Mike Palij wrote: >Vincent van Gogh is a great example of an artist who's work >was not thought of too highly during his life but after his death >his work is seen as being great and influences the work of many artists; >see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
>So, how can it be that something not be thought of as creative >or valuable at one point in time become seen as immensely >creative and of tremendous value at another time? An interesting question, but I'm not sure Van Gogh is a good example. He only began painting ten years before his death at the age of 37 (how many painters achieve fame within such a short span of time starting from scratch?), and by biographical accounts it seems that his most famous paintings were in the last two or three years of his life. My impression is that it is less a case of his paintings "not being thought of too highly" than of their simply not being generally known to the public until his brother Theo revealed the treasure trove Vincent left on his death. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ---------------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] What Academics Are Writing About These Days... Mike Palij Tue, 11 May 2010 06:38:55 -0700 On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:56:52 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: >Well, if there was an AHA! moment, at least we know it originated near >your right ear...eh....sort of. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/books/08creative.html So, which is worse: rank neuroscience research or research on creativity? In cognitive psychology courses that I teach, I point out that the theory and tasks often used in creativity research might be fun things to do in the lab but are severely lacking in ecological validity and provide no real insight into what is consider "truly creative" by a society at any particular time. Indeed, it is the artful formulaic social artefacts that are often seen as pleasing, widely popular, and "creative", especially in popular culture where "re-imagining" of old franchises in movies like "Star Trek", the Jason Bourne character, Batman and numerous comic book characters that constitute a large part of contemporary U.S. movie making serve as example of "successful acts of creation". In this sense, "Avatar" trumps "The Hurt Locker" even though the latter may be seen as more creative artistically ("Avatar" is more of a technical achievement) but financially lacking in return. Avatar wins because it made the most money not because it was the more creative work. A good example from the movies about creativity in the movies is Robert Altman's film "The Player" which pokes fun at a number of Hollywood film convention (including the Hollywood happy ending) as well as showing in its "film within a film" how an original story is converted into a "commercially viable" movie (with the persons with the original idea for the movie becoming corrupted in the process of producing a successful "product"). Altman was a wise movie-maker and used a number of traditional conventions from the crime/mystery genre to subvert the film (e.g., the film has a happy ending but only if one isn't too morally particular). Additional examples includes how source materials had to be changed in order to make movies more successful but less creative. In the movie "Forrest Gump" there is a particular characterization of Forrest presented but one that clashes with the character in the novel who spent time as a wrestler (The Dunce) who wore diapers in his matches. Which treatment is more creative? Which is "safer"? In the movie "The Natural" Robert Redford plays the ball player "Roy Hobbes" who astounds in the "feel good" walk-off home run that wins the National League pennant for the New York Knights. But read the summary of Bernard Malamud's novel "The Natural" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural And compare it to the film version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_%28film%29 It should be clear why the movie version of the "The Natural" would turn out to be successful but is a less creative work. Creativity is truly a difficult concept to pin down because of its dependence on different values (e.g., artistry, technical prowese, insight, commercial return, etc.) which will vary across time and places. Vincent van Gogh is a great example of an artist who's work was not thought of too highly during his life but after his death his work is seen as being great and influences the work of many artists; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh So, how can it be that something not be thought of as creative or valuable at one point in time become seen as immensely creative and of tremendous value at another time? Is being creative and producing creative works something that can be easily recognized and appreciated without knowledge of the values driving the creation of the work and the social context it is being produced in? I don't think so. Creativity is a very slippery concept and perhaps psychological research on it has only trivialized our understanding of it.. Or not. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2585 or send a blank email to leave-2585-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
