Question 1 on Taylor/Claxton

Comment on the “nots” of creativity.

In Professor Guy Claxton's, paper, he talks about the "not" in creativity which have a considerable amount of truth about them. I agree with him when he says that creativity is not always artistic and that human beings use creativity to do everyday tasks. Creativity is not some great quality that only artists are capable--every human being can be creative and that is how it should be in the real world. In a comic "not,", Claxton says that one does not have to dress a certain way in order to be creative. I believe that this is very closely applicable to those who dress in Bohemian art towns, such as North Adams, especially young adults. Young adults feel that by dressing in different fashions and wearing attention-catching outfits that they are becoming more artistic. This is not the case, as Claxton says, and he adds later on that creativity is not wacky and creativity can be writing poems about nature which is perfectly artistic. One does not have to be creating some dysfunctional artwork or piece of writing which does not even function because it is so wacky and strange.

One of the more interesting statements he makes is that "dancers think hard, just as much as scientists need to dream." So often the sciences are separated from the arts and I find that to be rather unfortunate because the sciences have a very good place among the arts, albeit some opinions of modern day scientists do not belong in the artworld, but all other disciplines have something to offer the art world and creativity which is how it should be.