Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music. ~Angela Monet
It is easy to be seduced by the notion of art leading us to a state of bliss. How many times have I escaped into a book, a song, a movie, as a means of cleansing my body, my mind, from the inequities of mad, mad, mad world?
The reality is, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that those who possess an abundance of creativity “operate on a higher ethical plane.” In an article penned by Jonathan Kellerman (1996) he suggests just the opposite: “the creative, the brilliant, the blessedly divergent, are psychologically deviant and characterologically flawed (Kellerman’s emphasis)” (p. 57).
Kellerman goes on to point out that creative genius is like a “pearl: beautiful, rare, but a constitutional defect, inexorably linked to madness and weakness of character” (p. 57). In other words, you can earn excellent marks from your teachers “and still flunk life.”
I offer these observations in light of Sir Kenneth Robinson’s TED 2006 talk wherein he speaks to the notion of creativity being educated right out of children in most schools. Each time I watch Robinson’s talk, I want to cry. I want to race to the school my children attend, pluck them from their classes, and find a way to provide them a meaningful educational opportunity where their passions can be nurtured, their spirits’ enriched, and their social needs can be met. That’s not the school they are attending today. Nor was it the school I attended.
When Kellerman refers to artistic genius he is referencing those men and women who stood out from the crowd, the mis-fits, the men and women who saw their world as flawed and untenable. However, I want to argue that their creative temperament was a response, a reaction, to the deadening spirit of school and the social contexts that prevented them fully realizing who they actually were.
What if schools encouraged creative expression in all children? What if this expression did not end at age 10, but was nurtured and encouraged throughout adolescence and on into adulthood?
I believe the psychological deviance that is characterologically a part of so many great artists and performers is the result of a society where creativity is simply educated right out people.
I do not mean to suggest that if schools nurtured creative and kinesthetic activities, then we would have less criminal and deviant behavior. Creativity is not antithetical to evil. But such a supposition, as made by Kellerman, misses the point. Deviance is a complicated sociological condition that is not easily reduced to specific traits or behaviors. Similarly, not all creative geniuses are necessarily or empirically bad.
What Kellerman supposes, that “violence and creativity all too often connect themselves inextricably,” is fallacious reasoning, a rhetorical slippery slope (that is, if A occurs, then the chances that B occurs are greater. This is also known as the camel’s nose argument suggesting that once a camel slips her nose into the tent, then the rest of her will surely follow).
Creative genius represents one end of a broad spectrum of possibilities. I am not suggesting that if all children are given the opportunity to follow their passions, they will all become creative geniuses. Rather, I want to suggest that if creativity is nurtured, valued, and embraced by society, the world might not be considered such a banal or senseless place. (Note: I do not mean to suggest that a creative citizenry will end poverty and suffering; however, I am suggesting that such a conceit offers us a place to begin imagining such possibilities.)
While “mental and mood instability and behavioral deviance among artists and writers” (p. 57) may be common in some cases, as Kellerman argues, generalizing that this behavior leads to immoral and criminal action is decidedly false and misguided. Many artists and writers have been leaders of social reform. It is also worth mentioning that many artists and writers have willingly served as “tools of intolerance and racism” (p. 58) as well. Perhaps we might ask: Has the creative class produced more cads and villains than the non-creative class? Statistically, I think that would be difficult to prove.
In Robinson’s famous report, All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999), creativity is recognized as being diverse, multifaceted, and possible in all fields of study and human intelligence: “Genuine creative achievement involves knowledge, control and discipline combined with the freedom and confidence to experiment” (p. 44). As such, it is the role of educators to aide learners in understanding these aspects and to help kids gain control of them.
In the end, I want to argue that creativity should not be an “add-on” within our educational environments. Instead it should be an intrinsic part of the teaching and learning process. The “All Our Futures” report lays out in great detail recommended steps for making this happen, all the way down to how teacher education programs and institutions within the community can adopt such a stance.
I do not believe that fostering creativity will lead to a proliferation of lawlessness and decadence as purported by Kellerman (1996). Again, such an argument is hopelessly flawed and romantically unsound. Building on the creative talents of individuals is about unlocking the potential within all learners that can arguably lead to prosperity and social cohesion. Character flaws will always exist given the multidimensional nature of the world we inhabit. Yet, fostering creative development is one way to balance motivation and self-esteem with the skills and aptitudes we all need to guide us thoughtfully into the future.
References:
Kellerman, J. (1996). Pearls, yet swine. Modern Painters, 9(1), pp. 56-59.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. DFEE Publication. Retrieved 08 April 2007 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&am
Flickr photo:
Reading Head – graying by (nz)dave
Artwork:
Vermeer - Girl with a pearl earring
Basquiat - untitled
Picasso – Guernica
Keywords: achievement, art, character, confidence, control, creativity, deviance, discipline, education, experimentation, freedom, genius, intelligence, Jonathan Kellerman, Kenneth Robinson, knowledge, learning, logical fallacies, motivation, passion, prosperity, psychology, school, self-esteem, slippery slope, spirituality, teaching, violence
Comments
This is pretty interesting (in all the varied connotations of interesting) stuff. When we were discussing this yesterday, I forgot to ask you about gifted education and how it differs from ...um... giftless? education.
When I was in school, I was one of the lucky ones who got a whole different brand of education for about 20% of my time. That 20% could well be a model for education which fosters the creativity toward which you are pointing. My gifted classrooms were a haven for constructive and creative energy. The only thing that wasn't completely blissful about those environments came when I told my non-gifted friends what we did on the days we weren't in 'regular' school.
I, as I suspect you would agree, refuse to believe this brand of education is only suitable for those with slightly higher IQs.
I had a great education but a lot of it was at home. As a farm girl, I've run around barefooted most of my life admist animals and dirt and the outdoors. I turned sticks into forts and trees into habitations.
I even, get this, found new things to learn in the children's encyclopedia, taught it to my sisters and cousins and yes, made out tests to make sure they learned it! (How is that for ridiculous!)
However, in school, although I learned, I was a misfit. I spent four years of school without a single friend and insulted on almost a continual basis. Most teachers made the classroom safe but the halls and bathrooms were a nightmare.
I had good parents who listened and helped me through and taught me to stand alone. Although it is hard to be thankful for the experience, I am thankful that I emerged intact and better.
Misfits are often great at innovation because they don't mind being called "dumb" so I guess I'm saying -- don't go run out and snag your kids out of their school.
A lot of their education will come from you and your home that you give them. From free play to attitude -- they learn by watching and enjoying you.
And I agree with Ben, everyone is gifted in different areas. Differentiated, enriching teaching is good teaching and should be in all classrooms.
Chris, this is a phenomenal post!
Yes. Schools seem to be teaching us to be subscribers and consumers. Learning how to be people who know how to use something we buy and to be tidy tenants within a culture which we purchase a tenuous access to.
Makers are different and have different needs for living space, different needs in education. Activities need to have a 'view' or a connection to their import and their function, their potential and different ways of thinking.
Cross discipline connections and connections between people who are exploring similar nodes and ideas around a topic. Ideas and things are raw materials, other people are 'us' not 'them'.
Constructive divergence, diversity, unexpected outcomes, room to initiate and lead. Room to share responsibility and opportunity. Local content local value, voice and ethics of a new generation. Room to break, remake and move forward as a community, not as subscribers to an intellectual franchise. Making is messy. =)
Chris, I want to thank you for all your wonderful, thought-inspiring posts. I enjoy all of them, but this one is, I think, especially important.
Can anybody learn anything without being creative? Even rote learning, if it has any meaning, is "learned" in order to do something with it, and that doing is a creative act.
People who are especially and continuously creative likely have minds that cause them to look for and see the new, to try out the non-conventional. They may frighten or confuse the less creative and more conventional people, but they are also the ones that change others' perceptions of the world, and maybe even change the world.
Some of them might break taboos and/or ethical standards because of their different perceptions and that can be good or bad or meaningless, depending on their specific actions, and where and when they live. (Look at the world today or at history - the "rules" aren't stable or absolute.)
Some of these creative sorts never manage to "make a deal with the world" and end up lost and confused. Some are dangerous to know, sometimes for all their lives, sometimes just at particular times. And even some of the kind and "good" creative sorts are punished simply for being different. They are often the bullied and scorned in our schools.
Chris,
What an inspiring post! I've been trying so hard to let some creativity flow during my classes even having a book to "cover", a schedule to "follow"...Sometimes, when I ask non-conventional questions, not expected ones, my students (who are mostly trained to take tests) have those puzzled faces, but once they understand my teaching style, they enjoy the ride.
My school was a very special one, constructivist, montessori. I still remember fondly of my days there...They "taught" me how to critically consider things, how to think, how to find creative ways for problems...These are skills that I've taken for life. My kids were studying there, too, and the philosophy hasn't changed. Lots of project-based learning, inquiry...My 6-year old had music, art, philosophy, sports classes, horticulture. Now, we're living in the US for two years. Both of my kids really miss their school. They are doing fine here, but the approach is different, if you know what I mean...
I just believe in the power of education and what you mentioned "fostering creative development is one way to balance motivation and self-esteem with the skills and aptitudes we all need to guide us thoughtfully into the future." That's why I decided to be a teacher.
Chris-
I found a strong connection with Robinson's quote “Genuine creative achievement involves knowledge, control and discipline combined with the freedom and confidence to experiment” (p. 44) because it reminds me of Montessori's approach to learning. In a Montessori classroom students are encouraged to manage their "freedom within boundaries" by exploring at their own pace and working in a cooperative manner. As a parent of a child who currently attends a Montessori school, I see the potential every day I enter his room, lessons poised and ready--and children eager to learn.
Is it creativity students lack as they grow older, or is it that intrinsic motivation to take risks and explore in their own learning has been sapped from every enthusiastic cell in their body?
Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.