I find that since I usually read philosophy, I came into this class with different expectations about our goals. After reading the sociology chapter, I now know why I have felt so unsatisfied with the seemingly fleeting, meager, ever-changing ideas we've been able to pin down.
Philosophy has a metaphysical spin to it almost always, and creativity class in philosophy would certainly be of a metaphysical nature. In other words, our daily work would be to do a reality check of what is really going on when we do things that we deem creative. What is the intrinsic nature of a creative act? What should be the hallmarks of creativity? These questions lead one down the path of the authentic, down a metaphysical path that may be equally obscure but that at least supposes that there is solidity.
What we've been doing thus far is looking at what society already deems creative and prodding at those masses of "creative" output and those enigmatic "creative" minds as if they are archeological relics. Based on the components of these artifacts, we then try to create a theory of creativity. We're looking at society and giving a report about the particulars of what we find instead of looking at society and digging deeper to find what we're missing.
I am not insinuating that one approach to the study of creativity is better than the other, though arguably sociology may have some directly and more easily definable applications. Creativity itself is a word that is already value-laden. To be creative is good; not only is it a coveted characteristic, but it is one that we have linked with the idea of productivity, another value of contemporary society. So in the context of the here and now, creative=productive=good. We want to know what creativity is so that we can be creative so that we can make more things. And this is important. I agree.
But what if we instead focused the conversation on what creativity ought to be? (For instance, maybe we shouldn't allow the gatekeepers of the domain dictate to us what is worthy. How undemocratic!) What if we focused on theorizing about what ought to happen in the truly and authentically creative moment? There's always going to be evaluative language and there will always be a recognition of historical content, but in this more metaphysical or philosophical conversation, there's at least a stab in the direction of the real, the intrinsic, the ideal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Meagan, great post. I had not thought much about what our class would be like if it were situated in the philosophy department instead of in the social sciences, and your discussion was enlightening. You hit the nail on the head with regard to the difference between philosophy and science -- philosophy can lead us to consider what should or could be, while science is about understanding what is. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement that the class would be a very different thing if we were to be in a different department, even in anthropology, which has been mentioned throughout the text. I like your proposal of persuing the concept of what creativity ought to be and the real meaning behind it. The ideal of what creativity can and should be would be easier to pin point cross-culturally if we were to create a philosophical meaning for creativity.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this post I as well was imagining what it would consist of if it was housed in another department. I think it would be fascinating if we had some guest professors come into class and discuss creativity in their field; how creativity is measured in their field, what is considered creative, and how studying creativity from their perspective would look compared to what the book gives us.
ReplyDelete