The idea of 'art' as creativity is moronic anyway. At least as far as the word art is commonly understood which decidedly includes doing random things to no practical end.
Music and prose must conform to certain standards, thus require discipline, and outputs can be meaningfully judged.
Modern art and poetry far less so. The 'creativity' involved is akin to that of a child making designs with poop. Intellectually it is poop.
In art, if you are doing things no one understands the problem isn't them. It is you.
In science if you are doing things no one understands, still it can be adjucated with tests or reproducibility.
In the market if you are doing things no one understands, still it can be adjudicated with the test of profitablilty.
My code is very creative. I recall a professor who didn't undertand what I had written or how it worked, but the fact was it DID work, and the professor gave me an A++ for the project.
( I was later able to explain, and in fact it derived from his own teaching, he just hadn't thought it thru fully )
TlDR.. a lot if what is called art is basically poop. As useful as poop. As fragrant as poop. As tasty as poop.
Thank you for this post, the necessity for which just illustrates again that people in the education industry tend to have little experience with children.
If so, Copy is just memory (which is g-loaded), Combining is just processing speed (which is also g-loaded), which leads to "Transform" as a non-cognitive part of creativity?
By extension: (a) is the "transform" skill empathic (or p-loaded) in nature? (b) can the "transform" skill be heritable or genetic? (c) is it age or education dependent?
The idea of 'art' as creativity is moronic anyway. At least as far as the word art is commonly understood which decidedly includes doing random things to no practical end.
Music and prose must conform to certain standards, thus require discipline, and outputs can be meaningfully judged.
Modern art and poetry far less so. The 'creativity' involved is akin to that of a child making designs with poop. Intellectually it is poop.
In art, if you are doing things no one understands the problem isn't them. It is you.
In science if you are doing things no one understands, still it can be adjucated with tests or reproducibility.
In the market if you are doing things no one understands, still it can be adjudicated with the test of profitablilty.
My code is very creative. I recall a professor who didn't undertand what I had written or how it worked, but the fact was it DID work, and the professor gave me an A++ for the project.
( I was later able to explain, and in fact it derived from his own teaching, he just hadn't thought it thru fully )
TlDR.. a lot if what is called art is basically poop. As useful as poop. As fragrant as poop. As tasty as poop.
Thank you for this post, the necessity for which just illustrates again that people in the education industry tend to have little experience with children.
Are creativity measures any good?
So the study he sights is 1600 children from the Headstart program.... Maybe it's the government program that's dumbing them down?
Is creativity defined as the methodology as Copy, Transform, Combine? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41265-017-0043-9
If so, Copy is just memory (which is g-loaded), Combining is just processing speed (which is also g-loaded), which leads to "Transform" as a non-cognitive part of creativity?
By extension: (a) is the "transform" skill empathic (or p-loaded) in nature? (b) can the "transform" skill be heritable or genetic? (c) is it age or education dependent?