Reading 1

Jackie Eifler

ART 335

August 31, 2017

Article 1 (Milbrandt): Summary for “Creativity: What Are We Talking About?”

Main Idea: The Milbrandt’s article was written to provide more understanding on what it means to be “creative” and evoking creativity. They investigate further on some of the techniques used to inspire and help flourish creative expression for students, hoping to educate our own education systems on the subject.

Supporting Key Concepts:

·         There is a lack of understanding on not only the fundamentals of creativity, but even the definition of the concept itself. Creativity can be found around us, but usually in unproductive ways like advertisement and commercialism.

·         This lack of understanding caused the education system to focus less on what could help students express their creativity. Specific answers and patterns to follow are limiting newer generations of people.

·         There are three categorical theories of creativity discussed. These are used to attempt to define different parts of creativity and implore on the issues they create for students.

Ø  Domain Altering: As described by Csikszentmihalyi (1996), domain altering is an act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain into a new one. Experts of the particular field that a domain was changed in will decide if the work is considered successful. This limits a student’s perspective to be creative, as most students have not changed a domain “successfully.”

Ø  Self-expression and the Search for meaning: Creativity helps us adapt and celebrate parts of our lives. It is argued that it is even necessary for humans as a species to express themselves and find meaning. This self-expression is also used for human connection, which can often cause the creator to lose their own connection to their art in order to appease others.

Ø  Creative problem solving: This is a form of problem solving where many different solutions are viable. There is a distinct lack of these stimulating questions in most classroom environments, and it is limiting the students. Without the encouragement to think creatively, students are not grasping a clear understanding on creativity and the tools it provides.

·         The categories are then broken down to reveal what the Milbrandt’s consider to be flaws in the education system and inspire more research about creativity to be implemented in our education systems. Students should be encouraged to understand the validity in their creations, view them as expressions of themselves, and be encouraged to think outside the lines.

Example and Assessment: The example about Csikszentmihalyi’s Domain Altering Theory proved to me to be the most common influence and issue in creativity for students. The Milbrandt’s used this theory, along with the three others, to highlight parts of creative thinking that are bring limited in the education system. It works well in the article because it conveys a significant obstacle of any creative goal: It must be judged well, and if it is not or is never finished, it was not a “successful” attempt.

Personal Response: I found the article very inspiring. As a student, I witness so many limitations on our abilities to do things our way. Even if there is no clear solution, the article in itself encourages creative thinking for fixing these problems. These are becoming real issues, and if we encourage discussion and further research, schools might be able to implement superior methods of teaching that influence creativity. Many of us need to “find ourselves,” and with the amount of time spent in the education system, it could prove to be life-altering.

Questions: So the question is, how can we implement new theories of understanding into our already ridged education system? Where will these discussions on each issue lead us in research? And what are some new was teachers can help students find their own creative outlets?