Actually, the goal is for the students exposed to this modeling - will be better in math, science and management - art is now the means to teach something not a way to make something - how right Marx, Heidegger, and Marcuse were about the human being integrated into the technologies - rather than technologies being integrated into the human -
On 6/12/10 11:07 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: The whole thing is driven by "outcomes" based teaching. Once the desired outcome is identified then all are taught to match it and are evaluated according to their success. Thus, in order to succeed in creativity once must match the stated outcomes by not being creative. The problem as I see it has nothing to do with creativity but with skills. The 8 rules list could be ok if specific skills were being taught. This is the practice in many areas of study, especially in the sciences. It is not transferable to the mysterious thing we call creative. Why not just ignore the notion that creativity can be taught? We all know it can't be taught because it is always defined in retrospect, by society and by societal agents, the teachers. But skill -- the most abused word in art education -- can be taught because models can be stipulated, whether or not they are good or "creative". The old fashioned approach, to teach skills and knowledge as modes of access and to admire but otherwise ignore "creativity" might be still be the best and most honest approach. It allows for the "What can you do with this?" possibilities while centering on what can be objectified a-priori. My rule of thumb is that whatever is being taught as art in K-12 should be fully rejected at the higher education level...but only after students are selected for having met the highest standards of K12. Goofy, I know, but worthy. If the k12 teach "woo-woo creativity, then the higher ed schools should teach the opposite -- skills and knowledge -- and ignore "creativity" as a not-yet recognized social construct. It is truly a shame and a sham to for K12 teachers to avoid skills and knowledge, the very abilities one needs to access depth in any field -- and to instead construe a ridiculous "outcome" measure of creativity. This is just more evidence to me that the good artists will skirt around the edges of their "art" education, remaining aloof to all of it while being able now and then to dazzle the ruling educator-crowds with their completely irresponsible and unmeasurable artworks. You know this better than I do. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 9:20:15 AM Subject: Re: "Would aesthetic values if converted or reduced into statistical representation nullify the aesthetic values?" Agreed - and the conference was for K-12 art teachers - or as they now like to call themselves teaching artist - I found the desire to quantify scary - and am now trying to figure out what the effect of this modeling of creativity will have on higher education and art schools On 6/12/10 10:12 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: Nothing in the 8 rules, and they are rules drawn from presumed proofs, allow for tacit knowledge. I'm still under the spell of Collins and his treatment of tacit and explicit knowledge. This is just more nonsense from those who claim that creativity can be mapped and predicted. See Greenberg re "concocted" art (or creativity). The drones of society can't abide the fact that some actions can't be predicted or turned into formula. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 9:00:32 AM Subject: Re: "Would aesthetic values if converted or reduced into statistical representation nullify the aesthetic values?" I was at a conference on teaching creativity/ problem solving at the Guggenhiem the other day The general consensus is that the following 8 points constitute creativity 1.The ability to make connections/ observation 2.The ability to articulate the relation between needs and ideas (systemic thinking) 3. the development and acknowledgement of choices 4.connecting goals to means - ability to deal with contingencies 5.material knowledge - limits and possibilities - resource recognition 6.ability to model diverse perspectives - non-linear / non heirarchicathinking 7. adaptability/ ability to abstract ( to apply knowledge from one discipline to another) 8. learning by trial and error- learning from mistakes - integrate evaluation into practice 9.reflect and evaluate (critical and self-critical thinking) - 10. seeing challenges as opportunities 11. role playing Conclusion: creativity is the ability to reformulate a question after it has been answered On 6/11/10 6:02 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: All these laments are so boring. The past never returns and it is always idealized. Get over it. If you don't like art today don't deal with it. Go weep in victorian rooms of your favorite museum. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, June 9, 2010 3:08:13 PM Subject: "Would aesthetic values if converted or reduced into statistical representation nullify the aesthetic values?" http://www.www.helium.com/items/1603379-aesthetics-and-the-philosophy-of-repr esentation -- -- --
