ARTISTIC OBJECTION
“Let Your Creativity Soar,” the panel discussion led by Mariette DiChristina, was a great article, but I think the experts are a little bit off when they address society’s perception of creativity. “Artist” and “creative” are not equivalent. I do not believe Western society has a negative perception of creativity; rather there is a negative perception of financial instability and destructive behavior. It happens that artists and musicians can fall into such states. So although parents may steer their child away from painting or writing as a profession, they probably would encourage their child’s creativity in science, computer programming or marketing, all of which can be extremely creative fields.
“rudysplif”
adapted from a comment at www.SciAmMind.com
COLLABORATION CONFLICT
It is disturbing that psychologist David C. Geary of the University of Missouri–Columbia, quoted in Nicole Branan’s “She Never Forgets a Face” [Head Lines], assumes that conflict and competition constitute the evolutionary mechanism that resulted in women’s superior recognition of faces. Geary would benefit from reading women’s psychology researchers such as Judith Jordan and Jean Baker Miller. Women’s social interaction has been shown repeatedly to utilize collaboration over conflict. Face recognition would be a vital tool in that process. I fear “collaboration blindness” by male politicians and business leaders as well as scientists has led us down a narrow path to aggression and, ultimately, violence. I am disappointed that Branan did not include this alternative interpretation.
Mary Ellen Bluntzer
via e-mail
AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS
I read Yvonne Raley’s article “Character Attacks” [Perspectives] with great interest. Thank you for a thoughtfully reasoned and carefully stated presentation.
The ad hominem fallacy sweeps through our social and political lives so pervasively that it is taken for granted, not as a fallacy but as a tool of discrimination. Issues, arguments and positions in economics and politics are so complicated and so easily misrepresented that I fear that those who bother to vote or even to ponder their views on biofuels, power in the Middle East, farm subsidies, the war on drugs, cabbages and kings all too often surrender in desperation to the questions “Who advocates this?” and “Who opposes this?”
Martin Luther King appealed to us to judge people not by the color of their skin but by “the content of their character.” And isn’t this just what we do when we endorse or contest an idea based on the identity of its advocate? We endorse the content of the character of our chosen advocate and hope for the best. In a way, the representative form of democracy implemented in the U.S. institutionalizes the ad hominem by asking candidates to win our trust and then be allowed to vote on our behalf in the various legislative houses of government.
This is not to say that I applaud this state of affairs. Even if the ad hominem is inescapable, we should apply it knowingly. I took delight in reading Raley’s biographical note at the end of the article: “... she teaches critical reasoning, among other subjects.” I have long felt that my high school years would have been better spent with only two subjects: critical reasoning and project management. How to think for yourself and how to get something done. Learn everything else in context of a project, at least before college. Maybe that would not work for everyone, but I cannot think of a more urgently needed skill than critical reasoning in these times. Or any times.
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentScientific creativity is a very different intellectual ability than artistic creativity. One cannot steer a person into one from the other. It is very sad I think that society does not consider artistry be it music or the visual arts as important as science as it makes us civilised. Artists and scientists often have eccentricities due to their high strung and quickly moving ADD sort of minds. It is the downside to brilliance at times. Better to be doing something unique and having a messy life than to sit in a chair doing bloody accounts for a brokerage firm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnfiertel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArtistry is as important to society as science, if not more. Ask ten people how many books they've read and what most of those books were. Then ask them what they most like to listen to. Then ask them what they most like to look at. Then ask them what they like to eat. Then ask them what they like to drive and why. Then ask them where they'd like to be right now if they could be anywhere in the world. When you're done gathering your answers you are likely to see what truly drives the human spirit and it is not science. Science is a product of the human spirit as is Art. Creativity is inspired in cooking, painting, architecture, music, engineering, philosophy, writing, and everything else we humans do. Suppose you're writing music while your neighbor writes a theory on the origins of chemical elements. Whose creation would the majority of people in your neighborhood rather listen to? Where does the balance really fall? Most people don't want to hear about science. Most would rather hear something more "entertaining" or "artsy". The same goes for TV shows, magazines, newspapers, radio, the Internet and every other media known to man, which ironically mostly exist due to the creativity of a science "geek" in support of the more accepted art forms. The actors are the stars, not the special effects guys.
I became interested in the subject of creativity back in 1957 as an architectural student at Penn State. So what else would you do then, I went to the university's mammoth library and looked up the subject only to find one book. There certainly has been a lot written on the subject since then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince then I've participated in several "creative" fields and endeavors, and even taught creative problem solving to engineers. Interestingly when sharing my teaching experience and paradigm with instructors in other "creative" fields at the university, none had as clear a description of the process than the engineers had. Which confirmed my earlier experience in architectural instruction: the design (i.e., creative) process was/is not explicitly explained and exercised in artistic disciplines.
Upon reflection now, and without the advantage of reading the SciAm article or reviewing all the contributions to this blog, let me suggest that there seems to be different types of "creativity" with maybe different mechanics involved. One difference seems to be the difference between "problem solving" creativity of engineers, architects and maybe scientists, and, "inner expressive" creativity of the artist. That is not to say that artists don't also pursue problem solving of artistic expression and technique on occasion. However It is a different mind set.
Maybe there needs to be more differentiation within the realm of creativity. I'm thinking that there might be an "applied creativity" practiced by engineers and scientists which applies creativity to practical problems of intrinsic value to society.
Now I'll go back and read the background material referenced here; please overlook my ignorance -- which by the way seems to be a characteristic of the creative person, their willingness to risk it. Note that I did spell check this so that I wouldn't appear too stupid.