I'm currently reading Drive by Daniel Pink. Citing many studies, Pink makes the argument that rewarding achievement doesn't always improve achievement. He says it only works when tasks are simple and straightforward. If a task is creative or requires a high level of problem solving then performance can be reduced. Paying a bonus for quickly digging a hole will help. Paying a bonus for quickly painting a painting will hinder.
This interests me as an art teacher. What am I supposed to do with grades? Surely I can grade mechanical skill and technical merit (You colored in the lines!). But the creative side of art that is its true value may be something that shouldn't be assessed. That's not surprising to me since my grading rubrics never include "creativity" as a category. The problem is that students focus too much on shading in the lines since that's what will get them an 'A' and that's why they came to school this morning anyway. Huh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That inability to grade creativity is what makes me think it's a talent and not a skill. (not that it doesn't TAKE skill...it does) It's why I think I can't learn art. (Which is a stupid thing to say to an art teacher...) Nevermind this comment doesn't make sense. (So why don't I delete it? Because I hope we'll talk about it the next time we hang out.)
ReplyDeleteDrawing, mixing paint, and correctly exposing photographs are skills. Art skills can be taught, learned, and assessed. Creativity has more to do with selecting things you know and arranging them in a new way that might communicate something. As a human you come up with ideas all the time and communicate them. Your ability to be creative as an artist might have more to do with your exposure to the language and literacy of art and society than it does with talent. Maybe.
DeleteExposure to the language makes complete sense. So in that sense it can be taught. But measured (or graded)? Is that at all possible or is it too subjective? I heard once that there are rules (measurable, mathematical rules) for beauty that apply to everyone... But isn't it subjective? I'm glad you're the teacherman with the hard job...
DeleteThis is interesting because in the "art world" critics can generally agree about which art is best. So it seems it COULD be assessed and will be assessed in real life. It's just that people are more motivated in creativity when it's for their own satisfaction and not some outside thing.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting to me, Randy, is that you've said recently that a huge motivator for you in art is whether you think anybody even cares about it. It's not exactly an intrinsic motivation, so I wonder if praise (or having an art show) are motivators of creativity.
So is it that money doesn't motivate creativity? Or creative-type people?
DeleteWanting people to care about my art might be a consequence of my narcissism. Or it could be that I want my efforts to contribute to society rather than to simply fulfill my personal creative urges. People who develop open-source software or contribute to Wikipedia are partially motivated by their intrinsic desire to do things that help other people. Maybe.
Delete