Walking the Creativity Tightrope: Teaching students to be appropriately radical
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/rtc.extra6.6526Keywords:
Creativity, Art Education, Design Teaching Processes, Originality, InnovationAbstract
Creativity has a significant place in visual arts education (Bastos & Zimmerman, 2015; Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Kinsella, 2018; Sawyer, 2017; Stone, 2015; Ulger, 2019; Veon, 2014) but an understanding of creativity leads to the recognition that for something to be deemed creative, it must be both novel and appropriate in context (Amabile, 2018; Cropley, 2016; Goetz Zwirn & Vande Zande, 2015; Kaufman & Baer, 2012; Plucker, 2018). While the ‘in context’ addition to the concept of appropriate, creates more space for visual artists, the constraints of appropriateness remain. For a visual arts and design instructor, this creates tension. How do I encourage students to be creative and push boundaries, yet also teach them to be mindful of the constraints?
This paper discusses observations in undergraduate design education studio classes wherein students learn to use process and thumbnail sketches to push their concepts beyond predictable and into the radical or novel realm. A modified design thinking process provides the structure that allows students to feel confident about exploring ideas. Ongoing feedback from peers and instructor serves to both push and reign in ideas when revisions are valuable. The process requires diligence and practice. It also requires that students work to break free from either/or thinking and view their work on a continuum.
Reflecting on relevant methods for encouraging students to accept the value of novel ideas that also acknowledge the viewer is worthwhile. Encouraging students to recognize that creativity is enhanced through process while also engendering an understanding of the nature of creativity is valuable and can lead to the generation of radical ideas that have merit due not only to their novelty but also to their ‘appropriateness.’
Downloads
References
Amabile, T. (2018). Creativity and the labor of love. In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 1-15). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936
Baer, J. (2016). Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum. In B. Barbot (Ed.), Perspectives on creativity development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 151, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20151
Ball, L.J., Marsh, J.E., Litchfield, D., Cook, R.L., & Booth, N. (2015). When distraction helps: evidence that concurrent articulation and irrelevant speech can facilitate insight problem solving. Thinking Reasoning 21,76-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.934399
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J.A. & Fugelsang, J.A. (2015). Reasoned connections: a dual-process perspective on creative thought. Thinking Reasoning 21, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.895915
Bastos, F. & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). (2015). Connecting creativity research and practice in art Education: Foundations, pedagogies, and contemporary issues. National Art Education Association.
Berglund, A., & Leifer, L. (2013). Why we prototype! An international comparison of the linkage between embedded knowledge and objective learning. Engineering Education, 8(1), 2e15. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2013.00004.
Botella, M. (2018). The creative process in graphic art. In Lubart, T. (Ed.). (2018). The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50563-7
Burkus, D. (2014). The myths of creativity: The truth about how innovative companies and people generate great ideas. Jossey-Bass. https://learning-oreilly-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/library/view/the-myths-of/9781118729885/c01.xhtml
Camburn, B. A., Dunlap, B. U., Kuhr, R., Viswanathan, V. K., Linsey, J. S., Jensen, D. D., et al. (2013). Methods for prototyping strategies in conceptual phases of design: Framework and experimental assessment. In: 25th international conference on design theory and methodology; ASME 2013 power transmission and gearing conference, Vol. 5. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-13072.
Corgnet, B., Espín, A.M. & Hernán-González, R. (2016). Creativity and cognitive skills among Millennials: Thinking too much and creating too little. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1626), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01626
Cropley, A. (2016) The myths of heaven-sent creativity: Toward a perhaps less democratic but more down-to-earth understanding, Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195614
Cropley, A. (2018). Bringing creativity down to earth: A long labor lost? In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 47-62). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936
Eby, D. (2017). Mistakes fuel creativity and innovation. Retrieved from http://thecreativemind.net/728/mistakes-fuel-creativity-innovation/.
Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M., Christoff, K. (2012). Evaluative and generative modes of thought during the creative process. NeuroImage, 59, 1783-1794.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008
Garino, A. (2020). Ready, willing and able: a model to explain successful use of feedback. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 25:337–361.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09924-2
Goetz Zwirn, S. & Vande Zande, R. (2015). Differences between art and design education—or differences in conceptions of creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 193–203. https://doi.org /10.1002/jocb.98
Hambeukers, D. (2019, Sept. 22). Do structure and process create space for creativity? Design Leadership Notebook. https://medium.com/design-leadership-notebook/do-structure-and-process-create-space-for-creativity-46014f84241e
Hannigan, S. (2018). A theoretical and practice-informed reflection on the value of failure in art. Thinking Skills and Creativity 30, 171-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.012
Jaussi, K.S. & Randel, A.E. (2014) Where to look? Creative self-efficacy, knowledge retrieval, and incremental and radical creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.961772
Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2018) Creativity for whom? Art education in the age of creative agency, decreased resources, and unequal art achievement outcomes. Art Education, 71(6), 34-37. DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2018.1505388
Kaufmann, J., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83-91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649237
Kim, K.H. (2019). Demystifying creativity: what creativity isn’t and is? Roeper Review, 41:119-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585397
Kinsella, V. (2018). The use of activity theory as a methodology for developing creativity within the art and design classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 493-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12147
Levenson, C. & Hicks, D. (2015). Opening the door: Teaching toward creativity. In F. Bastos & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting: Creativity research and practice in art education: Foundations, pedagogies, and contemporary issues (pp. 100-108). National Art Education Association.
Lubart, T. (Ed.). (2018). The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50563-7
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E. & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96(4), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022416
Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N. & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on radical and incremental creativity: The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 40:1013-1026.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2403
Malinin, L. H. (2019). How Radical Is Embodied Creativity? Implications of 4E Approaches for Creativity Research and Teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 10:2372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02372
Nelson, J. & Menold, J. (2020). Opening the black box: Developing metrics to assess the cognitive processes of prototyping. Design Studies. 70(C), 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.100964
Pariser, D. (2015). The limits of social constructionL Promoting creativity in the visual arts. In F. Bastos & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting: Creativity research and practice in art education: Foundations, pedagogies, and contemporary issues (pp. 109-115). National Art Education Association.
Plucker, J.A. (2018). It all makes sense now that I think about it: A quarter-century of studying creativity. In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 166-183). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936
Rubenstein, L.D., McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2013) Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factorsthat allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813807
Sawyer, R.K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99-113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002
Silvia, P.J. (2018). Creativity is undefinable, controllable, and everywhere. In R.J. Sternberg & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Nature of Human Creativity (pp. 291-301). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936
Sowden, P.T., Pringle, A. & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: connections to dual-process theory. Thinking Reasoning. 21, 40-60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.885464
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Teaching college students that creativity is a decision. Guidance & Counseling, 19(4), 196-200.
Stone, D.L. (2015). Art teachers’ beliefs about creativity. Visual Arts Research, 41(2), 82-100. https://doi.org/10.5406/visuartsrese.41.2.0082
Tang, C. & Naumann, S. E. (2016). The impact of three kinds of identity on research and development employees’ incremental and radical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 21, 123-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.003
Ulger, K. (2016). The creative training in the visual arts education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.007
Ulger, K. (2019). Comparing the effects of art education and science education on creative thinking in high school students, Arts Education Policy Review, 120(2), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1334612
Veon, R.E. (2014) Leading Change: The art administrator’s role in promoting creativity. Art Education, 67(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2014.11519254
Wang, M. T. & Yang, C. C. (2015). Concept design from random algorithms for design sketching. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 6(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-013-0207-6
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education, 50(4), 382-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2009.11518783
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Michelle Wiebe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this magazine, accept the following terms:
The authors will retain their copyright and will guarantee to the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows third parties to share the work whenever their author is indicated and its first publication is this journal.
Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (eg to be deposited in an institutional telematic file or published in a monographic volume) provided the initial publication is indicated in this journal .
Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work via the Internet (eg in institutional telematic files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the number of citations of the published work..
In case of being accepted works will be published under Creative Commons license.
