He discusses the developmental terms of the creative genius, (you and I), but I feel like this article which is on the Psychology Today Blog, is completely misdirected. It accounts for the classic, "hard life, deep emotional artist" case; claiming that people who grew up in comfortable homes are intelligent but less likely to be creative. I agree this could be a trend, but I feel the diversity in the art world is very difficult to write about and this is just an attempt at dissecting it. Its hard to say what developmental factors led to our creative genius, but I think each kid has the chance to hold a cheap crayon when they are little and it may be a hit with them or it may not, its just a personal difference.
I am a twin, both my brother and I drew/colored when we were little, I was the one who just continued, because I got something else out of it, instead of him.
-Francesca
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201009/the-secret-creativity-oblique-perspective
9 comments:
Dr. Barber’s blog post seems to be more conversational than concrete. He seems to want to put up a few newer ideas on creativity and leave the discussion and further research to his readers. I get this, but in the case it would have been nice to have had a little bit more discussion and background to his claims. It is fascinating to consider whether one entire group of people might have a propensity for a certain set of actions, careers, and attitudes due to the events of their lives. Honestly, it never crossed my mind that sexual orientation or level of androgyny would have any impact on creativity, but it could definitely be a factor, but of course, not the only factor.
I agree with the above post that I would have liked to have seen a bit more concrete studies and evidence to back up Dr. Barber's claims on creativity. I understood where he was coming from with the idea that creative people are typically not mainstream thinkers, but out of nowhere he suddenly likened mainstream thinking to having grown up comfortably. Although, I'm sure there are a great deal of studies that would back up this claim, I'm inclined to disagree. Before Pratt, I went to an art high school that encompassed, visual arts, music, drama etc., the school was extremely diverse, and there were people or all nationalities, gender preferences, and living situations, and everyone was very talented. Of course there are varying degrees of talent and creativity, but I just find it hard to believe that something like living situation could really contribute that much into someone's creativity.
Speaking of what I saw as the main point of this article, "If a person naturally associates opposites in this way, they are very good at dredging up a large number of unusual mental associations which increases artistic productivity and complexity. This is called "divergent thinking.""
This very much hits home for me. I am that kind of guy that gets people mixed up in conversations that they never intended on creating just because something reminded me of something that reminded me of something. So I would say this man has a point, at least in my case. I doubt that this is by any means universal. But there could be truth to it. Even if he is over generalizing the WAYS in which people can have a creative spark arise, it doesn't mean that these aren't true or that people who live nice comfortable lives and/or have never felt different or out of place cannot be creative. But, maybe there is less potential for creativity in these areas as he stated. I would probably agree.
This is an interesting interpretation of what makes some more creative than others. However, I think creativity can come from anyone. These assumptions of who is more creative than the next person seem to be somewhat shallow and generalized theories. Not all artists are homosexuals, and not all artists have sob stories. Some of us live in combinations of these supposed creative symptoms, or neither. I, for one, was creative long before traumatic circumstances interrupted my life. Admittedly, I was a tomboy. But I had a few girly, pink floral years, and was no less artistic. I do believe there is a link between creativity and perception of experiences through multiple, or broader lenses. However, in agreement with a few other comments, these factors being linked to an individual’s creativity are by no means limited to gender and sexuality, the loss of a parent, or childhood illness. The article is thought-provoking, but it seems too subjective and not entirely convincing.
This article makes me think about what it really means to be creative. I feel that most people associate creativity with the arts(i.e. music, dancing, theater, etc.), but that seems like a vary narrow scope of the word. The definition of creative is resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc. Obviously, this very much so applies to the arts, but I think that it’s not just limited to a specific set of professions. An astrophysicist theorizing about how the planets formed could be just as creative as a painter. Both use their minds to create something. There are huge differences of course, but people in both professions use their minds to express something.
With that said, this article seems strange to me. It’s weird assumption to think that a homosexual would want to become an artist just because he or she is homosexual. It just seems like there are more facts to a creative mind than one event or biological factor.
He says creative people "see the world from multiple perspectives." I don't disagree with the findings or trends for creative people, but it also seems like a fair amount of politics could account for this statement, too. For parents and families that encourage or foster children to think of others, the less fortunate, those who are "different," etc., it would seem that they should get the same results, right? Also this is nature vs. nurture, I think, on the side of nature, but then again it has always seemed, too, that children's talents, whether they be creative or otherwise, have a certain amount of innateness to them. It always seems like people who write say they have always written, for people that draw, they have always drawn, just from the first experience or something similar to that. I was most interested to see that cities with a higher gay population are more creative. I think it may have to do with an idea of tolerance in an area, meaning that the citizens are maybe also more likely to go with creative approaches to old ideas and that the area is less inclined to think that the old, structured way is ALWAYS the best way.
Dr. Barber writes that “creative people… see the world from multiple perspectives.” Yes, that may be true in some cases, but I think that this article is overall very shallow, especially when it comes to making such a bold statement that immigrants and people of alternate sexual orientation are more creative. Sure, you do see that, but to say that the average person growing up in a comfortable home can’t think creatively is a very blind statement indeed. I found this to be a bit of a slap in the face since I grew up in a town not knowing anything about art oriented high schools, I had a very average, comfortable childhood, I attended a very large public school, I’m heterosexual, I’m not an immigrant, and here I am doing very well at Pratt! I think Dr. Barber needs to talk about some studies or actual proof to back up his claims before he goes stepping on toes.
~Emily V.
I just took a lot of time to ponder about this one. First of all, from just reading the article, it's clear the author is not an artist. There isn't really any.. I don't know.. substance for his reasoning besides standardized tests and generalizations. Sure data collection is helpful in finding out some things but i feel like creativity and what it means to be creative is wayyy waayy much more than that. Like Laura, I also went to an art high school and it was so diverse in every aspect of the word, you couldn't really pinpoint who was 'more creative' than everyone else. Reading this article lit up a little flame in my stomach, because I do feel like it is misdirected, causing readers to possibly stereotype people on creativity. Sure people who have hard lives can become amazing artists of any discipline, but so can people who came from more 'comfortable' homes. I don't think its you parents income that alters the direction of your life. I know friends who are different types of artists from completely opposite backgrounds who are equally as creative and inspiring. I mean i'm not an immigrant, androgynous or a lesbian, but I'd say I'm pretty creative. I think its much less about demographic and much more about how you are raised and influenced by the people around you, and just what kind of person you are. My upbringing wasn't exactly cozy, but my mom had a much more difficult childhood and she is not creative, in the artistic sense at least. I'm more right brained, and she's more left brained. Even though we were both more or less raised by the same people but during different times. (i spent most of my time with my grandparents while my mom was working). So in closing my little rant, I do not completely agree with the doctor's theories, but i do find the information and data to be interesting.
-Taylor Quinn
I agree that Dr. Barber should have backed up his argument with better evidence and studies. However I don't think he tries to say that average people can't be creative. He implies that people with extraordinary life circumstances are more likely to become artistic and creative. On the very basic level this can be because they are the black sheep in the society and and left out of the society. When someone's left alone, it's likely that his mind would start entertain itself in thinking unusual ways. I think this is what creativity is.
Of course this doesn't mean someone with a comfortable life can't be creative.
Post a Comment