need help with thesis proposal, theme: creativity, idiolect, education

hello to all the wonderfully creative people on this website,

i'm putting together a phd thesis proposal on the creative process as idiolectic in nature and looking how the education of creativity as a skill can factor this into the curriculum.

i'm a performing arts based practitioner, specialising in management and administration (supposedly adequately informed on culture as well!)

creatives, academics, writers, readers - all contribution and thoughts welcome!

x cb

p.s. how does this relate to spanking? uhm, maybe through motivation theory for the education system?

I must confess I had to look up "idiolectic" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, so for the benefit of those as ignorant as I it means "form of language used by an individual person" which doesn't take me much further forward.

A lot of my writing is based on personal experience, although I do adapt it to suit the story in question. I'm not really sure this answers your question, but there are many more erudite writers than me in the library, whom I'm sure will help.

I hope by responding I'll encourage others to join in.

Could you possibly explain this in a bit more detail?

Creativity is certainly a fascinating subject. In my younger days, I came into contact with two prolific inventors, but they couldn't possibly have been more different in personality and style. It's debatable whether creativity can be taught, but it can certainly be fostered by a supportive environment where people aren't afraid to come up with apparently "stupid" ideas.

I don't believe creativity can be taught. I think one can establish an environment where scenarios are set so that an individual can use their imagination and try to solve various issues i.e., choreograph new dance steps to achieve a particular position, use uncommon objects to create wall art, write a story that does not exceed 50 words yet establishes a beginning, middle, end etc.
I'm a fiber artist and conduct a problem solving seminar at a local university that allows other fiber artists to create art in mediums they've never used before. They sketch, plan and try to use previously unknown materials and techniques to create a piece of art that is museum quality. I call their problem solving a definite type of creativity. AND their art results are magnificent.

hello.

thank you for all the thoughts so far. as to define the creative process as idiolectic in nature, it would imply that everyone's approach to a creative process would be unique to the individual, as speech patterns are unique to an individual. either through cultural, developmental or socio-economic circumstance, no one would have the same approach to any creative process.

that being said, i wonder whether it is the individual perception that differs (i.e. a person is taught a creative process but it is interpreted differently by each individual due to factors listed above) or whether the creative process itself is differs from person to person, scenario to scenario, that a creative process is unique to the individual and scenario.

for example, if i were to design a set for a play, the starting point would be the script, followed by the director's interpretation/vision of the play, historical periods, external constraints and factors etc etc... so on and so forth... however, if i were to fall down and break my leg and someone was to take over my job, given the same set of external influences/circumstances, he would not have produced exactly the same design that i would have. now, whether the difference would be due to the person's different interpretation of the set of parameters (meaning script, interpretation, vision) or whether it would be due to the person's different set of experiences in life?

i believe it is a mixture of both really. but when applied to teaching or developing creativity, how do we apply this knowledge?

This is just my opinion...

In your example, I think that it would have to be a mixture of both. The person's different life experiences would influence his different interpretation of the parameters.

I believe that a person can be taught any process, including a creative process, just like he can be taught language or music or any number of other things, but the process is just a starting point and cannot be set in stone. Else it would no longer be creative. The process is the framework to which the person must add his own knowledge and experiences. I think that the different perceptions of each person causes the process to become different, and that to teach creativity, we must teach people to think for themselves.

I would suggest that the above statement has a lot truth in it. I edit some stories for other writers on site at times and when I get asked for help with the story, a lot of times their writing does not come near how I would write or express what the submitting author is trying to say.

The submitting writer has a picture in his/her mind when they write and I could not possibly come close to the same details in the picture in my mind of the same scene. I believe we all (or at least almost all) write with some sort of picture in their minds of any scene or situation. For me as an editor or even as a reader it is impossible for me to have that same picture, therefore the scene may not flow or even in some situations make sense.

When co-writing a story the situation gets even worse because two or more people perhaps not able to meet together physically have to arrange a coherent story and it takes a lot longer to arrange that then when writing as a single author. The same fact holds true to editing, so many times I have to fight to urge to change to story to "my" way of writing, which of course leads to the question, "whose story is this really?"

If you have read my story on Perceptions, a story I wrote before you posted this on the forum, it tells of a young man who has a certain set of ideas in his head and nothing is done to change his perceptions. His perceptions become truth to him, although they are not true to anyone else in the story. It is the same way I write any story, it is "my" perception of how a scene would unfold under a set of circumstances, and "my" perceptions is entirely true to me. However to a strong M/F writer, "my" perceptions may be far from the truth as they view the story from their own perceptions.

That is the great thing about the human mind, every individual, whether they are deemed "creative" or not, see every situation from their own values and viewpoints, changing what is seen to fit the ideas and values of each individual.

There are some stories from certain authors on site that I will not read, simply because I do not like what they write and their view of what they write. However that does not make them bad writers or people, it simply means I choose not to read or comment on their stories due to my own perceptions.

Creativity in the arts such as writing is only defined and limited by each individual. and fortunately each individual grows and changes as they get older and so does their creativity. I would say some of the most creative people I know are under the age of 10, but whether I will call them creative at the age of 30 remains to be seen.

CS

I've noticed this too, and wonder whether the teaching of creative process itself may be inimical to the ability to create insofar as process interacts with creativity in the same sort of way that CS says happens in the way of two creative instincts.

In the example of a collaboration or an editing, there is not just the two people's creative whatsits at work but their different processes as well, and each of these four can grate against the other.

For example, I'm writing a story with someone. We both have fundamental ideas, which mare different. She likes to work out the whole plot and the required scenes before laying pen to paper, whereas I get a nebulous idea and let form coalesce about it as the words - many later to be dispensed with - are written. My partner looks at what I've written and says "Where did that bit with the purple furry crocodile come from? That wasn't in the plan." I say "I don't know, but it sort of helped the plot along."

Now the make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach may work for a while, and for those stonking scenarios in an idea-rich zone it may be enough, but the writer will probably find that some tales can't be written that way, raw creativity isn't enough to help them in their way into existence, and some sort of process or planning is required. How much planning, and how much this interferes with the creativity itself is a matter of importance, because everyone has seen formulaic stories/films/TV programmes and whilst attractive on the surface, the lack of creativity shines through.

I don't think you can teach creativity. I believe it is possible to help people learn break down the processes and mental structure that are inimical to the creative process - thus allowing opportunities for the purple furry crocodiles to find their way in. It's what you do when you brainstorm, or play "what if.." games, or a variety of other techniques. You break down the usual structure to let creativity flow. Of course, once you do that, everyone's creativity is different, or flows in different directions. And truthfully, some people jsut have less creativity to flow. Not everyone is the same.

At some point, if you're going to write a story, or compose music, or choreograph dance, or produce visual art, or design a system, the creative ideas have to be organized. This planning/organizing can happen at different times and ways - perhaps you start with a bunch of purple furry crocodiles and herd them into a coherent composition, or perhaps you start with a basic plan and then allow the purple furry crocodiles to creep into it, or perhaps you use some altogether different process. Various creative people will find their own way.

My point is that their are ways to facilitate creativity - mostly by helping people tear down the structure in their mental processes that keeps it in check. Their are techniques to do so that can be taught. The underlying creativity, though - that is innate. You have what you have.

The Great Marlowe has spoken.

A lot of education seems to be actively opposed to creativity - geared to teaching children the 'right' answer (it's easier to count up the number of right answers than to judge how creative an answer is). I remember in my schooldays (a long time ago) being taught in English Lit. that the 'meaning' of a book was largely dependent on the reader's individual interaction with the author's words - and then being told that in the exam we would be marked on the examiners' interpretation of what the book meant!

The only example of being taught creativity I can remember was in art class when we were told to imagine and draw a combination of a fish and a pig, then draw another one as different from the first as possible...!