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....