Creativity in the Classroom Pt 1

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

Sir Ken Robinson, “One of the world’s leading thinkers on creativity and innovation” thinks so. In a 2006 lecture delivered at the TED conference, Sir Robinson goes on to posit that “all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.” (Robinson, 2006)

This lecture has enormous implications for a pre-service teacher. I can’t imagine any pre-service or in-service teacher who set out purposefully to drain the creativity from our pupils. While I don’t agree with every policy or pedagogy embedded into contemporary classrooms, I believe in the good intentions of educational institutions. If schools are not fostering children’s innate creativity then it’s not for lack of trying on the part of the teacher.

I think the arguments made in the lecture are problematic. Sir Ken relies on the modern mythology of the child as the foundation of his thesis. He offers no evidence that all children are talented but instead recounts two cliched anecdotes (I have heard both those tales told in different contexts before) of kids being unintentionally funny to make a sweeping generalization of the entire human race.

Picasso says he spent his whole life learning to draw like a child. He also once said “All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” In the TED lecture, Sir Ken expands on Picasso’s words and states that he passionately believes that “we don’t grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it.” (Robinson, 2006)

I find this assumption about children’s innate artistic abilities fascinating in part because it is so prevalent in society and also because it is entirely proverbial. We take it for granted without demanding reliable data to back up this assertion. I wonder whether it is true or merely wishful thinking, a romantic ideal.

I think it’s an important distinction to make between the belief that we are born with potential and the contention that we are born talented. One notion highlights the endless possibilities that life presents and that given the right opportunities, everyone is capable of achievement. The other position posits that everyone is born with predetermined special abilities unique to that individual.

By definition, talent means some kind of superior ability so it is logically impossible to conclude that everyone is talented in the same way unless the basis for comparison is something non-human. So either the contention is nothing more than an exercise in pointing out the blatantly obvious (ie. everyone can draw better than a fish) or it means that everyone is biologically predetermined to excel in one or more areas.

There is no reason why nature would randomly but equitably hand out gifts to every human born. The persuasion that people are born talented therefore has enormous philosophical and spiritual dimensions. Why are people born talented? Such a question is in essence a rephrasing of the age old inquest into the meaning of life.

If everyone is born with natural talents, do we then have a duty to discover and develop these talents? Do we really have a choice about what to do with our lives? Are we born for a particular purpose and predestined to fulfill certain roles based on our born abilities? Must we use them to serve mankind, or the earth or God? Is it therefore immoral to ignore one’s talents?

I don’t propose to determine which is more true, that people are born with potential or that they are born talented but I believe that it is important to consider what I believe because it will inform my philosophies and pedagogies as a teacher. More on this later.

For now, I will provide proof positive that if I was born with talent, it wasn’t to paint.

This isn’t my first foray into watercolors. This example actually is a marked improvement over my first attempts (which I will showcase later). While this painting is clearly flawed (I didn’t mean for the mermaid to have a unibrow, and those aren’t tentacles growing out of her face, rather I tried to hide said unibrow with additional unruly locks of hair), I am rather pleased with the way the pearl turned out. I looked at techniques to create the illusion of the shape and translucent shine of the pearl and achieved some degree of success in recreating this effect.

This signals to me that I am improving and that explicit instruction in technique makes a difference to the product as well as the process of art making. I really achieved a sense of satisfaction by creating something purposefully and achieving what I set out to accomplish, even if it is in only one aspect of the work. This has in turn, fueled my motivation to continue to paint.