What makes an image Creative?

[Pookeyhead]

People shooting Lego men can still be creative. They are not doing anything new with their camera so not technically photographically creative but the scenes they set and why they set them as such can be creative.

Give 10 people a set of lego and ask them to make a car. They will all make different cars and some may look better than others but they are all being creative aren't they. Even if it is beaten out of you at school I can still make a lego car from what is in my head 30 years after leaving school.

(you've got me started on Lego again now and I don't even own any)

It CAN be yeah, anything can be. Even doing something everyone else is doing can be done differently than everyone else. I suppose that's my point in a way. Creativity is nothing to do with photography. It's nothing to do with the activity you are engaged with... it's a way of thinking.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I don't understand your point here, isn't that basically what this guy's saying? That the arts should be more open and generally embraced more by the education system?

Yes. But he's saying it to an audience that already knows that.

 

[Southdowns]

I'd argue that it doesn't have many meanings at all. Creative usually means inventive. When you hear companies refer to wanting creative solutions to problems, what they mean is inventive, new, and innovative solutions... not the ones they already have. I appreciate that some people may think shooting water droplets is creative, but is it really? It may be interesting for them to make, but doing something already done before by millions of other people by definition, can not be creative.

No, you're wrong. Regardless of how you use it, and regardless of the dictionary definition, the word creative does have several meanings (more accurately several applications) in common use. That is simply a fact.

(By the way, you're also wrong about what companies want when they ask for creative solutions. They couldn't give a toss how original an idea is; what they mean is they want a way to do it thats different from, and better than, their current way, not careing at all that hundreds of other companies might already be doing it that way. They do NOT want original for originals sake).

What you're arguing is that generic photos don't fit your use of the word. Fair enough, and I'd tend to agree with you, but that doesn't allow you to deny the point I was making, that other people can and do use it other ways, quite legitimately, depending on the context.

I'm not saying, nor ever have said, it serves no purpose. I said that as a "creative" forum, it's pretty pointless, as it's a showcase of techniques already done to death.

Pointless (there being no point in its existence) is the same thing as serving no purpose.

What you're saying is that it doesn't fit your use of the word creative. Well, it can't can it? If it was for the type of creative you (and I) think should apply to photos (originality), it'd be impossible for anyone to decide they should put their own shots in there, as most people aren't arrogant enough, or even knowledgeable enough of pre-existing work, to think "my shot's so damn original, I'm going to put it in there". We'd end up with a stream of people posting shots, with pedants pointing out that it's actually not that original. Because creativity of this type is in the eye of the beholder, it would be the beholder who'd need to post the shot, which obviously is impractical.

It's perfectly clear, from both a common use of the term AND - for people who can't adapt their understanding of a word to the context - from the description, what that forum is for.

Yeah... of course. I've never suggested otherwise. It just doesn't belong in a "creative" forum.

It doesn't belong in your idea of a creative forum. It does belong in this creative forum as it was intended. I'd welcome a creative forum of the type you describe, but I just can't work out how it'd be practical?

I've noticed in several threads that you're very literal, which is why, for example, you pulled apart my example of a well lit portrait being creative, thus completely missing the point. That's no problem in general, because literal people are just as necessary as everyone else, but you do need to learn to read what people are saying overal, not specifically what they've written in minute detail. That's especially true on a forum, where people can't use tone to help convey their meaning.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I do wish you wouldn't be so verbose, David. I really don't wnat to answer all your points one by one, but I'll try.

Oh dear.. someone has a chip on their shoulder.

Possibly. What I do have is an ambivalence to art. On the one hand I think it is the most important thing there is, on the other I don't think it matters at all. I can't explain what I mean by this. I do know that making art is more important to the artist than to any viewer of the art. It's the process that matters to them.

What the "pompous" Ken Robinson is saying, is exactly that; That schools need to recognise that everyone is creative, and that creativity should be nurtured. Everyone is creative. I don't see what your problem is.

I agree with his premise. But I still feel he's putting it across in an elitist way to an elitist audience.

Is there any reason to start getting personal and calling people names Ed? Does that make your point any better?

It amuses me.


This thread is about what makes images creative. No doubt you'd like post #2 to be "All work is creative.. it's down to whoever looks at it to decide", and then a mod comes along and locks the thread. That would be nice and safe wouldn't it?

No I wouldn't.

Forget creativity?.... OK Ed.. let's forget about it. Let's just all do what everyone else does instead. Let's run our businesses like that, raise our children like that... let's do everything like that. What a fabulous future there will be ahead for us all.

Again my inability to get my message across is failing. It's the label 'creativity' that I want to forget. People get precious about it in the arts. You take thinks far to literally at times..

You suggest "have a go"... well that's all I'm suggesting... get out of your rut, do something different.. have a go... that's all Ken Robinson is suggesting schools do... Have a go at a new idea... one that recognises that creativity in children should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Fair enough.


You can talk about Parker's attitude all you want, but she's creative Ed. She has original ideas. If she didn't... she'd not be on Television inspiring people like you.

But she doesn't ram the idea of creativity down people's throats. That's what I'm trying to get across. She seems almost embarrassed by the notion of being called an Artist. :bang::bang::bang: It's this putting on a pedastal of arts and artists that I can't stand.

Art IS for everyone already... why do you think most galleries and museums are free Ed? The irony is, they're all facing closure because no one goes to them any more LOL. It will be down to "pompous" people like me to save their asses Ed.

But people DO go to galleries. There were plenty in Tate Liverpool last time I went - and they were looking at photography.

Another thing Ed.. you talk as if I DON'T think art is for everyone. Really? What the **** do you think I do all day?

I think you probably spend it training your students how to 'be creative' by following systems - like you outline on here. Do you ever encourage them to do stuff just to see what happens? Or has the education system become too rigid for that these days? Is it, like Robinson said, the option to fail has to be eliminated?

I've also just spent the last 2 weeks on School Liaison, setting up studios and letting year 10 and 11 kids "have a go". We've been doing the same with Graphic Design, Illustration, and Acting. (sigh).

Good for you.

As you yourself say Ed.. "some of it's *****. But a lot of it isn't". So even you are still making subjective decisions on what's crap, and what's not. What criteria are you judging them by Ed, and what makes you think yours is any more valid than mine?

As you say, subjective decisions. My choices are more valid for me than yours would be. I tend to judge on gut instinct rather than intellect - with the proviso that I can reconsider my initial judgement at my leisure.

Some of it though Ed.. IS crap... as well you know... and if someone is wanting to learn why it's crap, someone has to tell them why it is crap, and they have to accept it is so before they can move on. If they want to be a professional photographer, a portfolio of water drops ain't gonna cut it. Even if people wanted it, every stock agency in the world is saturated with it already. Maybe it's time they took those skills with small lighting sets, and moved on... developed ways to use those techniques in new areas... to synthesise skills and create something new.

At some point... you have to realise, you're stuck in a rut and do something about it.

Some may not want to... or even want to be a professional photographer, and that's fine. They may be happy photographing little Lego men forever. That's fine... nothing wrong with it if it makes them happy - it's their hobby after all. It's not creative though. Does it matter? Not to them it doesn't no. They'll probably just ignore this thread and carry on doing what makes them happy.

At no point in here have a said people shouldn't shoot exactly what they want. I'm arguing whether it's creative, and therefore, the Creative forum is pointless, and badly named.

I certainly agree with that final para.

You need to calm down Ed... all this swearing and shouting isn't good for you

I'm chilled, Davey Baby.

I actually agree with your viewpoint far more than you imagine. It's just that I like being contrary. And I like winding people up...

 

[Ed Sutton]

I've noticed in several threads that you're very literal, which is why, for example, you pulled apart my example of a well lit portrait being creative, thus completely missing the point. That's no problem in general, because literal people are just as necessary as everyone else, but you do need to learn to read what people are saying overal, not specifically what they've written in minute detail. That's especially true on a forum, where people can't use tone to help convey their meaning.

 

[Southdowns]

Sorry, I shouldn't have made a point of it really but my pedantry rating was waning.

I don't mind at all, in fact I like it, because I hate making those kind of schoolboy mistakes :bang:

 

[PMN]

Yes. But he's saying it to an audience that already knows that.

So every single one of the 17 million people who've viewed that video already knew what he was talking about? Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

[Southdowns]

So every single one of the 17 million people who've viewed that video already knew what he was talking about? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Again, an overly literal interpretation. I think Ed was referring to the intended audience; the type of people the speaker thought he was talking to.

 

[Cagey75]

Absolutely. In fact, most children ARE very creative. They get it "taught" out of them as they move into adulthood, and its system of "rules".

Your daughter is probably more creative than all of us put together.

That was my simple point really. Creativity is natural, some have it more than others. It can't be taught, but can be nurtured or built upon.

I wish my parents had paid more attention to my creative side when I was younger. I was pretty handy at sketching, cartooning, anything to do with the drawing side of art. But to them it was doodling, and to my teacher's too [even when all agreed I was good]. I'd get scolded rather than encouraged for "wasting my time sketching" - I was useless at math and biology - art is what I loved. But I don't draw or sketch any more. I haven't for years really. And that talent sort of ... died. Because it was instilled into me that it was a waste of time and energy. I guess I reached out to photography as a fill for that and people tend to prefer me doing that. Because it may actually make money at times.

I won't do this to our young lass, she builds 'dens' and pretends to be wild animals, she draws - pretty good for 5 too - and paints and likes to jump in muddy puddles and pretend she's defending the Queen's castle - or whatever [she's a bit of a tom boy to boot] There's not a minute of the day she's not pretending to be some wild thing or anotherand trying to draw others into her imagination world, constantly on the move, always laughing and smiling.

She's certainly more creative than I these days.

 

[PMN]

Again, an overly literal interpretation. I think Ed was referring to the intended audience; the type of people the speaker thought he was talking to.

It isn't overly literal, it's straight down the line how it is. The purpose of putting that video online was to increase the audience, people at home watching it on computers are getting the message every bit as much as those in the studio. It's the same thing.

 

[Southdowns]

I don't agree Paul. The speaker's intention and attitude can be elitist, but it can then be published in a way that takes it to a wider audience; that doesn't change the speaker's intent/attitude. Ed was talking about the general attitude to art, which is one I see too, probably promoted to make more money, which he believes is demonstrated by that talk. I don't know, because I haven't watched it yet; I'm just pointing out that wide availability and the presence of audience members who didn't already know what they were being told, does NOT get the speaker off the "elitist" hook.

Just look at some of the rubbish artists, and worse still critics, say about images and other art. All the spiritual finding your sole nonsense. At the end of the day, it's a picture, nothing more. It might make a connection for you, it might not. THAT is why I've said several times that creativity is in the eye of the beholder; if it feels creative to you, it is, end of story.

I'm not suggesting no artist has any integrity, just that they have no more and no less, and no more right to be placed on a pedestal, than the guy who "creates" the chair you're sitting on. They just make objects that you might or might not like, which, unlike the chair, have no inherent value or purpose.

 

[ZoneV]

He can bang-on about how wonderfully creative children are but honestly, have you seen the state of their drawings?

 

[PMN]

Ed was talking about the general attitude to art

If people paid attention to what he's saying rather than let their thoughts be clouded by pre-conceived ideas of elitism they'd see that's exactly what the guy's talking about.

I don't know, because I haven't watched it yet

I rest my case.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So every single one of the 17 million people who've viewed that video already knew what he was talking about? Are you absolutely sure about that?

:bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[PMN]

:bang::bang::bang::bang:

That doesn't help further the discussion.

You said he was talking to an audience who already knew what he was saying, I totally disagree. What's so difficult to understand?

 

[Byker28i]

I had 8 girls in a line for a netball team.. This is the picture

Two boys in that picture? That is creative

isn't a creative person someone who uses a mac

 

[Southdowns]

I rest my case.

In which event, your case fails. As you know full well, I'm not pointing out anything to do with the talk, so don't need to have seen it. I'm pointing out that your assertion that just because it reached a wide audience, some of who'm didn't fall into the "preaching to the converted" category, the speaker's attitude was not as Ed described it, is a fallacy.

When I do watch the video, I'll be able to tell you whether or not I agree with Ed regarding this individual's attitude, and might well agree with you instead, but you'll still be wrong to conclude that JUST because there was a big audience, he's not elitist.

And even if I do disagree with Ed regarding this one person's attitude, once I've seen the video, I still see a widespread elitist attitude to art that stifles creativity. I think things have improved, but not enough.

 

[Southdowns]

Isn't a creative person someone who uses a mac

Wow, thanks, first time I've ever been described as creative

 

[Ed Sutton]

That doesn't help further the discussion.

You said he was talking to an audience who already knew what he was saying, I totally disagree. What's so difficult to understand?

The difficulty in understanding is on your part if you think all those 'views' represent individuals who didn't already share his view and watched the video right through.

Anyone got a picture of a rabbit with a pankcake on it's head? Now that's what I call Creative!

 

[Yv]

Guys, really enjoying reading this discussion, it's a good one and an intelligent one, so just a reminder to make sure it doesn't get too personal, I know you lot!

 

[Yv]

The difficulty in understanding is on your part if you think all those 'views' represent individuals who didn't already share his view and watched the video right through.

Anyone got a picture of a rabbit with a pankcake on it's head? Now that's what I call Creative!

awww, I thought it was cats with their heads through toast that was the creative stuff

 

[Steve]

Anything that is copied and formulaic cannot be creative surely...as it's just repeating or recreating what has been done before.

The majority of wire spinning and light dodah stuff is like that. (nd street photography too ).

But there is nothing wrong with that if people enjoy it. Just dont pretend its being innovative or creative.

 

[Southdowns]

Anything that is copied and formulaic cannot be creative surely...as it's just repeating or recreating what has been done before.

The majority of wire spinning and light dodah stuff is like that. (nd street photography too ).

But there is nothing wrong with that if people enjoy it. Just dont pretend its being innovative or creative.

That's kind of the whole point of this debate, though it's moved on a little too. The examples you give aren't inherently creative in the way you're using the word, but they are creative processes in the sense that they needed to be created rather than simply captured. That's just a different use of the word, and the one that's applied to the creative forum.

 

[Ed Sutton]

awww, I thought it was cats with their heads through toast that was the creative stuff

I missed that meme!

 

[PMN]

In which event, your case fails. As you know full well, I'm not pointing out anything to do with the talk, so don't need to have seen it. I'm pointing out that your assertion that just because it reached a wide audience, some of who'm didn't fall into the "preaching to the converted" category, the speaker's attitude was not as Ed described it, is a fallacy.

When I do watch the video, I'll be able to tell you whether or not I agree with Ed regarding this individual's attitude, and might well agree with you instead, but you'll still be wrong to conclude that JUST because there was a big audience, he's not elitist.

And even if I do disagree with Ed regarding this one person's attitude, once I've seen the video, I still see a widespread elitist attitude to art that stifles creativity. I think things have improved, but not enough.

I never made any assertion, all I said was that the audience consists of more people than just those sitting in the auditorium and not everyone will know what he was talking about.

The difficulty in understanding is on your part if you think all those 'views' represent individuals who didn't already share his view and watched the video right through.

How on Earth can you possibly speak for 17 million people? A tad arrogant on your part wouldn't you say? As I've already said, I didn't say or even vaguely imply those views represented one perspective or another, I simply said they wouldn't all be 'elitest' people who already knew what the guy was talking about.

I'm not directing this at anyone here but to be perfectly honest I'm sick to the back teeth of how the word 'elitest' seems to creep into many places where the word 'art' is mentioned. 'He said the 'a' word, he must be elitest'. Have we become afraid of using the word 'art' because it implies some kind of pre-conceived responsibility or is it some kind of weird insecurity thing?

 

[stupar]

Creativity i'm guessing comes in different strengths for different people.
Some are creative straight out the box others have to think a little.

It seems though that the word "creative" is slightly muddied when being applied to photography and what constitutes a creative shot.
Having submitted a few pieces to the Creative part of the forum I know of many that do not actually fit the term creative but I put them there as they didn't fit with other sub forum themes.
I can however think of three items that I have put in there that I would deem as creative as it took alot of thinking to get the creative juices flowing and I have never seen anything similar done before.

Like most things though, it is going to be a subjective matter.

 

[Steve]

That's kind of the whole point of this debate, though it's moved on a little too. The examples you give aren't inherently creative in the way you're using the word, but they are creative processes in the sense that they needed to be created rather than simply captured. That's just a different use of the word, and the one that's applied to the creative forum.

Agreed.

We are applying different definitions of the same word to come to different conclusions.

I've never tried wire spinning or water droplets. Will try them one day.

Maybe it's a rite of passage that we have to go through to repeat techniques we see with little added creativity or originality, as it's necessary to understand the process first before being able to understand or appreciate how they can be applied in an innovative fashion.

 

[Southdowns]

Maybe it's a rite of passage that we have to go through to repeat techniques we see with little added creativity or originality, as it's necessary to understand the process first before being able to understand or appreciate how they can be applied in an innovative fashion.

I think that's exactly right

 

[Southdowns]

So every single one of the 17 million people who've viewed that video already knew what he was talking about? Are you absolutely sure about that?

I never made any assertion, all I said was that the audience consists of more people than just those sitting in the auditorium and not everyone will know what he was talking about.

Read in context, you implied, purely because it's a given that not everyone out of an audience of 17 million could possibly know what he was talking about, that Ed was wrong to conclude that the speaker was being elitist. That's an assertion, and deliberately misses the point Ed was making, which was that the guy's attitude is elitist, and that he was presenting as if speaking to people who were already converted.

Ed might well be completely wrong. My only point is that you can't conclude that purely from the audience; the nature of the subsequent (as opposed to speaker chosen), audience provides no evidence for the nature of the speaker, and it's a logical fallacy to suggest that it does.

 

[Ed Sutton]

How on Earth can you possibly speak for 17 million people? A tad arrogant on your part wouldn't you say? As I've already said, I didn't say or even vaguely imply those views represented one perspective or another, I simply said they wouldn't all be 'elitest' people who already knew what the guy was talking about.

You're still taking me literally. But to be clearer to the pedantry, when I say TED talks to the like minded I suppose I mean it talks to the predominantly like minded. Happy now?

 

[PMN]

deliberately misses the point Ed was making, which was that the guy's attitude is elitist

It didn't miss the point, I simply outright disagree with it and if you're going to back someone else's point up about the video I suggest you watch the thing first!

You're still taking me literally. But to be clearer to the pedantry, when I say TED talks to the like minded I suppose I mean it talks to the predominantly like minded. Happy now?

I'm getting there. Slowly.

 

[ernesto]

I freely admit that my photography is not creative. I choose the subject, composition and take shots when the light is near it's best but I never do anything beyond that.

However, put a pencil in my hand and everything I draw is creative. It is a different medium that is easier to label as creative or not.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm getting there. Slowly.

 

[Cagey75]

He can bang-on about how wonderfully creative children are but honestly, have you seen the state of their drawings?

Ha, truthfully, our little one's drawings would put most adults I know to shame! You'd be surprised

 

[ZoneV]

Ha, truthfully, our little one's drawings would put most adults I know to shame! You'd be surprised

Ooo, I don't know. I've seen a fair few fridge masterpieces in my time.

 

[Cagey75]

I getchya - running out of magnets here constantly!

 

[ernesto]

I was actually very good at drawing from an early age (even if I do say so myself!) and I was also definitely more creative. I used to draw and write comic books as a 10 year old yet I have no creative urge to do so nowadays (I just read them).

What stopped my creativity and did that stop all other forms? Did I somehow grow out of it or did my mind change somewhere along the line?

Anyone got a couch I can sit on, this would feel better on a couch.

 

[Cagey75]

Aye, i felt a bit like that typing my earlier post too. Sometimes you only realise who to blame by writing or typing things out

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ok.. not had chance to read this thread until now, so this will be a long one.

No, you're wrong. Regardless of how you use it, and regardless of the dictionary definition, the word creative does have several meanings (more accurately several applications) in common use. That is simply a fact.

It's not a fact because you say so. Would you like to provide some alternative meanings so we can consider them? I just don't have any idea what the alternative meanings you refer to are.

(By the way, you're also wrong about what companies want when they ask for creative solutions. They couldn't give a toss how original an idea is; what they mean is they want a way to do it thats different from, and better than, their current way, not careing at all that hundreds of other companies might already be doing it that way. They do NOT want original for originals sake).

So.. in context, they want an original idea that is different from what they already have. Isn't that what I said? You're right that they may not care of another company somewhere else is doing it, no, but again, it's slightly different in this forum where we are discussing the originality of images that are merely copies of others. Companies are only really interested the result of that process... which in itself is probably one thing only.. profit. The outcomes expected in a creative endeavour however, are expected to be original. Perhaps not the best analogy in retrospect.

What you're arguing is that generic photos don't fit your use of the word. Fair enough, and I'd tend to agree with you, but that doesn't allow you to deny the point I was making, that other people can and do use it other ways, quite legitimately, depending on the context.

Again.. examples please.

Pointless (there being no point in its existence) is the same thing as serving no purpose.

Put like that, yes. However, I don't think the creative forum serves no purpose at all. I think it serves a very real and useful purpose. I think it IS useless as a creative forum though, becaues it contains so little creative work.

What you're saying is that it doesn't fit your use of the word creative. Well, it can't can it? If it was for the type of creative you (and I) think should apply to photos (originality), it'd be impossible for anyone to decide they should put their own shots in there, as most people aren't arrogant enough, or even knowledgeable enough of pre-existing work, to think "my shot's so damn original, I'm going to put it in there". We'd end up with a stream of people posting shots, with pedants pointing out that it's actually not that original. Because creativity of this type is in the eye of the beholder, it would be the beholder who'd need to post the shot, which obviously is impractical.

I disagree. I think everyone who posts in there is well aware that their shots aren't original because most are just practising techniques that they've seen elsewhere. No one in that forum INVENTED wire wool spinning, and it's highly unlikely they co-invented it unknowingly.

You keep referring to "my" interpretation of creative, but you haven't yet defines "yours". Could you explain what YOU mean creative could mean alternatively?

I've noticed in several threads that you're very literal, which is why, for example, you pulled apart my example of a well lit portrait being creative, thus completely missing the point. That's no problem in general, because literal people are just as necessary as everyone else, but you do need to learn to read what people are saying overal, not specifically what they've written in minute detail. That's especially true on a forum, where people can't use tone to help convey their meaning.

I wouldn't say I'm literal. I just don't like ambiguity in a debate. It leaves too many loose ends. In a debate, you have to say what you mean with a certain amount of precision, or people will misinterpret what you're saying to meet their own ends.

I do wish you wouldn't be so verbose, David. I really don't wnat to answer all your points one by one, but I'll try.

I wish you wouldn't edit a quote by adding your own text, because it makes it almost impossible to quote you.

And it's hard to NOT be verbose sometimes. I'm only responding to points others make.

Possibly. What I do have is an ambivalence to art. On the one hand I think it is the most important thing there is, on the other I don't think it matters at all. I can't explain what I mean by this. I do know that making art is more important to the artist than to any viewer of the art. It's the process that matters to them.

Your reactions are hardly what I'd expect from someone ambivalent, so I can only assume you had your other persona on yesterday. someone who is ambivalent wouldn't resort to name calling and other childishness.

It amuses me.

That's where I leave you alone then. If you're childish enough to be amused by calling people names, then you're simply not worthy of my attention, and certainly not my intellectual equal, or that of the others in here debating this in an adult, rationale manner. It's people like you who get serious debate threads closed by reducing it to name calling and childish tit for tat bull****. Maybe that's your raison d'etre: Get it closed because it makes you uncomfortable, because you may have to face some home truths about your own worth as a creative. Good Bye Ed.

That was my simple point really. Creativity is natural, some have it more than others. It can't be taught, but can be nurtured or built upon.

You're wrong there. It CAN be taught... or rather, it can be remembered. We were all creative once as children, when we knew no limits, and didn't live by so many social, intellectual and emotional rules.

I teach people to be creative all the time... quite successfully. I'm not saying we're all equal, but everyone has creative capacity. I've yet to meet someone devoid of creative potential.

I wish my parents had paid more attention to my creative side when I was younger. I was pretty handy at sketching, cartooning, anything to do with the drawing side of art. But to them it was doodling, and to my teacher's too [even when all agreed I was good]. I'd get scolded rather than encouraged for "wasting my time sketching" - I was useless at math and biology - art is what I loved. But I don't draw or sketch any more. I haven't for years really. And that talent sort of ... died. Because it was instilled into me that it was a waste of time and energy. I guess I reached out to photography as a fill for that and people tend to prefer me doing that. Because it may actually make money at times.

That's such a shame. You can bring it all back though. You can definitely learn (or re-learn) to be creative. I've seen it happen far too many times to accept the argument that you can't teach (or re-learn) creativity. It's simply not true.

I won't do this to our young lass, she builds 'dens' and pretends to be wild animals, she draws - pretty good for 5 too - and paints and likes to jump in muddy puddles and pretend she's defending the Queen's castle - or whatever [she's a bit of a tom boy to boot] There's not a minute of the day she's not pretending to be some wild thing or anotherand trying to draw others into her imagination world, constantly on the move, always laughing and smiling.

She's certainly more creative than I these days.

Let her find her own way. I hated school. I was constantly being punished for questioning things, and for daydreaming, and sketching when I should have been listening to something I ad no interest in. I suffer from dyscalculia, but obviously, back in the late 70s and early 80s, that meant you were just thick. Never mind that I could calculate percentages in my head to 2 decimal places without knowing how I do it... but because I couldn't ever recite a times table or do long division with a pencil I was written off. To this day, I just do not understand how you divide and multiply with pen and paper. I've more chance of understanding unified field theory. I can still work out percentages in my head with total accuracy though.. Weird thing the brain.

Basically I just never went to school. I left school in 1984 with one qualification above CSE only: A level art. I have to this day, not one single qualification in maths above the old CSE level. It means nothing. I knew the creative industries was where I'd end up, and maths and English are not the be all and end all in this arena.

I'm not saying you should encourage your daughter to not do maths and English though... I'm saying people will find their way based on what they're good at if they are encouraged and nurtured.


Anyway.... drifted off topic a little there.. It's hard to have a debate about creativeness in imagery without discussing creativity itself though.

 

[Cagey75]

What I mean is, they can't teach you to be naturally creative, they can help, if they chose to [and I mean parents and teachers] bring the best out of what creativity is there. But I don't think you can create, creativity so much.

And definitely no pushing on the kiddo, she shall be making a lot of her own decisions, like does she want to attend that dance class? if not, she won't - if she wants to do karate, she will ... etc ... our other, 9yr old, unfortunately doesn't have quite so many choices with her cerebral palsy, but still she does horse riding, swimming and has stronger core muscles than some junior athletes because of all the physio she does. Would try encourage her to go that direction, but again, it's completely up to them.