3 ms·

It's too bad that memorization - as a tool - is so readily dismissed. I think it is immensely valuable and enables one to master complex material and establish

by eej71 6y ago

It's too bad that memorization - as a tool - is so readily dismissed. I think it is immensely valuable and enables one to master complex material and establish insights that would not be readily available through other means. I think its a false alternative to see it as memorization vs. creativity. I'd make the case that memorization provides a useful foundation for creativity. It enables one to command a large set of facts to then integrate them into new insights.

Grustaf 6y ago
Definitely. The most creative artists, musicians, acrobats etc are not the ones that skipped learning the basics. Only when you mastered the basics very very thoroughly can you start being creative and innovative.
- watwut 6y ago
  But, art fundamentals are not learned through rote repetition. There is a lot of practice, but it is supposed to be mindfull instead of rote and also is coupled with a lot of explanations of how things work and a lot of creative work. The usual drawing advice is complete opposite of what you suggest. Playing instrument in classical school is learned through repetition, but this schooling is not producing composers nor people able to create new music nor improvise. It makes people able to perform increasingly difficult technical pieces someone else made. That is completely different goal and schooling. Likewise, acrobats are not choreographs which is something completely different. Acrobacy does not lead to that.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Do you have any examples of brilliant innovative musicians that did not master the basics very thoroughly? I don’t believe the commonly repeated idea that rote learning and repetition would somehow inhibit innovation. I’m quite sure it’s the opposite. Take Rodney Mullen, by far the most innovative skater ever, he practically created new school skateboarding. He’s a machine, completely mastered old school and is extremely consistent.

by eej71 6y ago

Grustaf 6y ago

Definitely. The most creative artists, musicians, acrobats etc are not the ones that skipped learning the basics. Only when you mastered the basics very very thoroughly can you start being creative and innovative.

watwut 6y ago
But, art fundamentals are not learned through rote repetition. There is a lot of practice, but it is supposed to be mindfull instead of rote and also is coupled with a lot of explanations of how things work and a lot of creative work. The usual drawing advice is complete opposite of what you suggest. Playing instrument in classical school is learned through repetition, but this schooling is not producing composers nor people able to create new music nor improvise. It makes people able to perform increasingly difficult technical pieces someone else made. That is completely different goal and schooling. Likewise, acrobats are not choreographs which is something completely different. Acrobacy does not lead to that.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Do you have any examples of brilliant innovative musicians that did not master the basics very thoroughly? I don’t believe the commonly repeated idea that rote learning and repetition would somehow inhibit innovation. I’m quite sure it’s the opposite. Take Rodney Mullen, by far the most innovative skater ever, he practically created new school skateboarding. He’s a machine, completely mastered old school and is extremely consistent.