“In the popular imagination,” writes Tim Blanning in his wonderful book ‘The Romantic Revolution’, “Beethoven was the romantic hero par excellence: the lonely, afflicted, uncompromising, utterly original genius, ‘a man who treated God as an equal’…” This vision of creative minds echoes down the centuries. The tortured artists in their garret, often poor, wearing black, maybe, ‘in mourning for their lives’…
The great artist, driven, mad eyed, wandering lonely as a cloud, the true artist rises, like poetry for Goethe: ‘like a hot air balloon… and gives us a bird’s eye view of the confused labyrinths of the world’…
But back on earth the ‘four Cs’ of the 21st Century ‘soft’ skills that are paraded before teachers as what is needed for children to succeed in the soon to come world are: communication, critical thinking, collaboration and creativity.
If we look at visions for the 21st century classroom we see primary colours, bean bags, formica topped tables with groups of children engaged with some screens and smiling and laughing as they work on some group activity. The assumption is collaboration = creativity.
The contrast with the tortured artist, alone in his garret, shouting at the falling plaster from the ceiling, couldn’t be more stark. Is ’19th century’ creativity, a joyless lonely affair, that accidentally produced great art…?
It was with little surprise that I read: “…there is substantial scientific evidence that collaboration, rather than sparking creativity, results in group think and mediocrity. What does result in creativity? Simple: solitude.”
The Washington Post reports that:
The more social interactions with close friends a person has, the greater their self-reported happiness. But there was one big exception. For more intelligent people, these correlations were diminished or even reversed. More intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently.
In an Inc article Geoffrey James reflects that:
being around other people keeps keep creative people from thinking new thoughts. Indeed, there are few experiences more mind-numbing for a creative person than being forced to interact with dullards on a daily basis.
Even if your office is full of geniuses, they’ll be less creative en-masse than if they can work and think alone. In short, it’s difficult and maybe even impossible to “think out of the box” when you’re literally inside a box (i.e. an open plan office) that’s full of other people.
Isn’t this the problem with the four C’s approach to teaching and learning? It is not modelled on great creativity produced over centuries by our greatest geniuses, rather it is fashioned by a fifth c: the ‘Corporate’ vision and the schools that follow this approach rather than ‘unleashing creativity’ will find themselves producing conventional corporate types who won’t upset any apple carts but will fit into group think activities so beloved of the open plan, group work, trendies that inhabit the world as portrayed so deliciously in the comedy programme W1A.
If you want great creativity, nurture great artists and teach them how to express themselves, rather then flood their minds with group work overkill in every lesson.
Dullards is such a great word. “Indeed, there are few experiences more mind-numbing for a creative person than being forced to interact with dullards on a daily basis.”
Creativity is a difficult beast to define let alone measure, yet we are expected to assess it once a semester.
Our assessments are a little rubbery. http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/LearningArea/LoadFile?learningArea=capabilities&subject=critical-and-creative-thinking&name=2%20Critical%20and%20Creative%20Thinking%20Foundation-Level%2010.pdf&storage=ScopeAndSequence
LikeLike
All the quotes are from the same article – though you give the impression they are from separate sources. Even the original article offers scant supporting evdience for its rather spurious headline. I get that you’re a enthusiast for classics – but an understanding of science and evidence appears to be a weakness. You have a duty to be honest with your readers – this blog article is at best scientically illiterate – at worst deliberately misleading to fit a preferred narrative.
LikeLike
Hmm, been reading your blog for a while, this one is not your finest.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.
LikeLike