i’ve been reading “creative explorations” by David Gauntlett, not that far through, work so gets in the way of this most of the time. it puts some theory around the discussions we’ve been having in my MA thread around creativity though.
feel free to switch off now, because this is just a placeholder for my thoughts (none original i dare say as i’m guessing they will have already been voiced as my research continues) i have on reading DG’s text, so you may find this not very exciting at all, on the other hand there’s a link to the website in my FB page somewhere, if you want to dig a little deeper and find out for yourself.
DG suggests creativity exists on two levels, the first being “… high profile creativity of the kind that wins you a Nobel prize for your unique contribution to human knowledge.” [18], the other is more mundane by comparison but centres on personal feelings of achievement, “… in this broad sense can include everyday ideas, writing, making, management, self-presentation and even creative speech and thought”. [19] by its very nature then DG is suggesting that my own ramblings here on the subject of creativity is in itself an expression of my creativity.
i guess that the way i have internalised creativity is inhibiting my acceptance of this blog as a piece of creative writing. so yes creativity can be this massive ball of fun that touches many people, like becoming a booker bestseller or a multi-platinum recording artist, but it all starts at the grass roots of the individual, but i guess this loops back to what i was saying about selfish creativity in my previous post. DG goes on to talk about Csikszentmihalyi [1997] and his/her traditional view of the creative process and how its too linear it’s a “five step process from preparation to incubation, to insight, evaluation and elaboration” [22] C’s view is that this all takes place in reality but not in that step-step manner.
So how many more times are we going to rename evolution? the last unit looked at learning theory and threw in Kolb’s model of experiential learning, the old “concrete experience”, “observation & reflection”, ”forming abstract concepts”, “ testing in new situations”. now we have move on (supposedly) and are being asked to look at action-inquiry which appears at first glance to be another re-hash of cyclic evolutionary theory, everything around us (organic & person-made) is developed incrementally, whether we “reflect” on it or not. things that work are based on small incremental changes,
people are very reticent about large scale change. consider the poll tax, the dyson, jeez what about twitter, am i the only person that thinks OK so someone has tweaked instant messenger technology, but because it’s the latest “fad”, everyone should use it, i’m criticised for not being an early adopter, in fact i’ve only just joined the ranks of flat screen tv ownership, early adoption is fraught with problems, look at the bunfight between bluray and hddvd, gotta feel sorry for all those people that invested cash in the Microsoft HDDVD player. the point i’m making here is that we are overcomplicating things, simplify it, make it accessible, debunk it stop wrapping it up in shiny new paper and saying its innovation, the emporer isn’t wearing any clothes …
i digress, back to creativity, DG skips around other valid definitions in what creativity is one that sticks for me is his quote from Lumsden (1999) where he suggests that many definitions of creativity “ … carry the unique imprint of their progenitors while suggesting some mild degree of consensus: creativity as a capacity to think up something new that people find significant” [153]. DG calls this the “audience dimension” [25] and seems to be suggesting that this definition is as good as any, but this doesn’t seem to take into account the harshest critical audience, the self, and implies that we should label public displays of our work are creative, whereas those thoughts, concepts ideas that we internalise are not, am i misinterpreting what DG is saying here?
creativity as an expression of self gets more interesting, and for me contradicts DG’s definition when encompassing the audience dimension, he suggests that art has only recently (given that “art” has an apparent 31,000 year history) come to be seen as an expression of self (mid-late 18thC during the advent of the romantic era) and that prior to this point creativity was an attempt by the artist to reproduce nature, i’m not so sure that, for example, the renaissance artists weren’t expressing their inner-self (not withstanding patrons …)
placing this in context with my own interest, transmedia storytelling, we have an interesting dichotomy here, by its very nature it’s not always feasible for an individual to create a complete Transmedia text on his/her own, collaboration is a major aspect of the field, it follows then that we have a creator, expressing a conceptual idea that is a reflection of their inner–self across multiple delivery mechanisms, but aspects of that vision are implemented by another creative with specific domain experience, which will be an expression of his/her inner self. it kind of creates a hierarchy of creativity, especially in the field of gaming where the vision is then passed down to other creatives. for the Transmedia auteur does this represent a thinning of their self-expression, or is it a thinning of creativity for the creators in the sub-domains who are now placed inside a framework in much the same way that artists who have been commissioned in the past by patrons (monarchy, religion etc.), it creates an interesting conundrum …
so does it cease to be creative when, as an artist you are contributing to someone else’s vision, interesting area, need to follow this up
Refs: “Creative Explorations”, David Gauntlett [2007] Lego Serious Play Research Projects, Experiential Learning, “Creativity, Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi [1997], “Evolving creative minds: stories & mechanisms”, Charles Lumsden [1999]
