Paper Mill, 2017
Oil on Canvas
24 x 48 inches
Contemporary Creativity
The word creativity like the word art is not easy to define, yet both are somehow linked. They are a sacred unity without any one identity. This idea is overwhelmingly obvious, ask anyone about art and a connection will be made to the idea of creativity. Ask anyone about a creative person and most likely their answer will be, an artist. As an artist and an art educator, the idea of being creative seems natural, perhaps because I too have fallen under the art/creativity identity crisis. I intend to uncover the past notions of creativity, explore the present changes and provide yet another association by creating my own definition of what I refer to as contemporary creativity.
Creativity
Creativity is defined as, “the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.” In the late 1930’s, visual arts began to zone in on the dictionary definition. The focus of art education was justly student-centered and began to foster what has become known as self-expression. Self-expression is based on allowing the student to express his or her owns thoughts and feelings through art. It was a method for cultivating a student’s inherent creative abilities (Zimmerman, 2009). This approach is and was beneficial to the individual, it allowed for exploration and sharing of personal identity, perspectives, and reflections of both self and of art produced. For years self-expression as a form of creativity was encouraged. Encouraging was the responsibility of the educator as Zimmerman (2009) stated, “A teacher's role in a visual arts program was to provide motivation, support, resources, and supplies, but not to interfere directly in students' artmaking activities” (p.384). This idea of only focusing on self as a form of expression and creativity has begun to shift. The idea of creativity has moved beyond that of individual self-expression to that of cultural and personal identity development (Zimmerman 2009). Creative and artistic attention is moving beyond the individual and beyond the classroom.
Play
The notion of play to foster learning and creativity began with the theories of Froebel. Froebel is known as the father of the modern Kindergarten. Within his philosophies, Froebel believed that play was the best method for encouraging a child’s authentic desire, to explore, learn and create (Strauch-Nelson, 2012). Froebel believed that through exposure to nature a child would find ultimate development. Within his ideas of development of the child, Frobel also paid close attention to the development of the teacher by giving specific instructions. Strauch-Nelson, 2012, highlights one of Frobel’s instructions (p.36)
“Take a walk with each class-not driving them out like a flock of sheep, nor leading them out like a company of soldiers, but going with them as a father with his sons or a brother with his brothers and acquainting them more fully with whatever the season or nature offers them.”
This idea of going with, allowing the child to lead is expressed in Rufo’s design to foster student-initiated creativity. Rufo believed that students should be part of the building of the curriculum and have a voice in how they felt the creative process is viewed. Following this idea of joint leadership, Rufo allowed the students to lead and it took them outside. Outside, the students became aware of nature, they saw the lines, shapes, and colors and began to build forts. These forts became an expression of not only creativity but an expression of a community as they worked together to fulfill their objective (p.42). Finley (2011) also explores this idea as she examines the influences of nature have not only on the creative spirit, but the spirit of the individual believing that nature can bring a feeling of love and joy to the student (p.307). Both Rufo and Finley are showing an example of what Edwards (2017) refers to as “open-ended play” (p.9). This open-ended theory refers to the idea that the child is the facilitator or their own creativity and experience. In giving the student control, are we promoting the most valuable experience possible?
Experience
Experiencing nature seems well, natural. It is an opportunity for students to explore, engage and imagine. These ideas are all key to the theories of creativity. Creating is also the level of thinking we as educators all aim to have our students be. Blooms taxonomy places creating at the top of the pyramid as it is the place in thinking that students begin to construct, plan, compose, invent, predict and imagine. Add into the mix Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in which art hits upon all in one form or another and you can see that creating and art are the perfect match. I question is that enough? Are we challenging the ideas of creativity and art enough to move us beyond the theories of the past, the cornerstones of education are still important, but are they relevant today? In looking at the idea of experience learning my feelings are yes and no. Yes, creating, getting students to envision beyond is important, but once again it is basically student-centered. Experience learning/art takes the student and the students ideas out into the world around them. It is interactive, it is aware of current events and it collaborates with the community and beyond to bring attention and awareness to an issue. It is creating students who have a purpose and individuals who care. The conventional definitions of art and creativity are challenged in this realm as they almost take a back seat. The product is replaced by process and creativity is moved from self to society. Public art begins to hold more purpose as it addresses, cultural, social, political and technological communication (Zimmerman, 2009, p.386). Art-based projects reach the masses yet hold onto the eight studio habits of mind (At the Art Center, 2018). Participants become activist as they express the opinions of the masses. The experience of many is becoming more important than one, or is it? In moving to experience art, I feel the individual has an even greater voice as they become part of a cause, part of a movement. Everyone’s creativity matters for their visual message to be seen and heard.
Conclusion
Zimmerman (2009) states, “Creativity needs to be revisited as an important part of art education, art theory and practice” (p.284). I agree we must re-examine the past views on creativity, art and art education and take the most successful elements and transform them to be used as tools for the present and the future. The direction of art education is changing. The need to bring awareness of social, political and cultural issues is there, it is relevant. The need for students to unplug and return to nature, to explore, experiment and re-create is there. The desire for purpose and connection between ourselves as individuals and the world around us is there, Creativity may not have one definition, but we can still re-define it. Art may not have one definition, but we can still refine it. As artists, educators, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, it is our obligation to move forward. I believe we are all creative whatever that means, we all have thoughts and ideas that should be shared. Allowing students, the opportunity to engage and experience art, nature and the world around them is what will prepare them for the future. The definitions may have never been truly defined and I see that as a blessing, as they are open to interpretation. For me, contemporary creativity is concerned with being present in the moment in preparation for the future. It is creating as we go.
References
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Houtz.
At the Art Center (2018). Studio habits thinking of mind. Retrieved from http://www.artatthecenter.org/studio%20thinking.pdf
Edwards, S. (2017). Play-based learning and intentional teaching: Forever different? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 4-11. doi:10.23965/AJEC.42.2.02
Finley, S. (2011). Ecoaesthetics: Green Arts at the Intersection of Education and Social Transformation.
Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies, 11(3), 306-313.
Gude, O. (2010). Playing, creativity, possibility. Art Education, 63(2), 31-7.
Provenzo, E.J. (2009). Friedrich Froebel’s Gifts: Connecting the Spiritual and Aesthetic to the Real World of Play and Learning. American Journal of Play, 2(1), 85-99.
Roeper, G. A, & Ruff, M. (2016). Learning and Creativity. Roeper Review, 38(4), 222-227.
doi: 10.1080/02783193.2016. 1220855
Rufo, D. (2012). Building forts and drawing on walls: Fostering Student-Initiated Creativity Inside and Outside the Elementary Classroom. Art Education, 65(3), 40-47.
Strauch-Nelson, W. (2012). Reuniting Art and Nature in the Life of the Child. Art Education, (3), 33.