Creative Minds

Recently I was bored in a Heritage Lecture and I started thinking about the ten people I found to be MOST creative, and why. Most of these people are recognized because of their Big-C creativity, and not all are great people.

These are my top 5:

1. Galileo Galilee, NOT Isaac Newton. Newton once said, "If I have seen further, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants"...or something like that. He did stand on someone's shoulders, Galileo. Galileo thought up most of the things that Newton then made public with research after his death. Not to discredit Newton, but I find Galileo creative because of his unique undertaking of science and his method of working to figure out the universe even though people were questioning him constantly. Another great mind in this category is Copernicus, who was bold enough to admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Galileo and Copernicus, on their own respective accords, led a scientific revolution and worked to find out more about the world. They are creative not because of their discoveries, but because of their endeavors.

2. Gandhi. Gandhi led the world's first nonviolent military movement. He is creative in this because he used creative tactics to raise awareness of the need for peace and made the British question their barbaric methods. He is creative because he brought a new light to war and how to solve world issues.

3. Adolf Hitler. I find Hitler extremely creative because he had the ability to sense the need of Germany for a strong military presence and control so many people to do horrible things. I don't think creativity is always good, his methods for doing this created the worst genocide in the history of mankind as far as I'm concerned. I think his terrible ways of absolute power and political pressure are creative because he is the only person, with the exception of Alexander the Great, that has ever come close to world domination.

4. Meryl Streep. Sorry, I'm just a huge Meryl fan. But I think she is a creative business woman, having done so many shows and opening herself up to so many characters that many people could not do. Most people have a specific type of role they can play...for example, I'm the sarcastic sibling, the villian, the commedia whore, the mother, the hurt-and-healing type, etc. Meryl (we're on a first name basis, fyi) to play several different character types and also has the advantage of being a screen actor and a theatre actor. She can also dance, sing, etc. She's a machine. I think she's very creative because she is aware of herself and uses the creative process to arrive at these amazing characters that one believes in almost instantly. I also love that she usually plays into an emotion that almost anyone can relate to.

5. The founding fathers of America. I think these men are creative because they took what they valued most in the time, freedom, and incorporated it into ideals that would stand long after they passed away. Also, they possessed a lot of domain knowledge and looked at several government types and documents before divising our own governmental system that seemed to be about balance.

6. Girltalk. See previous entry.

7. The Beatles, the Ramones, Run DMC. I think of these people when I think about major musical shifts. The Beatles brought rock and roll to America; The Ramones defined punk-rock and guitar ''shredding'', and Run DMC really shaped the rap era and allowed it to grow into what its become. If I had to pick one, I'd say Lennon probably.

8. Einstein. This fella was just a genius and he wasn't afraid or discouraged from working even when people were disagreeing with his claims and threatening him after his discoveries. He was creative because of his self determination in the name of science.

9. Steven Jobs. He created Apple, the superior computer system. :) He has made so many technological advances, though they are not independently his own doing. Apple is one of the most creative companies with its unique approach to group creativity and research.

10. Any Qualified Educator. I think that educators are the most important workers in American society. One might disagree and say its a doctor...find a doctor that didn't go through years of schooling to become what he is. Educators have to find creative methods to teaching material in order for people to absorb it. A teacher can make one go to school, but they can't make people learn. Someone who can do that is one of the most creative people of our time.


PS- just to clarify, these are ten people I find creative that are often overlooked for their creative ability and their amazing contributions to both the Big-C domain and the Little-C efforts. There are SO many more people!!!!

Books and Movies

This is maybe a stretch, but this entry will explore the connections between books and movies. Recently I've noticed that I am someone who enjoys reading books before or even more than a movie-remake. For example, I absolutely loved the book The Great Gatsby, but when I saw the movie version I was really disappointed. In my mind, I'd created an entirely different image of everything and a different style of mannerisms and gestures. In the movie, a lot of the symbolism was omitted as well. The full experience of a book and the creative process you take into the way that you perceive the elements cannot happen if all of the "open-ended questions" are answered by a director instead of its audience.

Likewise, I am really curious to see how movies such as ''Where the Wild Things Are'' will turn out. This is a children's book and I was brought up having this read to me as a bedtime story. I am really intrigued about how they plan to bring this to the screen when much of the basis for the book is imagination and the boy imagining the monsters and everything almost as if they are his escape. I just don't know if works like this and the Great Gatsby, even though they are ENTIRELY different, should ever be brought to the screen. The imagination of a child isn't something that can be broadcast through a film. In the same way, the symbolism behind Gatsby's green light and the beautiful lines written by F. Scott Fitsgerald is taken away and replaced with dialogue.








Another movie I am greatly anticipating is Angels and Demons. This is one of my favorite books ever but I liked it because I created the entire events as I read it and I was drawn to the fact that I felt like I was studying this stuff as much as the characters in the story studied their case along their adventure. I do hope that printed books are not being replaced with movies or audiobooks because I feel like one loses so much as they pull information in from another medium. I feel like this is relative to creativity because it is one's imagination and one's unique perception of something...the creative ways one looks at the world from the things they absorb from books and stories. I hope that both of these movies are amazing, but I don't think the experiences of reading the books will ever compare to the movies.

Slam Poetry

I find slam poetry to be one of the most creative arts out there. Not only does this process of poetry completely inhibit the creative process, but it also combines aspects of the arts to include both composition and performance.

A slam poet follows the creative process by first brainstorming ideas, picking a subject to write about. This is the preparation stage. Next, the incubation period is the time after you have picked a topic before you write...so on and so forth. The slam poet then follows this creative process again by preparing for a performance, finding creative way to deliver the material, and then actually performing it.

I also think slam poets are creative because they are always intrinsically motivated. Poets find material within themselves and find things that other people will connect with. Creativity is absolutely key to a successful slam poem composition and performance. As I watched Anis Mojgani's Shake the Dust I could not help but think of all of the things we've learned about creativity. Even going back to creative improvisation, and how he uses the audience's reaction to fuel his builds and softs in speech. Everything about this art form reflects what we've learned throughout this course.

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

A mother of a friend of mine sent me this. I agree with his first point, that creativity should be as important in schools at literacy. Moreover, I think that arts (music, visual, performing) should be as prevalent in education as math and sciences. If you look into history, in Greek society music was considered just as important or more important than science. They valued that music taught people a unique form of problem solving and approaching material as well as found it a new way to teach the less educated class.
His next point is that you will never get anywhere without failing. He goes on to talk about how the current American education system looks down upon students that find unique answers to problems instead of applauding their unique approaches and correcting their conceptual mistakes (his idea, my words). Theresa Amabele touched on this in one of her earlier articles, as have other people in academia, but no one has made such a point as he has. He goes on to say that we are all born artist, born creative, and then educated out of creativity. I do think the structure of American society turns its nose up at creative approaches to things, especially when these approaches result in failure. In the business atmosphere, one is fired and demoted for failure instead of realizing what doesn't work and growing with what does.
In discussion, we talked about certain people who thought that physical stimulation would result in more intelligence. He also touches on the idea that dance isn't a valued art, and people are trained from an early age "from the waist up, then directly to the head."
I find it extremely interesting how he discusses that our education system began at the turn of the Industrial revolution. This was something mentioned in class, that the beginning of education started when people could not take materials home so it was about learning the concepts, it was about memorization.
He divides education into three categories: diverse, dynamic, and interactive. He later defines creativity as process of original, valueable ideas that comes about from different ways of seeing things. This is the first definition of creativity that I have fully agreed with. I think he is a person who is a great public speaker that connects with his audience and conveys his point in a unique way that I can't find myself arguing with. He also talks about people having a certain part of the brain that deals with creativity that is thicker in women. This is probably why women are better at multitasking, he states. I, again, agree completely.
All of his propositions about changing the values of intelligence and education are really great ideas, but attempting to change the ways of America is extremely difficult. Though he explains the needs of the people he never gives an answer to how to fix things except to change our way of thinking. Overall, this is a very informative speech, I just don't think his conclusion and plans for the future are valid. One needs to outline a structure for change before suggesting a proposal in the way of the world.

Kate Lawrence

Motivation

After much discussion in class, I've begun to really compare extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. I've found that I am someone who is extremely self motivated, therefore I find ways of making myself doing things not for the reward but for the self-gratifying purposes.
To me, extrinsic motivation is a great way to motivate people who cannot find motivation themselves. This is like people who work for the sole purpose of making money, but not to ever have a career in what they are doing. But, I differ from the current readings because I think some people intrinsic value the extrinsic motivations. By this, I mean some people work for the money (an extrinsic reward) in order to have the funding to support their family, themselves, or do to things they enjoy. Thus, their enjoyment and financial support are these people's motivation, and those are intrinsic values. If this makes any sense, in my view these values become crosslinked.
Likewise, I feel like the workplace and the environment in which one works effect how motivated a person can be. If someone is working with people that are not diverse, or not constructively helping to reach a goal, it is harder to attempt to motivate yourself when people are surrounding you with negative energy.
I also think that Domain Related Skills have a lot to do with a person's intrinsic motivation. If you don't understand the work or possess the domain related skills, one does not have the same motivation as another person who is extremely talented or creative in an area. This differs from Theresa Amabele's view somewhat, but I think that you have to have some sort of knowledge and inner goal to do things.

I see all of those motivations in everyday life. I find that people within the theatre or the arts are extremely self reliant and self motivated, because you cannot always rely on a director to praise your work...no matter how much effort is put into a task. Also, I think that people who work just for the money tend to hate their jobs and try to completely remove themselves from the workplace in order to just complete the task. This goes back to the issue about the rats going through a maze for a piece of cheese. The mouse that races just for the cheese does get the work done quicker, but the mouse that takes its time to get to the cheese and explores the maze more better understands the domain and finds better ways of problem solving. Obviously the second case is a better case for creativity because it allows for greater exploration of the domain. The first mouse is extrinsicly motivated by the cheese and the reward at the end. The second is doing things purely for its own purpose and finds a reward in its own creative work, thus intrinsic motivation.

These are just some of my views on the issue.

Kate Lawrence

On GirlTalk, Andrew Bird, and music

After discussing music in class, I was left with a bunch of opinions on what the music calls creative. First, I think that there are two types of creativity. Performance being the first, because it does take a certain level of skill to be able to produce music that has already been done, such as people who do symphonies and tribute bands. But, they are not as creative as the people who originally created that sound, that beat, or that flow. The Grateful Dead probably has four thousand tribute bands dedicated to them, but they none of them get as much recognition as the original. Yet, orchestras and symphonies are praised for their works. I think its so odd that these two types are not equated in stylistic approach at all (not to say that they are at all the same or relative at all, but they are serving the same purpose).
In the same sense, I was thinking to this as I listened to one of my favorite CDs. The artist is Gregg Gillis, more formerly known as "GirlTalk." He is a mashup DJ that is pure genius when it comes to taking thousands of songs and blending them into one track that is full of energy and flawless transitions. I find this to be extremely creative and combines both the performance and composition aspect by the blending and editting of tracks both for CDs and concerts. Not only does he combine typical party songs, he combines tracks from several different genres..in one song he moves from The Cure to Soulja Boy. Typically each track in includes 15 - 20 different songs and beats. If you click the ''more information'' for any of the songs, it will display the songs in each track as they come in.

Some examples:

GirlTalk - Feed the Animals : What its All About
GirlTalk - Feed the Animals : Hands In the Air
GirlTalk - Feed the Animals : Don't Stop

In the same respect, I also find artists like Keller Williams and Andrew Bird to be exceptionally creative, though Keller Williams is a tribute artist. He is also a one man band, and plays all parts of the music by himself. Likewise, Andrew Bird mixes classical with contemporary as he plays all instruments himself. With all of this said, I really don't think music can be specificied enough that one can say certain types of music are not creative. All of this is mind-bogglingly Big-C creative. Just in terms of the reading and discussions being applicable to our everyday lives, these are some great examples of musicians that might not be fitting the traditional mold of what a creative artist is, but because of the risks they take I also would classify them as more creative. PS, Andrew Bird is BEAST live...it is fantastic.

Andrew Bird - Anonanimal - Live

Kate Lawrence

neuroscience and such

I took an online quiz to see how creative I was, because that is the ultimate test of knowledge.

According to this test....I am 66% Left Brained and 33% Right Brained. It also said:

Kate, you are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always. Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself. Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem. Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions. You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.

I disagree...but anyway. I think that the entire concept behind neuroscience and the left and right brain theories are fascinating. The book concludes that both brain types must be used to support creativity. I think so as well..I think they do exist but its not a clear cut type, everyone is a little of both. Though the left brain seems to be defined as more analytical and the right is more artistic, its all give or take. Basically, among all of these ramblings I'm trying to say that I don't agree with the view that left brain isn't creative and right brain is, but I do think they exist to form into a unique creative foundation.

Likewise, in regards to the rest of the things mentioned in the Biology chapter, I think its slightly gross that they took Einstein's brain to study it. But its interesting to know that it isn't something that is in the brain that makes up personality or creativity. This is a weird thought, but my sister is a research psychologist..and she did a study that proved when a person died their brain lost I think 4 ounces of weight (don't quote me on the exact amount). She believes that that is the weight of someone's soul, and I think though it is a deep philosophical statement, that is where one's personality and creativity lie. I'm not saying that they're the same thing, that was disproved earlier. But all of these things are connected in a way. I think one's personality makes them more prone to do creative things...artists are obviously more prone to create "Big C" works. Some of these statements do go against the book, but that is just my two cents on everything.

- Kate Lawrence

Artificial Creativity?

I'm still not certain that I can support artificial creativity as being fully creative. By definition of developing something appropriate and new contingent upon the situation, I feel like the artificial aspect of these arts take away from the true creative style. As I mentioned in class, I feel like the arts we discussed (music, the computer painter, the story creator, etc) become more of an application of creative thought than an outlet for creative process.

For example, last semester in our theatre class we were told to put on a scene from Peter Pan on a program called Second Life. Second Life is a program where people make an avatar to look anyway they want and then run around creating things and making friends in a virtual world (thus, their "second life"). Though the process was fascinating...including building the terrain to look like the set, dressing our characters, rehearsing on the program, gathering props like handbows, and working through all the kinks and whatnot...it still does not compare to the creative process of constructing a real show. Gestures, acting techniques, full control of the body, and the ''onspot''ness of being in a real show were completely lost. I'm not saying that these experiences qualify the meaning of theatre, but I do think that the creativity process of doing a real show plays both a pivotal role and an important skill of understanding the tasks of a performer.

I will not deny that the makers of this program are extremely creative, but it almost seems that one accounts those people's creativity as one's own when playing this game or making up a story, etc...You aren't building anything on there, you're applying what you're given and claiming it for your own. At the end of the semester our class got into a heated debate over if this scene that we had done qualified as theatre. The argument lasted for over an hour, so I'll spare the details but I do think its a form...just like radio theatre or pantomime, but a form where something is missing to make a complete image. Just because it takes less time to make a tree out of pixels than it does out of plywood doesn't make it any better or more creavite (simply on the grounds of being faster). If the experience is anything its new and unique, but as discussed in class that is not the entire explanation of creativity.

So, with all this said I really can't say I fully support artificiality as a creative art. The makers of it are creative, the process behind it is creative, but I'm not sure that the application of another person to act as a parasite off of these means qualifies.

Kate Lawrence

Creativity Blog

testing....1.....2.....testing......1....2....