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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
