4 ms·
Wow, what a load of rubbish. I hate this kind of reductive, formulaic view of creativity. I think true creativity expands what is possible – so some kind of awa
by lukko 2y ago
Wow, what a load of rubbish. I hate this kind of reductive, formulaic view of creativity. I think true creativity expands what is possible – so some kind of awareness of the current state of things is important, but rote memorisation has no real part in it.
The idea that memorisation leads to creativity is actually very misleading - especially the assumption that what you are learning is 'true'. It just means you are more aware of the restrictions and existing work in a field - often the most exciting work comes from the excitement and slight naivety of exploring something new - 'beginner's mind'. Kids are very creative, partly because their model of the world is not fully established.
- stoperaticless 2y agoPure creativity without skill (i.e. kids) does not yield much. (Spaghetti drawing’s creative value is limited) Skill requires practice, which is building “muscle memory” (which is approx. what is meant by “memorisation” by the author)
- shw1n 2y ago^ exactly
- lukko 2y agoHuh, muscle memory implies motor programs that are subconscious and stored in the cerebellum - this is very different to creativity. It may enable you to make something new, but that is not a prerequisite. The value of spaghetti drawings is subjective, and actually to be able to make such disinhibited drawings with similar qualities as an adult is very difficult and requires unlearning. Picasso knew this very well. The safe and very systematic approaches the author describes are defensive, too rigid and avoid what creativity really is - a leap into the unknown.