Creativity Summary 3

Kelsey Best

Digital Creativity

Summary #3

Understanding Digital-Synthesized Photographs

Through Theories of Knowledge

Summary

         The article begins by comparing digital photography to traditional film, clamining that more time is spent fixing photos in photoshop than capturing the perfect picture. Though some tradition is perhaps lost in transition, photoshop allows artist to convey messages that would not have been possible using older methods. Contemporary architectural theorist Mark Gelernter believes that combining this with a strong education is vital, because one’s intention and ideas are formulated in knowledge. Another key to artistic photography is defining reality, and deciding what notion of it should appear in the photographs.

         Tom Bamberger is a contemporary photographer living in Wisconsin. Using the panorama style photo to depict altered landscapes. By copying a section of something, he can seamlessly attach the duplicates so as to create a perfect scene. Science plays an important role in this style of art, as does geometry and knowledge of technology. In this work he speaks of Darwinism and how science is the best explanation we have for the phenomenon of life.

         Another key to photography is asking what truth you should find there. For Tom Bamberger, the answer is still unfound. He is astutely aware that photographs cannot always capture the truth of what he is seeing, as he attests in an anecdote about trying to photograph the sunlight. For him, the more beautiful is, the more truthful it is. This lead him to his current method for working, with the aim to beautify nature in order to show its truth. His goal is to show the world more clearly and bring joy to others in the process.

         However, he does not feel that his work is a failure if the audience fails to grasp the concept. He invites people to create their own meaning from the work based on the simple act of seeing it. To him, reality is what you want it to be, so forcing his reality onto others may not serve them when they try to decipher a meaning in his work. Those who make art typically have some sort of problem or question in regards to their own realities, and Bamberger’s work is the result of his quest for truth.

         The article sums up by reminding us that beauty is a particular kind of form that people gravitate towards. Everyone loves beautiful things, it’s just the things that change from person to person. Brilliant formal quality is something that Bamberger finds beautiful, as illustrated by his work. However, photoshop is not the only tool that photography students should be learning. The best tool is the frame of mind. Learning to see alternate views of reality is the most important aspect, while photoshop is there to help make it happen. 

Creativity Summary 2

Kelsey Best

Digital Creativity

Summary #2

What are we talking about?

Summary

           

            This article takes a look at the contributing factors in the meaning of the word creativity as well as pointing out observable processes that are tied to it. The attitude is somewhat critical, claiming that the public definition of the word is more associated with pop culture and commercialization. For instance, one might find a Superbowl commercial creative and witty, yet look right past a work of art as though it blends into the background. It also criticizes the public schooling system, which, after the No Child Left Behind Act, has been more concerned with high test scores than anything else. Cultivating creative thinkers was not part of the act, and it encourages the “only one right answer” mentality. This is problematic because we are becoming a society of creators and empathizers, and if the future generations fail to progress, then we will undoubtedly go backwards as a society. Milbrandt offers three categories for which we can organize creative thought: Domain-Changing, Self-Expression/Search for Meaning, and Creative Problem Solving.

            The first is as it says, any act that changes an existing domain or creates a new one is considered to be creative. These achievements are judged and validated by experts on the subjects, meaning that it is unlikely that a child would ever be deemed creative. It requires in-depth understanding and honed skills that children simply cannot posses. In this circumstance, the value of art can be found in its ability to connect society as a more cohesive entity.

            The Self-Expression and Search for Meaning category claims that all humans have some amount of creative ability, mainly because we develop it out of necessity. It helps us to adapt to a changing world and celebrate the phenomenon of life. Another attribute of this category is that it emphasizes the need to use art in the education of children. Not only does art/creative acts better their understanding of a subject, but it also is a healthy means of self-expression.

            The Creative Problem Solving category suggests many solutions to any given problem. It claims that just because some answers might be better than others, that does not mean that the others are not also valuable. It exalts brainstorming, transformational thinking and analogical thinking as ways of creating novel ideas and bridges the gap between creativity and other subjects aside from art.

            This article concludes by summarizing the three categories listed above, and claims that creative thought continues to evolve, making it difficult to place a finite definition on the word. Milbrandt supports the idea that art teachers are responsible for cultivating creative behavior in their students as well as bridging the gap between other disciplines and creativity.

Creativity Summary 1

Kelsey Best

Digital Creativity

Summary #1

Paradigms in the

 Study of Creativity: Introducing the Perspective of Cultural Psychology

Summary

         The article begins by introducing three paradigms in the theory of creativity: the He-paradigm, the I-Paradigm and the We-paradigm. All fit underneath the umbrella term that we refer to as “being creative”, but are distinctly different from each other with their own sets of beliefs. First, Glaveanu backs up a bit to say that we most definitely live in a world of change. In response, the population tends to feel anxious and unprepared to meet these changes. However, creativity often pops up in these circumstances and helps us achieve whatever it is we need to. In order to understand the process, Glaveanu operationalizes creativity and explains that the theory is comprised of a variety of domains, including behavioral cognitive approaches as well as dominant cognitive approaches. He states that his article is meant to “unpack” the social and cultural nature that constitutes any creative act, and does so by breaking it into the three paradigms.

         The first, the He-paradigm, is the oldest of the three. It was widely accepted until the renaissance, when this idea was challenged in scientific discoveries. The He paradigm puts a lot of emphasis on exclusivity and disconnection. The creative person is seen as an exclusivist, or even as an outcast, and is therefore heavy in individualistic tone. Here, creativity is highly constricted. Only things that are novel or that have the capacity to generate new schools of thought fit under this description. The consequence of this paradigm is that is isolates the “lone genius” and ignores the creativity that happens in everyday experiences. Detachment of the creator from society can often support the myth that “all good artists are crazy”, which is not a prerequisite for being creative.

         The I-paradigm emerged when psychologists took notice of the phenomenon of creativity. This new idea centered around the normal person in place of the lone genius, using terms such as creative and gifted to describe the person rather than being chosen by God. Similarly to the He-paradigm, a large emphasis is placed on the individualistic tendencies, yet these tendencies are now available to everyone. Therefore, creative acts can be expected of everyone to some degree. Intelligence does not denote creativity, and vice versa. Though the two overlap in a few ways, the creative person is meant to be a cohesive package of difference intelligences. This paradigm has consequences as well; one of them being that it discounts the idea of collaborating.

         Social creativity, the result of human interaction and collaboration followed in the We-paradigm. It claims that creativity happens within a person but is influenced by a larger social connect, and in doing so, adopts a holistic, as well as systemic, way of explaining creativity. Models have been created to represent the connection of individuals and the societal structures, which Glaveanu considers the greatest achievement of the We-paradigm. These models include a person, a field and a domain from which creativity can flow. They also recognize both historical creativity and everyday creativity, which is important for things such as the education of children. One drawback, however, is that this paradigm can mislead people into thinking that the individual is still the most important aspect of creativity. It goes on to say that the focus is not on the individual and society separately, but rather, the connection that exists between them. Glaveanu says that even if the artist is alone when creating, we are not entirely alone as we cannot escape the society that exists in our heads, which in turn affects our creative decisions. In this paradigm, the product is second to the process, which is more indicative of creativity.

         Moving away from the paradigm explanations, cultural psychology appears in the article to support the framework for creativity. Glaveanu says, “creativity from a cultural perspective is a complex socio-cultural-psychological process that, through working with ‘culturally-impregnated’ materials within an intersubjective space, leads to the generation of artifacts that are evaluated as new and significant by one or more persons or communities at a given time.” He gives a tetradic framework model to support his statement, claiming that it is not structural but actually dynamic. This is due to that fact that creativity comes from the tensions between the factors instead of the actual factors themselves.

         The article ends by discussing the possible future of creativity theory. Though the We-paradigm may not be the final answer, the theory as a whole is sure to expand upon itself as more is discovered.

Bullying PSA Waver Form

Bullying PSA Brainstorming

BUllying PSA Mind Map

PSA Artist Statement

Kelsey Best

Darrin Gailey

Josh Ledwig

                                               Artist Statement: iMovie Project

Though our generation is considerably more tolerant of differences than the generations past, bullying is an on-going problem in society. Bullying can range from physical assault to emotional abuse and any act of malice in between.  In the making of our documentary-style PSA, we hoped to spread awareness about bullying through interviews and statistical analysis. Six people who have experienced the effects of bullying shared their stories and opinions with us, allowing us to gain a better perspective on this sensitive issue.

We worked to break down some lengthy interviews in order to find similarities in content. Specific questions were asked to prompt the discussions and we organized the movie accordingly. We began each interview by asking the participant to define “bullying”. We followed by asking questions such as “have you ever been bullied?”, “have you ever witnessed someone else being bullied?” and “how do you deal with bullying?” The answers were diverse but also shared certain similarities, such specific stories and instances of witnessing bulling.

Our questions stemmed from the making of our concept map, which also influenced our storyboard. The concept map started with the idea of “bullying”, then lead to the four different areas for analysis: the experience of being bullied, the experience of witnessing bullying, kids who bully others as well as the definition of bullying. This began the catalyst from which we organized our ideas into a storyboard.

Our collaborative efforts were cohesive throughout. We all found participants for interviewing and we worked in unison to put together the movie. Separately, we worked to edit the footage so as to be time efficient. This meant cutting out unimportant speech between the interviewers and interviewees and highlighting profound statements given.

            We felt that the Wonders Cabinet was an appropriate setting for this endeavor because it is an intellectual space designed for analysis, which supports the documentary style in which we filmed. It was also a quiet space in which we would not be interrupted. However, we also wanted to work with the schedules of our participants, which meant, in one instance, meeting in a classroom space instead. We feel that this similarly worked to support the intellectual nature of our analysis of bullying. The angles of the camera worked to create visual interest and  contrast as opposed to a static viewing.

We feel that we were successful in our attempt to raise awareness by means of digital media. This allowed us to reach a wider audience through digital means of creativity. Films are a popular form of art that most people partake in and are therefore an appropriate venue for this project. In this increasingly visual and digital age, we can deliver messages that entertain as well as inform through mediums such as this. We also wanted to include music that would create empathy in the audience. This is shown in the somewhat down-trodden music that accompanies the beginning, followed by the up-lifting music at the end.