Creativity, Collaboration and Learning- 1

My approach to creativity is pretty broad. It is funny, during the passover seder there is a reading about the four sons and their approach to asking about Passover. The last son is described as the one who does not know how to ask the question. For several months now I have been reflecting on my interests and trying to understand the question. It is only in the past month or so that it has become more clear. I am really interested in the relationship between creativity, collaboration and learning. Although I have been thinking about all of this for awhile, it is only recently that I am putting the three together in some sort of pre-coherent way.

I am not completely sure that creativity is something that can be taught- especially in post-secondary education. It may actually be too late. Learners can be guided and encouraged but it seems to me that there is a certain ability to step out of one’s comfort zone when being truly creative. Sometimes I think that it is not so much as a comfort zone, but that the comfort zone of a natural creative person is much broader than a person whose style may be more circumspect. My own heuristic research has showed me that truly creative people are more willing to try things- to mix things up. They (we) learn formal theories and practice and then ask “why” and “what about” or “what if” in very broad terms. Of course there may be (and probably are) psychological explanations for this, but I’d rather look at it possessing an insatiable curiosity of things. Richard Feynman wrote a book of essays called “The Pleasure of Finding Things out”, a title that I love. Seymour Papert has also written about his love of learning.

This is connected to my interest in collaboration. It also seems to me that creative people are always collaborating- with styles and ideas and with people. There are different types of collaborations, which I think is good. But many collaborations are within the same discipline and style of thinking. This creates many types of advances in that particular discipline, which is good.  For example, different types of psychologists or historians who share research topics.

My interest lies in broader types of disciplines- where different styles of thinking (or as Gardner would say, different types of intelligence) are used. The arts and science and engineering are really of interest to me. I am working on projects involving dance and computer engineering, and biology and history now. In the former, I have found that engineering students are really good at what they do, but they get bored designing light circuits and dancers want to use their movement to trigger projectors and lights and sounds. Bringing together the two groups creates some very interesting learning adventures where each group can learn from the other about things they would not know about and can only make their own work a richer experience. In Biology and history, a team can examine a period such as the Black Death and gain a greater understanding of the social, and historical consequences surrounding  the biology and pathology of the disease.

Learning adventures are what ties the two previous ideas together. Though collaborations (internal and external) ideas and concepts are born when exploring the similarities between stuff (technical word). In periods described as “classical” there has always been fewer boundaries between disciplines and ways of thinking. Plastic arts, sciences, music, crafts have always been components of a “complete” education and learning (even though there have been other restrictions placed, such as religion). DaVinci studied arts mechanics; Kandinski wrote about painting and music; Feynman the physicist was also an expert in Tuvan throat singing (of Mongolia); The Talking Heads were art students; Mick Jagger was a student at the London School of Economics.

So my reading is a bit eclectic. Some of the books that I read over the past year include: a couple  by Oliver Sacks -“Uncle Tungstan” and  “Musicopheloa”(brilliant at brining together disciplines and interests), “Thinking in Jazz” (a wonderful ethnomusicological study on jazz improvisation  and how the process can be interpreted and reapplied to other disciplines); The Children’s Machine by Papert; The Playful World: How Technology is Transforming Our Imagination: by Mark Presce; “Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World”; “Out of Our Minds” by Ken Robinson. I am beginning to think that  that the underlying theme is applied change and creativity. I also have read some fun things by Christopher Moore, a comtemporary novalist whose work includes “Bloodsucking fiends” and “You Suck” (both about vampires in San Francisco, and “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal”. His books are fun, funny, irreverent, sexy and do contain little morsels of clarity. For example, in  “A Dirty Job” Moore writes: “Jazz wasn’t something you planned. It was something you did. You practiced, you played scales, you learned your chops, then you brought all your knowledge, your conditioning to the moment…Like the archer, the poet and the painter –it’s all right there- no future, no past just that moment and how you deal with it. Art happens.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: