OK, I'm also interested in Winnicott's, "transitional object" as the beginning of creativity instead of the Freudian approach. I think I agree that creative people (in arts) are usually capable of doing a lot of things well, but I also suspect (don't know) that their "glitches" (my made-up word) often handicap them in areas of societal conformity.
My own experience in a corporate enviornment taught me that success and the title of "creative" was essentially due to good social manners, risk-taking within established conformity, team playing within the "culture" of the business, etc. That didn't require exceptional intelligence or creativity but the better one played the corporate role the more intelligent and creative he was rated. (Yes, it was a 100% "he" world). I was a very successful young corporate fellow. It took me a a decade in academia to equal the salary (and not the perks) I had at 24. For the fun of it, here are a few rules for corporate success I learned by observation (some might still apply). Dress as well as your boss, not better. Never put a pencil or pen in your suit jacket breast pocket, and have only one modest pen in your shirt pocket. Wear a different tie every day. Have several pairs of excellent shoes. Never leave your desk messy (implies you can't keep up). Never take a briefcase home (implies you worry too much and are thus not up to the game). Leave a little later than others but not more than 30 minutes. Arrive an hour early. Keep very orderly files of your work/letters/memos, except don't write anything you can't announce in public. No brown bag lunch. Personally sign every letter you write. No office tomfoolery. No convention excess with drink or expenses. Normally use cash. No overtipping. Never ask for a raise. Have a solution handy to cover your boss's shortcomings but don't embarrass him (until he's on the way out and then strike to checkmate, not anything less). There's more, like never driving a dirty car, old car is very ok, and no car means you're genuine urban to the core. All very WASP. Maybe this is still the name of the game in USA but probably masked by fake creativity fashions. So basically, I think that high achievers are only those rated such by others in their group or through celebrity (often false). If the group is defining achievement by what does not threaten them, as is normally the case in corporate culture, then it's questionable as a measure. WC --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Creativity and 'glitches" > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 11:44 AM > William: I write out of my area of expertise/interest. > However, your > contention regarding a link between emotional trauma and > creativity has been > a controversial one. You would find psychologists who would > recognize the > role of trauma in the development of creative talent/drive. > I would say that the court is out regarding > anatomical/physiological > differences in the nervous systems of creative persons. I > don't know of data > on that one.In general, high functioning persons are high > functioning across > a wide board, although their particular achievement may be > in a specific > area. > I would agree that there is a talent/aptitude, which, with > application and > opportunity, tends to lead to artistic achievement. > However, we don't hear > much about the folks who have some talent, lots of > application and > opportunity but no recognition. All that glitters with one > part of the > recipe doesn't become recognzed gold. > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:01 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs > > > > Yeah, I suppose great art means "no reasonable > doubt" or the cliche, > > "suspension of disbelief." > > > > > > I want to go back to Geoff and Cheerskep's search > for the attributes about > > talent and gift. Here's a sloppy off-the cuff > outlook and guessing. > > > > I suspect that highly creative artists (as > distinguished from non-poetic > > creators like engineers and CEOs) have a brain quirk, > some glitch in their > > neural pathways that lead them to think a bit > differently from those who > > don't have the "defect". Further, these > individuals may have suffered > > emotional trauma as infants or children, effectively > hampering their > > ability to process and express genuine well-being. > Since learning and > > growing up to function well in a society assumes a > "well-being" these > > people don't learn the same way and may develop > differing brain "circuits" > > for dealing with the stream of experience, opening > them to odd or strange > > assessments. Is this a form of madness? Maybe so, but > if the person is > > productively creative, then a type of actual > sublimation enables a new > > "sense of well being" that can be shared and > aids societal belonging. The > > creative artist finds well being through sublimation. > > > > The difference between the pure and total subjectivity > of madness and the > > odd subjectivity of the artist is that for the artist > the real world of > > actuality is always the guide to creativity. No matter > how novel the > > fantasy of subjectivity, it relies on actuality and is > always far simpler > > than even the most mundane real thing. When I paint > an abstract shape > > that looks like 250 things (say) it is only different > from one specific > > look-alike real thing in its simplicity and > generality. Any make-believe > > is a simplification of actuality. (And any > consciousness is a > > make-believe of the raw stream of actual experience of > a real world) > > > > Creative artists usually don't fully realize their > "gift" or talent > > because it seems quite normal to them. Even if we > restrict ourselves to > > gift/talent as having special facility -- and I think > it goes well beyond > > that -- the creative artist may not understand that > his/her facility is > > difficult or impossible for others to attain. > > > > I think it's best to think of the creative > gift/talent as a sort of > > apparatus, a machinery or set of tools. Artists tend > to develop an > > apparatus (medium, etc.) that enables them to fumble > around the hidden and > > protected innermost self, recognizing its need for > "well-being" and > > symbolizing it in the form that apparatus enables. > > > > The obsessional work and "never-give-up" > arrogance (an "I'll show you!" > > attitude that aims to prove that the traumatized or > "oddball" and thus > > rejected self is worthy of well being and societal > affection) are > > indicative of the artist's need to create over and > over. The "hard work" > > is not regretted, but is the necessary labor of > sublimation, to release a > > symbol of the now worthy self (and one which > constitutes a surrogate for > > others, the essence of societal approval and societal > well-being). > > > > When the marble rolls through the creative > person's brain, it follows > > different pathways than those rutted by the societal > habits of learning, > > interpreting, concluding, etc. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Sat, 1/3/09, armando baeza > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: "armando baeza" > <[email protected]> > >> Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 3:52 PM > >> How fuzzy may "beyond all reasonable doubt be > in > >> art"? > >> mando > >> > >> On Jan 3, 2009, at 1:30 PM, William Conger wrote: > >> > >> > That is also why the rule is "legal > truth = > >> beyond all reasonable > >> > doubt" > >> > WC > >> > > >> > --- On Sat, 1/3/09, GEOFF CREALOCK
