Creativity - a learned skill or "you're just born with it"?

[ancient_mariner]

Sometimes one man's creativity is another's artless work. So I saw the Leonard Freed image and saw a found scene that appeared to have been snapped - the creativity was not the picture, but the message the photographer pushed behind it. The Burtinsky image appears to have been carefully assembled and produced - to me a creative image, rather than a story being sold on the back of a picture. Does an image have to have a story to tell, or can it be a frozen moment of time for someone to simply enjoy.... and still be creative?

We've just had a discussion on another forum about art and who defines what it is, which related somewhat to this thread, as a result of this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260

 

[Noah_]

I think most photographers initially have a creative side to them, how do most of us first pick up a camera? Because we want to capture or create something. Most photographers I know come from an art backdrop, whether it's being an artist or having an appreciation for art. Photography is 'imho' a form of art. Something has to inspire us to want to take that photograph, why do you want to capture it & what about it compels you to lift your camera & point your lens at it?

I do think that creative ideas & a vision is something people are, if not born with, developed with surroundings, passions, who we are. It doesn't mean one can't learn to look at things differently, but everyone see's things in different lights, from different perspectives. One might see an old man sat alone on a bench & another might see the detailed lines in his face, the way the shadows fall on his expression & want to capture that moment. That's just an example but you get the idea of what I'm intending to describe, as humans we can perceive things in so many different ways & I think photography is no exception.

Concepts are a good place to start with creative photography.

Creativity starts before you even pick a camera up, by understanding why you're picking it up in the first place. Go and find something to say... and say it... with a camera. It doesn't have to be profound... just interesting. You'll have opinions... go visualise them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sometimes one man's creativity is another's artless work. So I saw the Leonard Freed image and saw a found scene that appeared to have been snapped - the creativity was not the picture, but the message the photographer pushed behind it.

But realising what you have is as much part of the creative process as anything else. Above all, Freed's ability is documenting the very things that question who we are, why we do what we do. He may not plan projects in the way some artists do, but he's not just walking around aimlessly because he likes "street photography" either. He's got a reason for creating images. He's got something to say.

The Burtinsky image appears to have been carefully assembled and produced - to me a creative image,

Because it's more crafted from a technique perspective? Why is that more creative than Freed's? Does technique = creativity? Looking in the "creative photography" forum in here would suggest otherwise They both have something to say, and make worthwhile points.

Does an image have to have a story to tell, or can it be a frozen moment of time for someone to simply enjoy.... and still be creative?

There are subtleties to this one has to realise. Still life for instance:

Edward Weston's famous pepper image is a still life... a genre seen by some of merely technical and displaying form and texture... and they'd be right to an extent. However, what Weston is doing here is taking those concepts of texture, form and light, and playing with them. He's confounding us into placing very human qualities on the pepper. They become almost sexual.. we see rippling muscle, and sensuous curves, dark skin.. glistening, inviting. We see folds and clefts that remind us of other things that are far removed from a pepper That's clever... and required a great deal of creative imagination to conceive the idea.... all he had after all, was a pepper. That's creative. This random image off the internet however, is probably technically more accomplished that Weston's.... but it's just meaningless pastiche, and a highly derivative copy of classic 16th century sill life paintings. What's the point? We already have a world full of classic 16th century still life paintings, so why make a photograph that's a copy of them? One's clever... one's not. Technical skill has nothing to do with it. The second image would be a great way to practice lighting and understand how light and texture and form work, and it would be fabulous for honing your lightings skills - it is worth DOING.... but the end result is pretty worthless as art.

 

[Musicman]

The reality is that creativity is a means to an end. It's something that you do to solve a problem (working with quite a broad definition of "problem" here). In the case of art, like photography, the problem is usually the communication of an idea. The idea could be straightforward or abstract, but you're trying to employ composition and subject selection and the like in such a way as to create a coherent theme appropriate to what you want to communicate; and excluding or obscuring that which is irrelevant.

If you want to be creative, think of creativity as a process, not an end. Give yourself a problem and solve it. Think of an idea that you find interesting and go try to capture that idea thematically in a single image. Or a series of images. Don't just try to imitate the form of other work you've heard described as creative; it won't work, because creativity cannot be captured solely in the superficial arrangement of objects within a frame.

At least that's my thinking on the subject as an artistic novice.

That chimes with my experience being taught 'creativity' (AKA 'Design Method' modules) during my Architecture degree (architecture is similar to photography in being on the cusp of both art and science) where we were introduced to a panoply of tools to explore a design problem - Analysis-Synthesis, Inductive Design, Design Patterns, Brainstorming, etc.

Now, in reality, these are techniques for marshalling your thoughts and directing the creative process. They work hand in hand with developing a philosophy (and political view) of what you're doing, your own visual language and mastering the technical aspects of your craft. The point is not to just wait around for that 'Eureka moment' to happen, but to improve your odds of encountering it and to find ways to get a result even if that moment doesn't turn up (which is the hallmark of being a genuine professional in any field).

There are hundreds, thousands, millions of solutions to the relatively simple problem of designing a small house - effective use of methods like these assist in rapidly assessing which ones are not going to work and which should be discarded, and which are worth spending time on developing further. IME, the most creative people are usually very good at running through these processes very quickly, often running with several of them in parallel. Learning to manage your creative processes may not turn you into a genius, some people seem to be born with it, but it can certainly make you a lot better at being creative.

I should mention here that where amateurs and fine artists have an advantage over more conventional professionals in the field of photography is that they get to decide their own brief - the 'concept' mentioned by Pookeyhead. The risk that amateurs in particular face is that they use that freedom to focus only on developing the technical aspects of their craft to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[ancient_mariner]

But realising what you have is as much part of the creative process as anything else. Above all, Freed's ability is documenting the very things that question who we are, why we do what we do. He may not plan projects in the way some artists do, but he's not just walking around aimlessly because he likes "street photography" either. He's got a reason for creating images. He's got something to say.

I'd say on that basis it is not the images that are creative then, but the collection of them together?

Because it's more crafted from a technique perspective? Why is that more creative than Freed's? Does technique = creativity? Looking in the "creative photography" forum in here would suggest otherwise They both have something to say, and make worthwhile points.

To me, the creativity was at a different level because the image was carefully created rather than merely found and then presented as a concept later. One could suggest Freed didn't even need to have taken the image himself, but could have found a stock image or acquired it from a medic or nurse to have exactly the same impact. Not so with Burtinsky. Both seem to be creative to me, but in this instance (I know nothing of the photography of either of them beyond these) one created through his image while the other created around his image.

There are subtleties to this one has to realise. Still life for instance:

Edward Weston's famous pepper image is a still life... a genre seen by some of merely technical and displaying form and texture... and they'd be right to an extent. However, what Weston is doing here is taking those concepts of texture, form and light, and playing with them. He's confounding us into placing very human qualities on the pepper. They become almost sexual.. we see rippling muscle, and sensuous curves, dark skin.. glistening, inviting. We see folds and clefts that remind us of other things that are far removed from a pepper That's clever... and required a great deal of creative imagination to conceive the idea.... all he had after all, was a pepper. That's creative. This random image off the internet however, is probably technically more accomplished that Weston's.... but it's just meaningless pastiche, and a highly derivative copy of classic 16th century sill life paintings. What's the point? We already have a world full of classic 16th century still life paintings, so why make a photograph that's a copy of them? One's clever... one's not. Technical skill has nothing to do with it. The second image would be a great way to practice lighting and understand how light and texture and form work, and it would be fabulous for honing your lightings skills - it is worth DOING.... but the end result is pretty worthless as art.

The still life you linked there is a good example of what I was referring to above. If I were to create a similar image and produce some wording to accompany it that gave a perspective on human development and progression or about the nature of man's stomach being deified and fruits being exalted to a position where they could ascend to heaven and satisfy his glorious appetite - or one of a thousand other similar comments then I would have done the same thing - if I could find enough people to see my presentation as creative art.

Edward Weston's pepper is a creative take on that still life, sure, but there seem to have been a lot of photographers who've ploughed that furrow and still been considered creative. There's a Mapplethorpe Orchid image that I can remember but not readily find to link that probably takes the genre to its peak. Was it worth him shooting vegetative material for its sexual/human parallels? He and many thought so, and that it was great art, but one might also argue they were only adding to previous creations technically, honing lighting and composition skills.

Maybe I should go take a look at the creative photography section? I imagined it to be full of smoke and wire-wool images, bubbles and dye-drops, but perhaps that's not the case.

As for me, I'm happy if people find my images pleasing and want to hang them on their walls.

 

[Pookeyhead]

BTW.. fixed your quotes for you

I'd say on that basis it is not the images that are creative then, but the collection of them together?

I'm not sure. That Freed image by itself is pretty startling. Without having reflected upon the theme.. mortality... the dawning realisation of impending death etc... would you have even thought that shot was worth pressing the shutter on? I mean... that guy's face!.. he's like "is this sh1t keeping me alive?"

To me, the creativity was at a different level because the image was carefully created rather than merely found and then presented as a concept later. One could suggest Freed didn't even need to have taken the image himself, but could have found a stock image or acquired it from a medic or nurse to have exactly the same impact.

Possibly... but it wouldn't have been his image... and furthermore, why would anyone have taken it if they didn't recognise the pathos in it?

Not so with Burtinsky. Both seem to be creative to me, but in this instance (I know nothing of the photography of either of them beyond these) one created through his image while the other created around his image.

Fair comment... but I think the crafted approach from Burtinsky is due to planning this as a body of work. He obviously heard about the ships, heard about the beaches in India, and thought, "Right... I'm booking a flight... I'm going to document this" and obviously planned it. Freed was working fast, as many street/documentary photographers do, but in many ways, that means I have more respect for Freed for recognising the power in the scene in a split second. How many people would have just walked past without seeing anything of any worth?

The still life you linked there is a good example of what I was referring to above. If I were to create a similar image and produce some wording to accompany it that gave a perspective on human development and progression or about the nature of man's stomach being deified and fruits being exalted to a position where they could ascend to heaven and satisfy his glorious appetite - or one of a thousand other similar comments then I would have done the same thing - if I could find enough people to see my presentation as creative art.

Yes.. but it needs words therefore. But Weston used no words. He just shot a pepper Almost everyone who sees that shot sees the skin... gets the sexual connotations. It needs no words.

Edward Weston's pepper is a creative take on that still life, sure, but there seem to have been a lot of photographers who've ploughed that furrow and still been considered creative.

Of coufrse.. nothing is truly original... but Weston got in there first with the whole sexuality of plants vibe (so far as I'm aware) Mapplethorpe came later... but...

There's a Mapplethorpe Orchid image that I can remember but not readily find to link that probably takes the genre to its peak.

Different slant on it though... and dare I say less original. Same thing though... stamens... penises etc.

and that it was great art, but one might also argue they were only adding to previous creations technically, honing lighting and composition skills.

I think that's always going to the case to some extent. It doesn't mean you discount it as art because it's a different take on a theme, but the conventional still life I linked to is merely copying. It's entirely probable that while Mapplethorpe would have been aware of Weston's pepper images, he had a different remit, that being finding creative ways to add homo-eroticism.

I imagined it to be full of smoke and wire-wool images, bubbles and dye-drops, but perhaps that's not the case.

No.. it is. The odd gem, but mainly technique driven. Nothing against that forum. I just think it's inaccurately named.

As for me, I'm happy if people find my images pleasing and want to hang them on their walls.

As are we all... I'd be happier still if people talked about them, and spent some time pondering the reasons though

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks David, good discussion.

 

[Lindsay D]

I'm not so sure about the whole "born with it" theory. Of course we are all born different, to an extent, but I firmly believe that creativity is a learned trait. That learning can be entirely passive - take for example - a very creative parent whose child is being exposed to a creative mindset and possibly a creative environment, and therefore adopts creative thinking. Then there is the child who has had no creative influences in their life, but is exposed to something one day, an isolated event even, in a manner which strongly resonates with him or her. An interest develops, and a path of learning. I know the sons and daughters of established artists, some have gone on to study art themselves, and others claim to have not a single artistic bone in their body (they have zero interest in art, in fact). So I feel creativity depends on whether or not the person in question is open to creative influence, or whether their interests lie elsewhere. Some people have no interests at all.

I have never thought of myself as the creative. I was born into a family where achievement of any kind was discouraged and also belittled. Being artistic was considered a weakness. I always loved drawing and painting, but I wasn't very good (having never learned about composition, balance, harmony etc), so I took an academic path. When I started taking pictures I loved it. Because I was enjoying myself, and I was interested and stimulated, I wanted to learn. So I learned about the creative and technical side of photography, I studied art and the masters, I scrutinised the work of great photographers so that I could understand the elements which made a shot special or valuable, and in fact I became a professional photographer.

Oddly enough, as part of rehabilitation following a catastrophic brain injury, my mother started painting as part of her therapy. She's very good, and one day she told me something I had never known - that she had always wanted to study art when she was younger, but hadn't been able to until now. So my point is, I feel that one's circumstances have a great deal to do with how creative we are, or wish to be.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It can indeed be learned. I don't think any one of us has suggested it can't. You make some interesting points however:

That learning can be entirely passive - take for example - a very creative parent whose child is being exposed to a creative mindset and possibly a creative environment, and therefore adopts creative thinking. Then there is the child who has had no creative influences in their life, but is exposed to something one day, an isolated event even, in a manner which strongly resonates with him or her. An interest develops, and a path of learning.

They key thing I feel is the "child" part. That's when we develop creatively, and anything, whether it be growing up in a creative environment, or being exposed to something that develops the creative instincts suddenly, has more power at an early age. Most children, are inherently creative. Many however, are strongly discouraged from being so. Whether it's because they have parents who feel they should be interested in something that will turn into a "proper job", or because it's a bit ponsy to be messing around with "art". That sticks I'm afraid. It's so much harder for mature students who have not been encouraged to be creative to learn to be creative. That's for two reasons. 1. You have to pretty much unlearn everything you think you know and start again, and 2. It's just harder to learn as you get older.

I know the sons and daughters of established artists, some have gone on to study art themselves, and others claim to have not a single artistic bone in their body (they have zero interest in art, in fact). So I feel creativity depends on whether or not the person in question is open to creative influence, or whether their interests lie elsewhere. Some people have no interests at all.

That is also true. It doesn't mean they aren't creative though. Creativity isn't just visual or artistic. Entrepreneurs are creative people... that's what makes them entrepreneurs We think of them as hard nosed business people, but they're not. What sets them ahead of everyone else is their creative vision... it just manifests itself differently... although you have to be a bit of a ruthless bast*rd as well

I have never thought of myself as the creative. I was born into a family where achievement of any kind was discouraged and also belittled. Being artistic was considered a weakness.

Then I'd say you were lucky in many respects, as that environment can be the kiss of death for some with creative aspirations. However... many creatives who are just inherently pre-dispositioned to be so, will just find ways to circumvent their circumstances. Sometimes it's the catalyst they need. Artist stifled by small minds in a small town, breaks away and takes the world by storm... not an unheard of story, is it? It happens. It takes a strong character though. You clearly have it.

Oddly enough, as part of rehabilitation following a catastrophic brain injury, my mother started painting as part of her therapy. She's very good, and one day she told me something I had never known - that she had always wanted to study art when she was younger, but hadn't been able to until now. So my point is, I feel that one's circumstances have a great deal to do with how creative we are, or wish to be.

Of course they do. Your surroundings shape you. Some people definitely have a natural advantage though It would be silly to imagine we're all creatively equal any more than we can imagine we can all be athletically equal, or of equal intelligence... or that every little girl who dreams hard enough can be Prima Ballerina Assoluta., or every little boy who dreams hard enough can be a famous football player (sorry for the gender stereotypes ). I'm not saying you shouldn't strive for it... or encourage it... but.... People are not equal... for most of us we have to try very hard to do what others find easy.. and it's annoying for us. (shrug). The world wouldn't work if everyone was equal though.

 

[Lindsay D]

Of course they do. Your surroundings shape you. Some people definitely have a natural advantage though It would be silly to imagine we're all creatively equal any more than we can imagine we can all be athletically equal, or of equal intelligence... or that every little girl who dreams hard enough can be Prima Ballerina Assoluta., or every little boy who dreams hard enough can be a famous football player (sorry for the gender stereotypes ). I'm not saying you shouldn't strive for it... or encourage it... but.... People are not equal... for most of us we have to try very hard to do what others find easy.. and it's annoying for us. (shrug). The world wouldn't work if everyone was equal though.

Indeed, and I think it again comes down to our environment and upbringing. Some children are raised to believe that they can achieve anything, and others have their goals smashed and denigrated at every opportunity. It took me many years before I realised that I had the potential to achieve something, and I knew I could only do that by breaking away from the people who dragged me down. It took a while for me to realise why - it was their own failings which had made them so disparaging of others.

Then again, there are people who aren't interested in achievement, at least in the sense of standing out from the crowd. I think most people are very happy with mediocrity. I think there are great advantages to that - it means you are easily satisfied. I think creative people can be intensely intolerant of mediocrity, in most of its forms.

 

[TheBigYin]

Maybe I should go take a look at the creative photography section? I imagined it to be full of smoke and wire-wool images, bubbles and dye-drops, but perhaps that's not the case.

No.. it is. The odd gem, but mainly technique driven. Nothing against that forum. I just think it's inaccurately named.

You are not on your own there David, I must admit the name somewhat jars with me too, indeed I keep banging on about this in the staff dungeon...

Personally, purely as a member here, I'd prefer to see it renamed as you called it, not only because frankly it's annoying that it's more the "me too..." approach, but that it sort of implies that the rest of the work on here isn't creative...

As far as Still life work is concerned, I've a bit of a soft spot for it, and freely admit that most of my stuff ISN'T particularly creative in its approach, largely being pastiches of various Dutch Old Masters - there's creativity in the set and prop building perhaps, but the actual shot doesn't have a single original thought in it.

However, one shot I do think actually had a bit of a spark is the one that's currently set as my avatar. (or here if you want a bigger version)

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm very much inclined to believe creativity is in the eye of the beholder, as well as the mind of the photographer. I looked at this thread yesterday and loved the third picture for its anonymity, somewhat abstract nature, use of form and colour and the power it shows. Kipax panned it hard as a sports photo, and I understand why, but to me it was much more powerful than if it had been 'correct' and a number of others rejected his criticism, even though the OP accepted it. A side of me would like it to have been intentionally made this way instead of being an accident of timing - if indeed it was.

Mark - is that 'Pear as gooseberry'?

 

[TheBigYin]

Mark - is that 'Pear as gooseberry'?

Original Title I had in mind for it was "When Is A Pear Not A Pear... When it's a Gooseberry"

 

[MWHCVT]

People can be naturally creative just in the way they are raised or nurtured...
Can creativity be learnt, I think certainly it can...
Can creativity be taught, that for me is an interesting one and personally I don't think it can, people can be taught how to do stuff, the can be taught/advised who or what to look at or for but I genuinely don't think people can be taught to be creative, as for me to be creative in your own right you have to learn the genere and then develop it further

As to the creative section it is the wrong name for the sub forum but please don't decry the people that like what happens in there...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Can creativity be learnt, I think certainly it can...

ok...

Can creativity be taught, that for me is an interesting one and personally I don't think it can,

Hang on...

It can be learned, but not taught? Surely, to be learned, it has to be taught, even the teaching is from yourself... if you are gaining in creativity, then it is being taught. You can't have one without the other

people can be taught how to do stuff, the can be taught/advised who or what to look at or for but I genuinely don't think people can be taught to be creative

Mate.. I do it for a living. Yes, they can Some are worse than others, but I can always get people making more creative work. Therefore, I'm teaching them to be creative. I can teach anyone to be more creative, if they're willing to learn.

As to the creative section it is the wrong name for the sub forum but please don't decry the people that like what happens in there...

No one is... just saying most of the stuff in there is not creative work... and therefore wrongly named. It should be the "technique" section or something. There's far more creativity on display in the other forums... always.

 

[MWHCVT]

ok...





Hang on...

It can be learned, but not taught? Surely, to be learned, it has to be taught, even the teaching is from yourself... if you are gaining in creativity, then it is being taught. You can't have one without the other




Mate.. I do it for a living. Yes, they can Some are worse than others, but I can always get people making more creative work. Therefore, I'm teaching them to be creative. I can teach anyone to be more creative, if they're willing to learn.





No one is... just saying most of the stuff in there is not creative work... and therefore wrongly named. It should be the "technique" section or something. There's far more creativity on display in the other forums... always.

Please don't call me mate, I am not your mate! it's simple I do not think you can teach creativity as I think for someone to be truly creative they to develop there own ideas, you can teach the different genres and skills certainly but you cannot teach someone to be creative because you can only teach stuff that already exists

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Please don't call me mate, I am not your mate! it's simple I do not think you can teach creativity as I think for someone to be truly creative they to develop there own ideas, you can teach the different genres and skills certainly but you cannot teach someone to be creative because you can only teach stuff that already exists

I think you can certainly teach someone how to be creative. Its not necessarily teaching a technique or a skill, but more like teaching someone 'how' to be creative, and how to think more creatively.

 

[ghoti]

One of the ways we have taught creative thinking in my field (which is not artistic, but does require masses of creativity) is to challenge students to solve novel problems or make novel insights with a restricted toolkit (both intellectual and physical).

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I think we all have an ability to be creative. I think we all have the ability to have technical and mechanical cognisance. I would suggest that if you placed 'technical' on one side of the seesaw and 'mechanical' on the other side, the seesaw would tip either way depending on your particular strength. I'm sure we have all met very creative people who are technically, mechanically incompetent or profess to be. Conversely, very clever mechanically people who by their own admission are not artistic or creative in anyway. I believe people have a natural predisposition to either event. It can be learned, but the level will vary.
Another factor to consider in this is our own contextual bias. What influences in our life have taken us to where we are today?. Things that we have seen, learned, interpreted ultimately reflect the 'image' that we produce and put out there. Therein is the other problem, art and photography is complete subjective.

 

[Lindsay D]

I agree with David. Creativity is mostly learned, that can be via active learning in an educational environment, or passive learning in a creative environment. You don't have to be born creative in order to evolve into a highly creative individual, and I will say again that we are not born with any particular skills, we have to acquire them somehow. Creativity revolves around certain concepts, such as visual balance (rule of thirds, and others), colour (complimentary, opposing, harmonious etc), mood and narrative, etc etc. All these things can be taught. Some people will pick things up more quickly than others, due to variable levels of interest, speed of learning, application to the task, level of nurture etc. Also, a lot of assumptions are made about what people can and can't do - often it is assumed that technical people cannot be creative. However if I were to examine the contributors in the forum, and my friends who are professional photographers and designers, many of them (if not most) originated from a technical or academic background. They just wanted to do something else with their lives.

I remember a time when it was actually presumed that women were not technical and could not become engineers, fighter pilots, even bankers or accountants. The fact is, the opportunities were not there at that time for them to even attempt those things - and as the educational and employment world opened up, so did those fields, and female uptake soared. The fact is that it simply came down to conditioning, and the way you were raised. I think that in times gone by boys were raised to aspire to "manly" tasks and jobs and were discouraged from artistic pursuits which were often considered wimpish. Girls, by rote, were taught cookery, music, painting and drawing, etc and by default were often judged by how accomplished they became at what were considered to be female pursuits. Yet look at the gender spread in those fields today. Imagine how this conversation might have appeared 100 years ago. So once again, I do not think you are born one way or the other, it's about how your life unfolds and what opportunities you encounter. I think it comes down to what we are exposed to and the way in which we are stimulated - that affects how we will relate to those pursuits.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Please don't call me mate, I am not your mate!

Oh dear.... I don't see any need to be unpleasant.... but if it makes you happy... I'll just call you Matt

it's simple I do not think you can teach creativity

It's simple. You're wrong.

as I think for someone to be truly creative they to develop there own ideas, you can teach the different genres and skills certainly but you cannot teach someone to be creative because you can only teach stuff that already exists

I'm not referring to skills... they're just the tools you wield. Yes, I can teach people to be creative. You misunderstand... I'm not referring to teaching them anything to do with photography. I can teach people to think differently about Photography, and the ideas are all theirs.

 

[MWHCVT]

Oh dear.... I don't see any need to be unpleasant.... but if it makes you happy... I'll just call you Matt




It's simple. You're wrong.




I'm not referring to skills... they're just the tools you wield. Yes, I can teach people to be creative. You misunderstand... I'm not referring to teaching them anything to do with photography. I can teach people to think differently about Photography, and the ideas are all theirs.

It's nothing about being un-pleasant although I do see a certain irony in you saying that as I have a vague memory of you stating on this forum a year or so ago that you wouldn't talk to people in real life in the way that you do to people on this forum on regular basis which is something I neither understand or like, however in this instance it more that I do have some genuine friends that I've made on this forum, ones that are mates I don't however like people who use mate when they have never communicated with or met me, I've been fortunate enough to meet 2-300 members over the last few years, I've been out for drinks and meals with a few, had some round my home hell even one that rescued me from my car crash a few months back who I had been out shooting with a number of times so yes Matt will do fine

You think I'm wrong...fair enough it's your right to think that, I think I'm correct, you can enable creativity, you can stimulate it, I just don't believe it can actually specifically taught

 

[Pookeyhead]

You think I'm wrong...fair enough it's your right to think that, I think I'm correct, you can enable creativity, you can stimulate it, I just don't believe it can actually specifically taught

What you believe is immaterial.

 

[MWHCVT]

What you believe is immaterial.

Okay god

 

[Pookeyhead]

LOL.. I just mean that what believe is one thing... and facts are another. There are people who believe the world is flat. They're belief doesn't change the fact that it's not though. There's been massive amounts of research done on this subject, and overwhelmingly it suggests that you can teach creativity. I know for a fact it can be... because I do it day in day out... thousands of people in education (not training) do. It's not even a remotely revolutionary idea.

How MUCH improvement in someone;s creativity is something that starts to become out of your control as a teacher though, as it very much depends on how stubborn to new ideas they are. Stubbornness and ignorance are the biggest barriers.

 

[Stu Blackpool]

Great topic, I have enjoyed this one as creativity is undoubtedly my main weakness in Photography and its been a hard slog to make my images anywhere near passable and the limits were never equipment or technical understanding, it was always teh creative aspect and the "Rules" that I needed to figure out when to break and when not to.

I feel a case study coming on.
I wonder if Pookeyhead could spend the day with someone... somewhere, let them take a few images of a subject, go for lunch, teach them a little about creativity and then go back and do it again and see if he has taught them anything?

For the record, I would be up for it as I could do with all the help I can get. LOL

 

[Deleted member 67219]

It's clearly both. Anyone can be taught to sing... to an extent, but you need a beautiful voice to be a singer with a beautiful voice. You're either born with that, or you're not. Some people just have interesting minds, and hence interesting thoughts... others don't. Education can change the way you think though... but it won't make you more intelligent. You'll know more stuff... but that's not how intelligence is measured... if it can be at all.

Whatever your inherent level of creativity, it can be improved by working on how you see the world, your viewpoint, and your level of education.

I would agree with most of the things written.

I'd also add, my work has become more creative since I started studying my history of art degree. I don't think it's the subject matter that's done it, or the exposure to images - you can do that at a gallery on your own. It's the process of prising open my mind and letting so many concepts and ideas fall out that I'm missing catching them all as the tide surges through. It's about being stimulated to see the world differently and then capturing what you see.

Education can teach you how to take a photograph, how to analyse an artwork, how to do a science experiment. But it can also stimulate you creatively and politically if you let it.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I feel a case study coming on.
I wonder if Pookeyhead could spend the day with someone... somewhere, let them take a few images of a subject, go for lunch, teach them a little about creativity and then go back and do it again and see if he has taught them anything?

I would argue that you're missing the point somewhat.

You don't just 'take pictures of stuff' when you're being creative, you have an idea in your mind, a concept, something you want to say.

 

[Pookeyhead]

For the record, I would be up for it as I could do with all the help I can get. LOL

I'd be happy to. No camera's necessary though. Creativity doesn't come from the camera ...plus, you've got strong technical skills already... you don't need me for that. We'll have to meet up one day and have a good chat. I was too busy with reading dissertations over half-term, but I'd be happy for you to be a guinea pig.. LOL

 

[ghoti]

Great topic, I have enjoyed this one as creativity is undoubtedly my main weakness in Photography and its been a hard slog to make my images anywhere near passable and the limits were never equipment or technical understanding, it was always teh creative aspect and the "Rules" that I needed to figure out when to break and when not to.

This is like what I was saying earlier: it sounds as if you're thinking of creativity as a goal in itself. Forget that. Forget thinking about the "rules" and when to/not to break them. Go out and try to capture an image that communicates more than just a superfical arrangement of objects in a frame. Choose a composition, an aesthetic, that reinforces the theme you want to communicate without bothering about what the rules do or don't say.
Give yourself an intellectual problem and solve it. That's how you develop creativity. You don't just try to be aimlessly creative as a goal in itself.

 

[big soft moose]

. There's been massive amounts of research done on this subject, and overwhelmingly it suggests that you can teach creativity. I know for a fact it can be... because I do it day in day out... thousands of people in education (not training) do.
.

Really - why do so many course put the emphasis on imitation and analysing other works then ? , It often seems to me that much of education in the uk today is about teaching people to all be the same and to aspire to the mediocre - a bit like the 'school for animals' parable - too often people are marked down for truly being creative if they don't agree with the rather narrow definition of what is "right" according to the curriculum/mark scheme/ belief of their lecturer

I don't doubt you can improve some peoples skills in being creative, but they've got to want to learn, they've got to be able to have the ideas etc and that both requires a certain amount of intelligence and the ability to think for themselves instead of wanting to be spoonfed everything- and those comes from inside

 

[fracster]

Interesting discussion, mostly, some good and valid points being made as well.

David has certainly made me think about what I shoot, from a creative rather than a technical aspect, though I suppose they should be on a par with each other. I`ll certainly try looking at things in a different way. I always thought that I suffered from a lack of creativity, maybe I just need a kick up the backside and start thinking more before I press the shutter.Hopefully some of the discussion in this thread will be that kick.

Anyway, thanks mates................

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Really - why do so many course put the emphasis on imitation and analysing other works then ?

Because by understanding what people have done before you and WHY they did it, you learn how you can perhaps develop and apply your own ideas. You take bits from all different places and create something new. Or perhaps a work that you study inspires an idea of your own.

 

[big soft moose]

Because by understanding what people have done before you and WHY they did it, you learn how you can perhaps develop and apply your own ideas. You take bits from all different places and create something new. Or perhaps a work that you study inspires an idea of your own.

or you learn to slavishly copy the style of a photographer your lecturer likes in order to do it 'right' - I know not every teacher/lecturer is like that but there are fair few that are, and they turn out little mini mes of themselves.

For example when a friends daughter was doing A2 she had a lecturer who was heavily into Joe Cornish and the zone system (front middle back) leading lines, rule of thirds - take a landscape shot that looks like you've tried to be joe Cornish (only probably not quite as good) and you get a high mark , try to do anything else and get marked down because you did it 'wrong' - net result 8 portfolios with lots of shots with the horizon on thirds and a large rock in the foreground zero creative thought required or encouraged

 

[Deleted member 67219]

or you learn to slavishly copy the style of a photographer your lecturer likes in order to do it 'right' - I know not every teacher/lecturer is like that but there are fair few that are, and they turn out little mini mes of themselves.

For example when a friends daughter was doing A2 she had a lecturer who was heavily into Joe Cornish and the zone system (front middle back) leading lines, rule of thirds - take a landscape shot that looks like you've tried to be joe Cornish (only probably not quite as good) and you get a high mark , try to do anything else and get marked down because you did it 'wrong' - net result 8 portfolios with lots of shots with the horizon on thirds and a large rock in the foreground zero creative thought required or encouraged

With respect, A-Levels aren't really about thinking for yourself in ANY subjects. Nor are degree's particularly, it's Masters and Postgrads where you begin to think for yourself and come up with new and groundbreaking information.

 

[big soft moose]

With respect, A-Levels aren't really about thinking for yourself in ANY subjects. Nor are degree's particularly, it's Masters and Postgrads where you begin to think for yourself and come up with new and groundbreaking information.

I'm not sure that's entirely so, but if it is it would rather undermine Davids argument that thousands of lecturers are teaching creativity - because there aren't anyway near that many teaching masters and post grads in photography.

Also the same applies at any level - when I did my MSc we quickly learnt which lecturers had a certain political leaning , and that you got better marks if you slanted your argument left or right depending on who was marking - which pretty much reduced the whole thing to a pointless intellectual game rather than genuinely encouraging a new and exciting insight - I'm about a third of away through an MBA and the same seems to hold true here (the only real difference being that MBA lecturers seem to on the whole be more centre right)

 

[Pookeyhead]

Really - why do so many course put the emphasis on imitation and analysing other works then ?

Too broaden your outlook. Many, many amateurs work in very closed circuits. They shoot with a narrow outlook.. get feedback from very like minded people... never look at work outside of Flickr etc.. and they are closed to the possibilities. Nothing in this world is truly original any more... we all know this, and the point comes up every time a discussion like this happens. Yet despite that, artists carry on producing original work.. how is that possible? It's because they constantly expose themselves to as wide a range of inspiration as they possibly can. You absorb this stuff... almost subliminally, and eventually, all these new experiences and things you take on board, weave themselves into something all great photographers have: A style. You can tell a William Eggleston from a Alec Soth, or a Tim Walker from a Mario Testino. However... Soth and Eggleston are primarily documentary photographers, and Walker and Testino are both fashion photographers. That's stage one right there.... getting an original stylistic output that you own. You can't just sit there in a darkened room and dream that up.., you get it from absorbing as much visual imagery as you can and re-appropriating it in a unique way.

Then there's the reasons for producing work. The "why" and "so what" factors. What images say, and why. If you can apply an original style to something engaging, interesting, and challenging then you're by default being creative.

That doesn't happen by working in a vacuum though. You can't develop a style by copying what you see on You Tube... you'll just end up copying what you see on You Tube. Instead, you expose yourself to.... well.. everything. All art.. all creative output. Photography, painting, music, film, poetry... everything.

It often seems to me that much of education in the uk today is about teaching people to all be the same and to aspire to the mediocre - a bit like the 'school for animals' parable - too often people are marked down for truly being creative if they don't agree with the rather narrow definition of what is "right" according to the curriculum/mark scheme/ belief of their lecturer

I can assure you that's not the case. Just because we demand that students look at other works, does not mean we want them to copy those works. That's inevitable at teh start as they try new things, of course, but that's not the aim, objective, and certainly not the result.

I don't doubt you can improve some peoples skills in being creative, but they've got to want to learn

Oh god yes!... of course they have. You;d be amazed at how many people think they want to, but fight you all the way as you get them to leave their comfort zone. There are always students who just want to carry on doing what they're already doing... which always makes me wonder why they bother. You don't need to study to carry on doing what you're doing... you can... well.. just carry on doing what you're doing They think it's about training... that if they learn more technical stuff their pictures will improve. Of course they won't.

they've got to be able to have the ideas etc and that both requires a certain amount of intelligence and the ability to think for themselves instead of wanting to be spoonfed everything- and those comes from inside

That's exactly what any good degree course will do strive to achieve.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...I do not think you can teach creativity as I think for someone to be truly creative they to develop there own ideas, you can teach the different genres and skills certainly but you cannot teach someone to be creative because you can only teach stuff that already exists

What you certainly can be taught are ways to generate ideas. Inspiration doesn't fall from the heavens, it has to be worked at.

This is what all those people who post 'I have a day off but don't know what to shoot' threads are lacking. The ability to use strategies for overcoming blocks like that. Simply because they haven't been taught how.

There are many such strategies and process which artists in all fields use to generate ideas. Being given one of those is far more useful than being told to shoot water drops in the kitchen sink!

In addition to looking at other photographer's pictures it is well worth watching videos of them at work and listening to or reading interviews with them about how they work. That will give you an insight into their thought processes, which is far more interesting and useful than learning what gear and settings they use. Don't limit yourself to photographers - investigate musicians, writers, film makers.

Devising or stealing appropriating a number of strategies allows you to find your way out of blocks and to develop work in new directions.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm not sure that's entirely so, but if it is it would rather undermine Davids argument that thousands of lecturers are teaching creativity - because there aren't anyway near that many teaching masters and post grads in photography.

Lecturers don't teach A levels. Also... I wasn't just referring to PHOTOGRAPHY lecturers. There's more than one creative subject in the world you know

A levels are not really creative. It's a prescriptive course... like BTECs.. it's literally off the shelf with little or possibly no scope for a student to take anything in their own direction.

Also the same applies at any level - when I did my MSc we quickly learnt which lecturers had a certain political leaning , and that you got better marks if you slanted your argument left or right depending on who was marking - which pretty much reduced the whole thing to a pointless intellectual game rather than genuinely encouraging a new and exciting insight - I'm about a third of away through an MBA and the same seems to hold true here (the only real difference being that MBA lecturers seem to on the whole be more centre right)

Yeah.. tar us all with that big fat brush of bias why don't you?

 

[big soft moose]

Lecturers don't teach A levels.

they do if you go to sixth form college

Yeah.. tar us all with that big fat brush of bias why don't you?

I did say I recognised that not all were the same

Leaving that aside the essence of what you've said above is that creativity can be stimulated, and it can be mentored , but it hasn't substantiated the assertion that it can be taught per se - if someone isn't creative and won't open their mind to new ideas then doing so isn't something they can learn because creativity isn't a factual thing - they can't go away and read 'creativity for dummies' and suddenly become creative.

Also the lecturing about what the education system involves is getting a bit old - we aren't a bunch of ignorant peasants who didn't go to "that big university and that" and spend our lives picking pig crap from between our toes while waiting for the next pronouncement from the intellectual elite.

I have a BSc , and an MSc , and I'm about a third of a way through an MBA (both my parents are DPhils, my Sister is A Phd and a research fellow) - and I'm sure many other members here are likewise but don't feel the need to wear their academic credentials on their sleeve.

The insistence that you must be factually correct (instead of recognising that your view is just an opinion too and no more or less valid than anyone else's) and that it doesn't matter what others believe, seems to me to play to what I was talking about earlier - the 'god syndrome' where you either agree with your lecturer or you're 'wrong' which is the very antithesis of creativity