Creativity.

 

From this course, I see even more how creativity exhibits itself in science and in everyday life.  Using the concepts I’ve learned, I’ve redeveloped my notions of creativity and have gained a better understanding of what I can do to enhance my creativity (mainly hard work and motivation).   Also, I think that I am now better equipped to help others better understand creativity and work to foster their creative abilities as well.  Being armed with the theories and concepts of creativity (especially Amabile’s componential model, Mike C’s systems model, and the importance of knowledge/experience), I can help educate others about creativity, help them to develop their own definitions/beliefs about creativity, and probably most importantly to help them determine ways that they are creative already and ways they can be more creative.  Being able to break-down the creativity myths is also another way that I am able to help people better understand creativity as a whole and their own creativity. 

Creativity doesn’t mean artistic and it doesn’t mean entirely original.  I think the most important components of creativity include being able to take what has been done and seeing it in a new way and helping others to see it differently as well.  New ideas don’t come out of nowhere; they develop from the work and the world that already exists.  One must first educate themselves in the history, skills, and works within a domain before they can hope to contribute something truly creative.  Everyone is creative in their own way and everyone can become more creative, but it takes hard work and dedication to do so.

Exploding Dog: Sam Brown as the ultimate commissioned artist.

So, a while ago I brought up the idea of commissioned art on the discussion board.  At the time I was reluctant to say whether I thought it was more or less creative than non-commissioned art.  Now, I think that I have come to the conclusion that commissioned art requires more creativity than non-commissioned art.  While working on a commissioned piece, the artist must not only take into consideration the medium, aesthetics, execution, etc…but also has the extra constraint of producing a specific piece for a specific client (the ‘appropriate’ aspect of creativity has become more complicated).  While the range of constraints is vast (i.e., not as strict in the case of Mike’s mantle piece but more strict for a family portrait or historically those done for the rich and royal) and in turn the range of creativity needed to create such a piece is varied as well, overall this new constraint (no matter how open) does require an additional dose of creativity.  Even if a long list of constraints is given, the artist themselves must use their skills to make a cohesive, unique, novel, and appropriate piece both for the world of art and more specifically for the client.  Sometimes I even think that the level of creativity needed increases with the number of specifications.   

The way I see it, the creativity behind commissioned art is a kind of see-saw.  On one hand, the artist must worry about creating something that is novel, meaning it gives new insight or presents a new view (a sense of originality).  On the flipside, the piece must be appropriate in that it contributes to the domain of art and also satisfies the client’s desires.  As the number of constraints given by the client increases, the artist must focus more on the appropriateness aspect of creativity and less on the novelty side.  When there are fewer constraints, the artist can focus on the novelty (in some ways more originality and freedom) and less strictly on the appropriateness.   The highly creative commissioned artist will fulfill both the novel and appropriate aspects of creativity.    

One example of the commissioned artist is Sam Brown, the artist and creator of www.explodingdog.com.  His mediums of work include pen/ink drawings, computer graphics, metalwork, and photography.  He also has published books of his work, some which are collections and others which have a storyline, and clothing.  He has recently had a gallery show (which you can see pictures of on his website), so he has in a sense done an installation piece as well.  His pen/ink drawings are mainly based on original ideas, but his computer graphic pieces are based on short phrases that are suggested by others.  Anyone is invited to e-mail Sam with a tag-line for a piece, which he sifts through and selects ones that inspire him.  These images are then posted on his website.  He also recently invited people to send suggestions through the regular post, which he would draw and then send back to them.  His work reflects both the novel and appropriate aspects of creativity.  His pieces might be considered only pseudo-commissioned since he does not necessarily create what his ‘client’ intended, but rather incorporates their ideas into his own.  He definitely has a certain style (which you can see evolve and change over time if you look at his previous works) and a message which he wants to employ using his art.  I think that he is definitely a creative individual and a successful pseudo-commissioned artist.   

He has also inspired creativity in others with his ‘drawing game’ [http://explodingdog.com/drawinggame/] which involves collaborative creativity in creating one large piece of art.  People are designated a tile on the large work, and in order create images to contribute to the final piece.  What one makes can or cannot take what has been done previously into consideration.  I think that it is interesting to see the different kinds of creativity that result from different creators.  Some people really try to make their piece ‘fit in’, while it seems that other attempt to create something new and also leave an opening for others to then create with.   

Below are link to some of my favorites of his pieces: 

http://explodingdog.com/january2/iamnotansweringmyphone.html  

http://explodingdog.com/january2/ionlyhaveone.html   

http://explodingdog.com/january2/imissyou-pleasecomehomesoon.html   

http://explodingdog.com/january2/iamwastingmylife.html   

http://explodingdog.com/january2/itwasalongtimeagobutistillt.html    

http://www.explodingdog.com/january2/ifatreefallsinaforestandnob.html   

http://www.explodingdog.com/january2/ihaveloveforyou.html     

http://www.explodingdog.com/january2/warning2.html    http://www.explodingdog.com/january1/icantremember2.html   

Can you see that I love them all?  It was hard enough to narrow it down to these!  J

We’re scientists. We’re ‘real people.’ We’re ‘smart’ AND creative.

Despite all the myths about scientists not being creative, I’ve always thought of them as such.  In my field of laboratory research science, I see my co-workers as extremely creative people even though they don’t think they are.  I think that this is probably because they’ve convinced themselves that “artistic = creative” and also because they’ve fallen victim to the myth that intelligence/knowledge and creative ability are on different ends of a see-saw and that you can only exhibit one or the other.  THIS IS NOT TRUE!   Being knowledgeable is a vital part of being creative.  Without having the knowledge of your domain, you limit your ability to be creative.  Yes, we’re scientists.  Yes, we consider ourselves to be educated, analytical thinkers, BUT that doesn’t mean that we can’t be creative as well.  We are ‘normal’ people and have just as much potential to develop our creative thinking skills as everyone else.  We can be both ‘smart’ AND creative (sometimes even with the Big C!).   

I think that research science definitely falls within the bounds of the ‘definition of creativity’ (or at least into mine).   

1.  Novelty and Appropriateness:  Scientists work to develop theories that are both novel, in that they present us with new information to work from, and appropriate, that they are relevant to where science stands right now.  You can’t publish something that has already been done; no one cares if it isn’t novel.  But also, you can’t publish something that has no relevance on today’s scientific society; no one cares if it isn’t appropriate.   

2.  Seeing old things in a new way:  The work we do doesn’t pop out of nowhere.  We work to take concepts and research that has already been done and look at them in a new way.  We combine ideas and known facts from the past and discover something new in what already exists.  Through this we are able to develop a better understanding of the truths of science and also work towards a better society in which we can help prevent, treat, and heal and to inspire researchers of the future.   

3.  Problem-finding:  While scientists are fueled by defined problems/goals, how we go about developing hypotheses and finding the data to make them into theories is problem-finding.  For example:  Our lab has a general goal of contributing to the diagnosis of and treatment for heart failure and more specifically that which is linked to diabetes and obesity.  [http://kellylab.wustl.edu/res_interest/resint.htm]  While these are our general goals, and thus defines a broad problem for us, the researchers in our lab problem-find in their research by determining which genes, regulatory factors, transcription factors, etc might contribute to the problem, how they effect our bodies, and in developing a deeper understanding of their function may develop strategies for therapies and treatments against these illnesses.   

A lot of what Dr. Sawyer discusses in his chapter on scientific creativity holds true for me.  I agree with him that the key to creativity in the sciences is having a large knowledge base in the domain which is most closely linked to COLLABORATION.  Being a good scientist is in part being well versed in your field.  This not only includes a basic understanding of the science but also studying all that has been already done in your specific field, all that is being done, and what is potentially being looked at in the future.  You must be on top of the research to do good research (good meaning that in the end you will be able to contribute some new knowledge to the field).  However, no scientist can know everything!  This is where collaboration comes in.  You can’t know it all, so you must immerse yourself into a community of scientists who have similar interests and goals as you.  What you might not be as familiar with, they might be.  They may be able to see something in your work that you are unable to, either because you have overlooked it (which is possible when you get so consumed by your work) or because they have a better understanding of certain aspects of the research than you do.  Also, collaboration also helps you to develop your technical skills which will open new venues for your work.  You must be willing to try new experimental techniques and this is only made possible by collaboration with others.  Talking through your work can also help you to better understand your work and allow you to think more creatively.  Bouncing ideas off of someone else is just as effective in science as it is in any other domain.  Someone else may be able to contribute something to your work that you could not see on your own, or maybe something that you thought made sense might actually not and in saying it out loud you are better able to grasp that.  What Dr. Sawyer says about lab meetings is totally true; our best thinking is done there.  Our lab meets once a week all together, but also in smaller groups throughout the month as well with more specified groups within the lab and with members of other labs both at Wash U and from other scientific communities.  Lab members also attend conferences where they can share their latest work and hear about what others are currently working on as well.   

As a truly creative scientific mind, Dr. Kelly (aka “the Big Boss”) constantly stresses the importance of:-Staying on top of what is being done in the field (what is being worked on by others and what is being published). 

-Conversation with others about your work and how what others are doing may influence or contribute to your work.

-COLLABORATION.  Working together is what gets work done.  The most interesting experiments are developed in collaboration and through this connection with others we can truly hope to contribute something meaningful to the field. 

-Hard work, hard work, and more hard work.  He is a stickler for a constant stream of thought, experimentation, and new data.  No moment should be wasted.  You start a project and then you dedicate yourself fully to its completion. But…

-Constant evolution of work.  A series of work that gets published is by no means ‘done.’  In science nothing is ever ‘done.’  There is always something new to study and discover.  One project may inspire fifty new ones.  But…

-You can’t do everything!  One must be able to pick and choose through ideas and possible experiments.  There is not enough time, energy, or money to do every experiment that you might like to.  In discussing with others and looking at past work, you must decide what is most promising and pursue that over others.   

On page 276, Sawyer states that “Top scientists realize that scientific creativity depends on conversations, and they do all that they can to create more collaborative connections.”  We know that we cannot and need not do it alone.  It is through these connections and collaborations that we can do our most thoughtful and creative work and contribute towards progression in the field.  A non-creative scientist is no scientist at all.