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.

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

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.   

I received this mailer from the Illinois Institute of Art-Chicago, and it got me thinking about the relationship between creativity and happiness.  Can creativity make us happy?  Yes, I think it can.  Engaging in a creative act can give one the sense of ownership of something and also a sense of accomplishment in making something that will have an impact on others.  Sharing something of yourself is generally enjoyable and satisfying.  Also, I think that thinking about and speaking of creative works can result in happiness as well.  I personally love talking about different artwork and listening to how others may or may not perceive a piece in the same way I do.  Listening to my little brother tell me about something that he has done that he considers particularly creative makes we happy as well because it makes him happy and I can sense his pride in his work.  I definitely find excitement in all forms of creativity and think that it can enliven you.  While  creativity may not be a necessity for happiness and liveliness, I think that it definitely has a positive relationship with both of them.  Being creative and being immersed in creativity can make one feel happy and alive. 

My younger sister is a high school senior this year and one of their little senior perks is that they can ‘purchase a brick’ in the senior cafeteria so that they can paint it and leave their mark on the school.  The concept is relatively new, so right now each class has been designated a specific wall.  Jesse, my little sister, and her best friend Erin decided that they would paint their bricks together.  [I consider them both to be very artistic and creative and will use them as an example of such.]  I spoke with my sister about both their planning and execution processes.   They first began by looking at other people’s bricks, both from this year and the past few.  They decided that in comparison to the other years, right now their year was pretty boring and they didn’t want to be deemed the “not creative” class, so they decided that they really had to make their bricks super-bricks.  Since they decided to choose two bricks next to one another and share the space, this allowed for them to have a larger canvas to work with.    

They first brainstormed ideas about what they wanted to accomplish with their bricks.  They wanted them to show their creativity, their love for the school (esp. the drama dept), and also their friendship with one another.  They also decided that they wanted their piece to have a positive effect on others instead of just ‘being pretty’.  They decided to use one of their favorite quotations as part of their message.  They then had to choose what the brick would look like.  They wanted to incorporate art that people would recognize and appreciate and that they also liked and decided to go with Vincent Van Gogh.  Jesse decided first to use “Starry Night” on her portion of the brick because she liked the style of the piece, the color palette, and that it had little quirks about it that she loved.  After glancing through some other Van Gogh pieces, Erin decided to go with “The Café Terrace at Night” because it was one of her favorites and also because it would compliment “Starry Night” well.

In their execution, they decided not to do exact replicas of Van Gogh’s two paintings, but rather to incorporate their favorite aspects of the two pieces together.  They wanted something that people would recognize, but also wanted to make the piece their own.  Using pictures of the two paintings for inspiration and guidance, they began their work that was done in a series of 7-half hour sessions (as that was all they were allowed since it was the cafeteria).  They made adjustments to the pieces (ie moving parts of the paintings around on their new piece) so that their works would be cohesive and compliment one another.  Jesse decided to move the cypress tree spires from the left to the right because she felt like they belonged there and Erin decided to flip the café so that it would open up to the starry night.  Some aspects they decided to keep were the red roof, the window shutters, and the shadowy café goers.  They adapted the sky to fit their piece.  As the worked from the outside in, they began to bounce ideas back and forth about how they would merge the two pieces.  They decided to merge in a way that their pieces would share the same sky, moon, and stars and that they would sign their names on the two sides of the moon.  In the end, they incorporated their quotation and a message to their friends.   

All in all, I think that they accomplished their goals and have created a piece that is both beautiful and inspiring.  It draws together aspects of both paintings and also their own personalities.  I think that the piece also speaks to the constant evolution of creative works.  One act of creativity can inspire many others and they can continue to evolve, co-exist, and create new things. 

To help her students sort through ideas that may possibly contribute to their memoirs, she did a series of activities which included both in and out of class work.  One of these was an assignment in which the students were asked to draw a map of the neighborhood they grew up in and then to add in labels and notes about different places and people that they remember from their childhood.  I think that this is a very good way for them to start brainstorming ideas.  Instead of just trying to think up stories from their childhood, they are collecting a lot of little ideas and memories that may later combine and connect to create their mini-memoir.  The children were also asked to take this home and think about them further and add to them after sharing them with their family members.  I think that this really allows for the children to gather ideas and also stresses the importance of collaboration in creativity. 

After doing more brainstorming exercises and choosing a specific memory to work with, she further helped them to gather their thoughts on their memory by doing an in class exercise where they were asked to close their eyes and think about the memory they wanted to write about while she helped them collect details about the memory with questions like “What was the weather like that day?”, “Are there any smells or sounds that you remember from that day, how would you describe them to someone else?”, “Who was with you at the time?”, etc.  I think that this exercise in particular is extremely helpful for the kids because these are details that they might not pull out as important on their own, but when encouraged to think about them, they may re-call things more clearly and remember things that they want to incorporate in their memoir.  She got responses from her students like “How could I have forgotten about how my Gram was baking apple pie that day?” and “I forgot that it was so cold that day!”In a way, it helped them to bring these ideas to the surface in their minds and allowed for them to be a part of the creative thinking (incubation) process. 

I think that teaching them these skills helps them be more creative writers.  It helps them to collect their thoughts and ideas, and also encourages them to think of these types of things in the future.  These writing skills can be applied to the writing that they do in the future as well, not just to this particular assignment. 

The Wynn website describes Dragone [http://www.wynnlasvegas.com/index.jsp]:

“a creative visionary and theatrical alchemist Franco Dragone has presented audiences around the world with dazzling images that stir the senses and the soul, leaving each person ‘seeing’ more than they did the day before.”

I mean, if this isn’t creativity, what is?!

But, while Dragone may have been the creative mastermind behind the production, there is no doubt in my mind that the cast and crew of the show highly contributed to its creative genius and innovation.  While Dragone may have had the vision, it was the cast and crew that made it happen.  Together they developed ways to make his dream a reality and changed it along the way depending on what worked, didn’t work, what people responded well to, and the new contributions of all of the performers and staff. 

The first striking aspect of the show was the theatre.  Once you walk in, you know that the show will be amazing because the theatre in itself is amazing.  To make it more intimate, the theatre is a fishbowl with stadium seating all around a circular stage (so that everyseat is at center stage).  The stage extends both down, underwater into a 30+ foot tank, and up, into the rafters where performers fall out of the sky both with and without harnesses and images are incorporated on the domed ceiling.  The stage is amazing in that it includes a deep tank where the performers do amazing synchronized swimming numbers along with the most spectacular dives, disappearing underwater.  The platform that is the stage is actually made up of many different pieces on hydraulic lifts that come in and out of the pool at different times, creating many different stages.   Just having the vision of such a stage is extremely creative in itself, but having the technical skill to make it real and functional is amazingly innovative in my eyes. 

The choreography of the performance included synchronized swimming, diving, acrobatics, aerial dance in many forms, modern dance, breakdancing, acting, and much much more.  The trainers and choreographers involved in each of these areas must have worked very long and hard to create a cohesive show which was stunning in every aspect and different at every moment. 

The technical aspects of the show were amazing as well.  It is often easy to overlook the crew that works a show because we often see the performers as the artists, but the costume crew, safety personnel, scuba divers, lighting crew, harness crew, sound crew, water/special effects crew, hair/makeup, and music were all just as important contributors to the show’s creative excellence. 

I think that the show really took from all the shows that have been done in the past, all that is being done currently (especially on the Vegas Strip), and what people respond to, to create something that is new and innovative.  After returning from my trip, I did some research online on the show and found an interview of the producers and Dragone saying that when they first started the show it was much different from what is being performed now.  Even after the show was released to the public, they continued to make changes to adapt the show and continue creating something amazing. 

If you get the chance to go to Las Vegas, you MUST see this show.  It is breathtaking in its beauty, startling in its physicality, and just generally amazing!  It just goes to show what amazingly creative and innovative things can be accomplished when people from many different areas of expertise work together for a common goal.  It takes stories, images, sounds, and movement that we are familiar with and brings them all together in a a way that challenges us to look at things in a different way and to see the beauty that is in everything and in all of us.  (that sounds super cheesy, but is SO true!)

I could speak about the show forever, but instead will leave you with links to some footage from and about the show.  I’m obsessed with it and if you get the chance to see it I’m sure you will be too!

Trailer:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB3YWJbYJmY

Long Video (clips of the entire show):  http://youtube.com/watch?v=45SW5LdYGZ 0&mode=related&search=

About the Theatre:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_lEzBsoArc

About Franco Dragone: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SpKDRI38664&mode=related&search=

From the Dragone Website: http://www.dragone.be/en/Spectacles/LeReve/LeReve-Genese-MotFranco.php

    After watching the “Genius” video in class, Sawyer’s descriptions of Savant’s wasn’t sufficient for me.  He describes Savants in chapter 5 as autistic children with amazing artistic skills and describes them as problem-solvers rather than problem-finders.  After reading his very brief analysis of Savants, I was interested in finding out more about the potential biological basis for this syndrome along with details on non-autistic Savants.  This led me to a “Wired Magazine” article on Savants, “The Key to Genius: Autistic savants are born with mis-wired neurons-and extraordinary gifts.  The breakthrough science behind our new understanding of the brain”(Steve Siberman, December 2003).  The article is quite lengthy, but has a lot of very interesting information and I completely recommend it as side reading for anyone who is interested in the occurrence of Savant Syndrome.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/genius_pr.html

The article first describes Matt Savage, the pre-teen autistic Savant who composes jazz for piano.  Going off of a discussion we had in class (about how they chose certain savants to present in the video), Siberman describes Matt as a rarity even within the savant population.  While there aren’t many savants at all, Matt is unique even to them.  While most savants have and IQ less than 70, Matt is actually “highly intelligent”.  He can also read other people’s feelings, unlike most autistic savants.  While music may be considered his main domain, he also has a high interest in math and some calendar skills.  While many argue that savants are not necessarily creative but only talented (in technical skill), Matt does seem to have some creative capability as shown through his compositions.  While it can be said that jazz composition is mainly based on chords and certain melodies, Matt’s work seems to differ in that he has clear intentions of what he wishes each piece to mean.  If you go to his website, he offers brief blurbs about each of his recorded compositions. 

http://www.savagerecords.com/ 

More interesting than just Matt, the article goes on to describe many studies which work to breakdown the biological science behind Savant Syndrome.  Since savants have sills clustered in areas that draw largely on what are considered strengths of the right hemisphere f the brain, it is reasonable that the right hemisphere might be overworking in a way to compensate for left brain damage (which is seen in many savants).  Even though the genes that code for autism and savant are most likely spread out in the genome, there have been findings to support a genetic basis for both.  Research being done at Vanderbilt University found a “cluster of abnormalities on chromosome 15” in families of autistic savants, leading us to believe that there may be a genetic basis for this disorder.  Other syndromes have also been found to correlate with irregularities on chromosome 15, including Prader-Willi Syndrome and Williams syndrome both where patients with mental disabilities have other very domain-specific special skills similar to autistic savants.  The idea of a sex difference in the occurrence of savants is also very interesting.  There are five times more male savants than females.  The belief is that the mis-wiring of neuron in the fetal brain is part of the cause for savant syndrome.  Savants are born with smaller brains, which grow dramatically within the first four or five years, much earlier than normal, and that the quickness of neuron growth may result in mis-wiring of the neuro-network.  Perhaps the most interesting part of the article is that which speak about the “thinking cap”.  Patients with FTD (frontotemporal dementia) lose language faculties but often gain artistic/musical aptitude.  The idea is that these skills were always present, but that the decrease of inhibitory signals from the left hemisphere on the right allow for them to become uncovered.  Allan Snyder developed the idea that by using magnetic pulses to create a ‘virtual lesion’ on the left temporal lobes (coined TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation), they could turn off the area that inhibits savant-like talents and allow a switch from the standard conceptual thought process to one similar to savants which uses raw data unaltered by the mind. This thinking cap didn’t seem to work, but this may be due to the fact that it can only be administered for short amounts of time, nothing like what a true savant experiences.  It is most likely the combination of many biological along with developmental things that result in Savant Syndrome.  While we cannot define any one reason that some become Savants, I think that we can fairly say that there are some biological similarities behind Savant and other Syndromes and by beginning here with our research we may eventually be able to uncover more definitive data on the biological bases for them.  

We acknowledge that there is in fact a relationship between knowledge and creative ability.  Simonton’s findings give some support to the “tension view” of the relationship between knowledge and creativity, but his work is in study of ‘great creators’ who generate ‘masterworks’ in their domain.  Does this inverse-U relationship between knowledge and creativity translate to the littlest c’s? 

To be creative within a domain, we must have some knowledge first…but how much is enough to say that one can then be generating creative works?  Is there a threshhold for how much knowledge/experience one must possess to be creative? 

So if we are working under the acceptance that creativity is domain-specific and that for one to possess creative functioning in a domain they must first have some knowledge and/or experience within that domain…what happens when we give a kid a camera? 

A child with a camera is an amazing thing.  Even with the simplest disposable-no-flash-point-and-shoot camera, a child can take some very interesting photographs.  The question comes whether or not these ‘interesting’ photos can be considered creative.  I personally think that if a photograph is compelling to even one person, challenging them so see something in a new way or triggering an emotion within them, it should be considered a creative work.  But, is intent important here?  If a child (or any person for that matter) is taking pictures just for the sake of playing with a camera and taking pictures, can their works still be considered creative?  I think that yes, they can.  Obviously they should not be held to the same level of creativity as the work of an experienced/professional photographer, but they are still creative even if the intention of making a creative piece of work is not consciously there. 

This makes me seriously question how much of creativity is linked to technical skill and knowledge.  Generally, the output of creative works increases (to a certain point) with knowledge and experience (which can be linked to technical skill) within a domain.  We consider professional photographers to be professional due to the quality of the works, whether they are respected in the field, and their technical skill and experience.  But even at low level of technical skill, a person can still produce creative works.   Someone may be innately artistic and have what we call an ‘eye for composition’ and the ability to ‘make a picture’ (those who can recognize compositional factors in regards to what is aesthetically pleasing, attracts the right attention, and can convey a message), but does that make them more creative than someone who does not have that innate ability?  Well, these things can be taught and with deliberate practice one can develop a keener eye for photography and thus will then be able to produce more interesting and creative works. 

          Overall, I think that there is just a very wide spectrum of creativity within any domain.  It may vary between domains, but it is there.  We must have knowledge within the domain to produce creative works, but in some domains the threshhold for knowledge/experience may seem rather low and minimal. 

A site of possible interest:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/83295436@N00/

So I was just surfing the internet for sites on creativity and found this site called “Enchanted Mind: Magic Happens”.  Yeah, it sounds totally random but looks like it might have some interesting info.  (Peculiarly, it also sells eye masks and sunshine simulators if anyone is interested)

The homepage [http://www.enchantedmind.com/] starts off with: 

Everyone has latent creativity waiting to unfold. Add flexibility to your mind with these simple techniques.

Science has speculated that we are using 10% of our brain capacity. If you want to access and cultivate that other 90% of unrealized potential, read on. Expanding your brain and mind will accelerate your creative potential. Everyone has natural creative talent. We can help you unfold and expand your creativity through simple fun techniques. This site was designed to help anyone, from age 5 to 105, develop their latent creativity and have fun in the process.

I think that every person has creative ability which just needs to be nurtured and am definitely interested in reading more to find out what they suggest for this growth.  I haven’t really gotten a chance to look through the site thoroughly, but quickly tried their ‘creativity test’ and found it intriguing.  The test is for ‘mental plasticity’ which they roughly define as associative flexibility or fluidity of thought and consider being a measure of creative ability. 

http://www.enchantedmind.com/html/creativity/iq_tests/creativity_test.html

I think that this test does in fact have some validity in that it can help one gauge many of the aspects that we have considered to be part of the creative thought process/creative mind.  This includes the capability to think of things in a way others may have not and to create something by looking at the problem/item from a different perspective.  The test also relies on some prior knowledge/intelligence (which I think we can agree is necessary for a great creative mind) and the ability to see connections between things in the world.  I also think that being able to think of things (such as numbers and letters) as symbols for other things is an important skill for the creative person to possess. 

I would be interested in how others react to this test and whether they think it is an appropriate gauge for at least some part of creativity.  If you plan to take the test, I would recommend doing it now before you read this post any further as what I have to say will affect your answers (which we wouldn’t want!). 

In taking the test I found that I definitely had difficulty with some items and in looking at the answers later on found that because of a lack of knowledge/familiarity), there would have been no way for me to figure out that item (for example the 40 days and nights of the great flood and the 11 players on a football team.  Inversely, I found that there were some that popped out at me right away and they tended to be ones that were more science/math related (90 degrees in a right angle, 9 planets in the solar system, 4 quarts in a gallon). 

I went through the list once slowly first, trying to answer what I could and then went back through and in doing so figured out some more.  I found that when I went back through, my answers to some items triggered my mind to think on a similar vibe and figure out other items.  I definitely felt like I experienced some insightful “AHA” moments where one of the items would just ‘click’ for me and I was like, “Duh! That was easy, why didn’t you see that the first time?” (8 sides on a stop sign!).  I definitely was influenced by some priming effects in that every ‘D’ I saw I thought, “Could that be day?” 

Some of the items stood out right away because the numbers were familiar as significant numbers.  For example, 1001 Arabian Nights,  54 cards in the deck, 88 piano keys, and 29 days in February in a leap year just to name a few.  I then glanced through the list of remaining unsolved ones to see if any numbers stood out as novel.  It kills me that I didn’t get the 57 Heinz varieties because I kept staring at that 57 thinking it looked really familiar.

I didn’t think over them for a few days like the site recommended (I was too eager to see if the ones I thought I had were correct), but find this interesting because it mirrors the idea that we need an incubation period to let the thoughts/ideas bounce off each other and fester before we gain insight. 

While I know that this could not possibly be a definitive test for creative ability, I think that it does have some validity and is a very interesting test.