Creativity: it is our mantra, our saint, our god, our joy, our reason to be. We have a big brain and complex wiring in that brain. Clearly, humans can be creative. Yet, what does it mean to be creative? Well, if we look closely, and try to be careful and empirical in our search for definitions, creativity implies change. Creativity means, if it means anything, doing something differently than that something was done before. To me, creativity implies competition, in the sense that you are sure you can do anything better than others, before you, did. You can make things prettier, nicer, more thoughtful, whatever. Clearly it implies a breakdown of traditions.
Last week my sister, Anne, and I were talking about historical periods with a 14 year old girl. The girl mentioned that she had just finished studying the Middle Ages (and thank god for that, she felt) and was moving on to the Renaissance, which she loved. My sister mentioned that she loved the Middle Ages and I offered that the Middle Ages were, to me, much more fascinating than was the Renaissance. The girl looked at us like stink bugs under a microscope: one could see on her face her mind rolling around the thought: how on earth could an adult be so stupid? We let the topic drop then, but due to her arrogance (one has to balance between honoring the confidence it takes for a 14 year old to be so free to think that a 60 year old is stupid, and wanting to let that 16 year old know that there are things out there, Horatio, that she has not thought about. So, over tea, I mentioned that I had written a book in which I praise the Middle Ages and denigate the Renaissance. She just thought I was stupid, but her mother asked why. I tried to explain that for much of human history the function of art had been to promote kinship (or kinship-like) cooperation. This had been its function in the Middle Ages, when all were brought into a metaphorical kinship system under God the father and Mary the Mother and were encouraged to treat one another as if they were close kin: brothers and sisters, children of a common ancestor, God.
Of course I went on and on, but the 14 year old was unmoved, ending the conversation saying that the art of the Middle Ages was, like Egyptian art (with little change), boring. I bit my tongue, briefly, and then said, "well we are brainwashed in this country to think creativity is important, but creativity to some extent is about competition." Why can't people see that cooperation is important; there are costs to creativity, just as there are costs to traditions? The thing about traditions, however, is that they were honed over time. The people who followed them were successful, in that they survived and became ancestors. Why can't we see that many of our social ills are due to our lack of cooperation. We no longer have "boring art" or bowling leagues. We seem to have forgotten how to cooperate in our zeal for creativity.
3 comments:
When my mother (born in 1918) was young, teenagers played out their social life in groups, not as couples. The activities were inexpensive -- taffy pulls, skating, impromptu concerts -- and emphasized group interactions. The kids were safe, laughed a lot, and learned how to be part of a social network.
By contrast, my kids (who live in a reductionist age of one person/one computer equals a social unit) are in a situation in which dating dfines social life. Kids are expected to pair off at younger and younger ages, to have sex, to form a unit even at parties. There’s no way for kids to really get to know each other before they start going steady. There are hardly any arenas in which kids interact with a group (without the lubricating effects of very loud music, alcohol and drugs), so they don’t learn to converse or to cooperate or to be part of a successful mini-culture. And of course they go though many relationships -- sort of very temporary serial monogamy -- for all the wrong reasons, and with dismal consequences for self-esteem and reproductive health.
It occurred to me while reading this post that it’s a bit like the Middle Ages vs. the Renaissance. While the Renaissance glorified the individual and individual creativity, the Middle Ages represented an era in which cooperation was vital to survival. Perhaps not as glorious for the individual, but very productive for society.
How wonderful to get a post from you. As soon as I figure out my user name and password I will post something else.
WHY do you think that those who did NOT follow the traditions were not also successful, becoming ancestors? WHY don't you think that just as many who DID follow tradition did NOT become ancestors? Where are your death rolls? Birth rolls? I do not buy it. It WAS, I'll grant you, about cooperation in its many guises, and served some purpose, but I would say not so vital as you claim. Yes, cooperation has fallen apart, is falling apart faster and faster, but PLEASE.....creativity hardly seems to be in the equation at all. In fact, I would claim that creativity is only really about competition when you are looking at modern art (or science grants, or the Pulitzer) MARKETS. But you could wipe markets out totally, and homo sapiens would still be creative, infinitely so, now that those bounds once imposed by church and academies and whatever other repressive organizations you want to name, or simple blinkered eyesight, are no longer major forces. This is what I was saying a couple weeks ago about Picasso, who does not even rate among my favorite top 100 artists (excepting maybe his La Celestina series), LIBERATING the fine arts. K said that was bullshit. She said, if not him, someone else. But we could argue about the Great Man Theory of history until the cows come home. If not Copernicus, some other, if not Hitler, some other, if not Jesus... BALONEY. Creativity is about expanding possibilities and excitement in creating something new and excitement at seeing things in new ways and MUCH more. It is one of the VERY few things that justify our existence. Let us include love and true altruism, and I guess that's about the whole list.
Post a Comment