with, or whether it can be learned.
Obviously one can become more skilled technically by taking guitar lessons or art classes. However, what of those who simply pick up music without any formal training. Or artists who have an eye and knack for visuals.
And these are not geniuses.
But can one become more creative simply through experiences and surrounding environment or is it something you either have or you don't.
Obviously one can become more skilled technically by taking guitar lessons or art classes. However, what of those who simply pick up music without any formal training. Or artists who have an eye and knack for visuals.
And these are not geniuses.
But can one become more creative simply through experiences and surrounding environment or is it something you either have or you don't.
Comments
<strong>I've always wondered if creativity is a talent someone is born with, or whether it can be learned.
Obviously one can become more skilled technically by taking guitar lessons or art classes. However, what of those who simply pick up music without any formal training. Or artists who have an eye and knack for visuals.
And these are not geniuses.
But can one become more creative simply through experiences and surrounding environment or is it something you either have or you don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know that environment has a tremendous influence. If you learn creative ways you tend to practice creative activities what ever they may be.
Fellowship
It's a very good question.
Creativity is simply rational thinking applied to particular ideas or problems. Every creative acts has limitations inherent to it, but people usually bring other assumptions and conventions with those real parameters. When you discard those assumptions and conventions to see the real restrictions you're working with, you can be creative. Just don't confuse rational thinking and common sense.
As to the nature vs. nurture argument, an architect once described the difference between architects with talent and those with ideas. (He just extended Isaiah Berlin's analogy of the fox and the hedgehog respectively.) Both can make creative works, just using different means. Ideas let you be creative without having a lot of talent. If you're talented, you don't always need ideas to be creative. The great artists in history, of course, have both going for them.
[ 12-22-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The other half is a sense of beauty, drama, and so on, which is required to choose those things that are best. Creative thinkers get ten or more bad ideas for every good one. The trick it to not censor an idea before it hatches. Wait until it is fully expressed, and then evaluate it later, not on the fly. Many times a very bad, stupid idea can be the launching pad for another idea.
Also, don't fall in love with your ideas. As soon as you have something you believe is great, it can divert your energies into promoting that idea, rather than evaluating it more and continuing to look for still other alternatives. I believe ninety percent of creativity can be learned, but it is not easy to break old habits of how we think. It takes work.
<strong>Absolutely.
Creativity is simply rational thinking applied to particular ideas or problems. ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've always believed that creativity has a large amount of unrational thinking. Perhaps there are differing circumstances. I mean sure, rational thought is required for art directors and ad agencies in coming up with creative yet strategic solutions.
However, fine artists and musicians display their creativity often from the heart and soul. It just flows from their body to the canvas or the guitar strings.
That's why I wondered if true creativity is really only inherent in a few while others are only a product of conditioning and training.
<strong>
I've always believed that creativity has a large amount of unrational thinking. . .
. . . fine artists and musicians display their creativity often from the heart and soul. It just flows from their body to the canvas or the guitar strings.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't restrict creativity to a any particular display of creativity. Creativity is applicable in every endeavor. Creativity in art and music is not superior to creativity anywhere else. Creativity is extremely important in art and music, along with skill. Without them, it is not worth noticing. Many other endeavors can limp along without a bit of creativity, unfortunately.
<strong>I've always believed that creativity has a large amount of unrational thinking. Perhaps there are differing circumstances. I mean sure, rational thought is required for art directors and ad agencies in coming up with creative yet strategic solutions.
However, fine artists and musicians display their creativity often from the heart and soul. It just flows from their body to the canvas or the guitar strings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's this preconceived idea that passion and rigor are somehow exclusive of one another. I think if you look into the works of John Coltrane, Jackson Pollack and other artists with "emotional" works, you'll find rational thinking applied in their successful works. It can be hard to see the logic at work, which is why I say that sometimes very rational things can appear irrational from a more conventional perspective. But once you get a glimpse at their idea, their fantasy, creative works always have logic to support their development or else the idea will not stand up, cannot be expressed or communicated -- it just won't make sense.
I would however differentiate "expression" from "creation," because creation goes to the next level: it requires a both expression (form) and identity (idea) and must be understood, therefore communicable. There are those artists who, as they say, have no need for an audience, but I don't think you'll find many of their works in a museum if no one can understand it. It can't be seen as creative or as art if it adds up to nothing in particular.
A creative work is an expression entirely consistent unto itself, and rigor/rationality is what makes that happen. It can be simple (Pollack) or complex (Picasso) but it is always present. But passion needs rationality to fully express itself, as much as rationality needs a passion to invoke its purpose. Logic doesn't drive the creative work, it just keeps it on course.
<strong>
I've always believed that creativity has a large amount of unrational thinking. Perhaps there are differing circumstances. I mean sure, rational thought is required for art directors and ad agencies in coming up with creative yet strategic solutions.
However, fine artists and musicians display their creativity often from the heart and soul. It just flows from their body to the canvas or the guitar strings.
That's why I wondered if true creativity is really only inherent in a few while others are only a product of conditioning and training.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't usually "just flow" from somewhere, even if they make it look that way (especially people like jazz musicians who work in real time). Artistry taps into certain parts of the brain - which anyone can learn to do; it requires a vocabulary to express itself in - which anyone can learn; it often requires research - again, learnable; and it requires a willingness to reach down deeper than most people do and pull out whatever's there, no matter how painful, and mold it or discard it as appropriate to the work, no matter how hard you labored over it. This is learnable also, but I think it's the reason why artists are fairly rare. It's also why a lot of artists consume alcohol and similar substances.
As Anne Lamott put it recently: "[W]ith writing, you start where you are, and you do it poorly. You just do it -- you do it afraid. And something happens."
Clearly, some people seem to just have one or more of the necessary qualities of an artist. But they can all be acquired. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome, but they can all be overcome.
But truth be said, people born with creative instincts are generally more creative than people who develop these instincts later.
<strong>
But truth be said, people born with creative instincts are generally more creative than people who develop these instincts later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It does not mean someone was born with creative abilities. What is likely true of every skill, whether skating, skiing or playing the piano, is that the best started doing it as a kid. Likely the most creative people started being creative during play, at an early age, and were encouraged by their parents. If thinking creatively is fun, a child will keep doing it, and it becomes an established habit.
It may be just like the skilled ice skater. To an onlooker, it appears natural, as though the skater was born with this instinct. In the case of the skater, we just happen to know it must have been learned and required practice.
I wish I could draw, but I want to be able to play bass as well.
I can pretend and people think I'm creative