Creativity Does Not Need Validation »
It’s unfair to say that my family have not been supportive of my career, however I do remember growing up with the notion that becoming a doctor or lawyer was the ultimate academic achievement and that everything else was simply what awkward, less smart kids did. I always did think that it was slightly unfair, as it implies that the validity of any given subject or career is essentially baseless (being successful in any career is hard work). I would attempt to compare what I’ve learned to what a science student learns, but the irony would be how it shows that I need to validate what I have learned in order to justify myself.
It’s obvious that this manner of thinking devalues the importance of creativity. Ken Robinson’s talk on creativity tells us how from a young age we are taught in schools to sideline our creativity and pursue ‘real’ careers. He argues that creativity is just as important as science or mathematics, yet we don’t have the same amount of time dedicated to dance, music or art in education. We are past that stage of industrialisation where the world was in desperate need of doctors, lawyers and engineers. A passionate careerist can do almost anything and yet we pander to outdated social needs. We are human and creativity is a value which gives further purpose to our bodies other than carrying our information-saturated heads (as Sir Robinson so aptly puts it).
Likewise, devaluing creativity also devalues the jobs of any career that doesn’t strictly fit into that category. By pigeon-holing anything that isn’t creative as a default career we imply that it requires no, well, creative thinking! It perpetuates the ignorant belief that to be creative is a specialist ability and that it cannot exist in other careers. We see creativity in a delicate painting but we don’t see it in the organised syntax of a programmer or the skilled hands of a surgeon. Likewise we don’t see the theoretical implications of dance but will concede that a physicist understands mass, movement and gravity.
Despite this I continue to defend what I do.
Many still insist that an education in creativity is the lowest form of academia. What does being creative mean to you, and do you think that creativity is unnecessarily undermined?
As much as I agree with your support for creativity as well, but in the practical world, dance and music and art just doesn’t give that sense of job security in which a ‘real’ career does. Out of so many ‘creative’ students out there, how many can actually use it to earn a good income? There are famous performers and artists out there, but that’s how few out of how many in the market? Even though I agree that money isn’t everything, in our materialistic world money is necessary. That’s why parents want their kids to be doctors or lawyers; who doesn’t want their kids to be able to support themselves well in the future and not having to constantly worry about how to get the next meal? For myself at least, creativity is a hobby that can also be applied to ‘real’ jobs, but practically I wouldn’t let a creative art become my career. There are too many creative people out there, and the demand for them just isn’t as high.
I feel the need to defend my own, my family and my friends’ choice of careers here too. Lawyers and doctors and engineers aren’t ‘outdated’ social needs. I can see the world running in an incredibly boring and tedious manner without musicians, artists and dancers. But when it comes to saving lives, defending justice and building necessary constructions, music, art and dancing aren’t going to help much. And yet these are three of the most important functions at least in all developed worlds. At the end of the day, it comes down to labour demand. But I also do not think that education in creativity is the lowest form of academia. Our high school certainly never gave me that impression.
You’ve missed what I’m saying. A creative career isn’t an unreliable one, neither is it restricted to two different pathways whereby we sit around grasping a paintbrush wishing for fame and starving to death (this is the most stereotypical image imaginable, yet so infuriatingly popular). Creative careers cover a spectrum you wouldn’t believe, from the bedsheets you sleep in, the books you read to the computer you are sat at (both on and off the screen). I am only struggling for work now because of the recession – something which has left most graduates jobless post-university – but I can assure you that I will never struggle to put food on my plate. I wouldn’t say there are as many valuable creatives as there are hopeful enthusiasts with no real understanding of the industry. There is a demand for creativity like you wouldn’t believe.
I never said socially-orientated careers (like law, medicine, teaching) were outdated. The demand for them is outdated. It’s no longer necessary to instil the values that these careers are the only valid careers. There is not such an intense demand as there was during the industrialisation (where most people were still uneducated and therefore unable to fill the positions needed to keep the movement going).
And whilst you say you perceive creativity as equal, I still disagree. You state that life without creativity would merely be tedious. I say creativity is not just there to liven up life, it’s just as necessary as breathing. We need to think creatively to solve problems, communicate effectively and visually perceive our reality. Those qualities are vital in all careers and taught most efficiently in creative classes. Yet at school we get three hours of mathematics a week, but only one hour of art. I’m not asking to overrule traditional subjects, but to balance them. It would be a more accurate depiction of the career choices we have later in life.
There is also no need to defend your choice of career. I believe I said that we devalue careers by calling them ‘default’ and therefore undermining the creativity needed to be successful within them. Creativity is abstract and exists in everything we do if we are to be successful.
I think creativity does tend to be a little too less thought of though I understand the reasons for it. A world of musicians and artists aren’t going to be able to help a man who falls down from a stroke, a doctor can. But we need to value creativity more because we’d be a dull and bored lot without it. Careers we’re taught to strive for don’t tend to provide as much entertainment (interest yes, fun not so much) therefore we need those who are passionate about the arts to fill that gap and vice versa.
The meaning of creativity to me revolves around the particular person because you can be creative in other ways than the arts, even if the arts are still at the heart of it.
Firstly, creativity =/= boredom buster/hobby/useless entertainment. Just no.
Secondly, careers which are not stereotypically creative can still inspire passion and inspiration. My brother studies law and history. I can assure you that we have debates about politics which are very entertaining. The arts aren’t ‘filling a gap’ amongst careers which are ‘boring’. The world isn’t how it is in Legally Blonde.
I feel your pain, though my parents did more than that. They kind of just ASSUMED I’d do well in the humanistic field, and never cared if I did well. They did however get quite disappointed if I didn’t do well… now THAT is hypocrisy. D:
Still, for the most part, an engineer would get paid more than an art university graduate. So… from that point of view, it’s understandable why some people prefer to take up art related things as hobbies. When I was a kid, I always imagined myself doing something art or language related. And then I grew up, and started listening to my parents… who’re both decent in art related stuff, but complete bores and all practical.
We definitely need professionals in art, if nothing else, so that someone can show us how amazing it is. :)
You’d be shocked at how much an art director or curator gets paid. It would make some engineers cry. Which is why the whole starving creative shit is a dirty stereotype. But that’s beside the point.
I think I need to clear up a few things. When I refer to creativity I am talking about the ability to problem solve. Thinking outside the box. Being able to communicate effectively. Sure, a doctor may help a man who falls down from a stroke – but what happens when it happens in a shopping centre and the doctor is off-duty? What does he do that isn’t text-book but can still save that man? What implements can he use in place of his regular ones? Current education teaches children to follow procedure and undermine the creativity which could make them exceptional professionals.
And in the same way doctors are necessary, creatives are necessary. Artists document history from the perspective of culture – including mathematics, taboo, anatomy and social graces. It’s not that history would be ‘boring’ without it, but grossly misinformed. Or designers who are now vital in our current capitalist system where competition is fierce. We open up a visual communication between user and product that is so natural (again, design isn’t just pretty pictures but a mixture of psychology and sociology) that we don’t even see it until it is pointed out to us. Eye recently posted about toilet signs, and how we all universally acknowledge that boys and girls piddle in separate rooms by way of a little sign.
These comments are a perfect example of why I have to CONSTANTLY justify what I do as being something more socially constructive than ‘pretty picturz lawlz’. Watch the talk I posted above… Sir Ken Robinson is at the forefront of education and knows a great deal more than I do.
In human history, it has always been the artists that preserve the culture of our societies and times. I’d say that’s fairly important. ;D
Creativity for me has never been about making pretty things. When I design websites, I do so intending to push the envelope on what I think I can accomplish, and create something usable and accessible. Creativity goes deeper than the surface. It’s about ideas…it’s about thought…if an engineer comes up with a clever solution to a problem, that should be creativity too, but instead that’s called logic or math. I don’t see why the two have to be divided like that.
I recently spent a month in what was, essentially, an artists’ bootcamp, and the people there (students and teachers) made me feel like art was not only a worthy career, but a necessary one. It was the first time I was in an environment were the arts were so respected, because in general, art is seen as a hobby or as a cop-out career (math- and science-related careers are the ’serious’ ones).
I’m not planning to go into a traditional ‘artsy’ career, but I feel being able to practice art (specifically writing, for me) has been valuable. At the very least it allows me to express myself, but it is also a way to advocate for causes or morals I believe in.