So, what to say about a cache of creative people? Are they similar or different in any describable foray? If we hold a mirror up, do they make a perfect reverse image, or do we get an even more bizarre recollection of them? I propose that what we see in creative people is a type of compulsive dissonance. Some may call it compulsive deviance, but I am not sure that this is correct, because deviance is dependent on a normal scale. However, dissonance exists within anything that has describable structure regardless of whether it is perceived as being outside of the normal by a particular group. Deviance is relative, dissonance exists, but must be manifested.
Creative people exhibit a type of dissonance that defies the usual efforts of a culture to marginalize it into submissive silence. From many of those recent creative people that have graced the stage of class and screen, we often see how they are drawn, pushed, or connected in some way to a type of dissonance with the status quo. Now, sometimes, granted, this is a structure imposed by a culture or society, but not always. In some cases, creative people create totally without regard to a culture or societal normalizing influences. They build or make or do something just because…They are often viewed as, well, just plain “weird”. However, the compulsion to DO something with this dissonant urge is where we see real creativity manifest itself.
So, does that mean that repression defeats creativity? Well, it may quell this compulsive dissonance urge in people, so it may stifle the initial buds of the creative flowers, nipping them into submissive silence. However, not all of them can be cut off so easily. Some find sunshine or a place to extend outward into the wider world. Those that have the resources both internal and external to flourish, will send their shoots skyward regardless of the established fences of repression. Now the enlightenment periods of history do seem to indicate that flowering of expression and potential for creativity happen when there is a shift and recognition of some type of dissonance. How, then can this be effectively described. Consider the following metaphor.
Consider the world existence as a large pond, fed by a stream on one side and a waterfall on another. Inside the pond, things appear relatively quiet, with only a few ripples that move toward the waterfall at the far end. Everything appears to be harmonious, only it isn’t. Small variations in the stream and water coming i
n will alter the ripples on the surface such that they will move slightly away from their normal pattern. In addition, any rocks or leaves, or other items temporarily caught up in the overall current will move and make their own ripples that may at times go with those of the pond, but at other times move away from them. However, they are still subject to the forces of the water moving them around on the surface. If they don’t then they sink and are no longer relevant on the surface of the pond. Now, if you’ve followed so far, then consider that the creative people are the leaves, sticks, and rocks, in the pond. Actually, everyone could be one of these. However, some are under the surface and, thus, currently irrelevant to the “conversation” on the surface. Those that are relevant are making ripples in their own way toward, away, or laterally in relation to the slow overall current. Larger objects or items, make either larger ripples or ones that move out farther. Smaller ones, make smaller ripples, but they still make ripples, nonetheless. This is, I think, a good metaphor for creative people. The so called small “c” creative people make small ripples ( or waves), and the big “C” creative people make larger waves or ones that have an effect over greater distances. Those that have come and gone are under the surface, but that does not mean that they are gone forever. Any of them could be dredged up to the surface by a change in current objects or a change in the overall flow of the water in the pond…If or when, this happens and more of them create a more interesting ripple pattern in the pond…voila, we have the renaissance! Well, maybe not always, but at least it gives us a relative metaphor for conversation.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. Those who make dissonant ripples in the pond, may even cause the overall current or flow of the stream to CHANGE COURSE, at least in some small ways. If a large boulder gets into the pond, making a big splash, it will cause a complete shift in the direction of the water on the surface of the small pond! This is what we may call a paradigm shift in society or its views. How does this happen? Either the current brings the boulder in, the water level changes, or the boulder FALLS into the pond from outside somewhere and makes a difference. So, there is no ONE way that this dissonance may occur, but many paths. However, the path of the water will have been changed by it and may not go back to its original pattern for a long time, if ever.
Now, the compulsion of this dissonance is the interesting part. What causes these items to move into their position? Gravity? Wind? Water currents? Or, is it a complicated combination of their size, shape, density, environmental factors and HOW THEY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER? So, the amount of dissonance may be relative, but it still exists, even in a small amount for each object! The overall conditions may favor or prevent full dissonance by any particular object at any time. However, with the right combination of design and environment…one stick can make a big splash in the pond.
Now, similarly, if a stick or leaf wants to make a ripple, but the water has pushed it up onto a rock, then it doesn’t have the chance to do anything in the pond right now. However, it may still have the chance to make ripples later, but the rest of the surface is not aware of it until, for some reason, it falls back into the pond. In the same sense, some creative people may want to remove themselves from the pond in order to prepare their ripple plan or wait until the conditions in the pond are more favorable to their type of ripple…
So, look at the people around you and ask yourself if they exhibit any compulsion for a particular dissonance. Do they feel a need to make waves? Do you feel a need to make a few for yourself? Keep your senses tuned and search for signs of dissonance. You may just witness the creative genius of the next era.
Creative people exhibit a type of dissonance that defies the usual efforts of a culture to marginalize it into submissive silence. From many of those recent creative people that have graced the stage of class and screen, we often see how they are drawn, pushed, or connected in some way to a type of dissonance with the status quo. Now, sometimes, granted, this is a structure imposed by a culture or society, but not always. In some cases, creative people create totally without regard to a culture or societal normalizing influences. They build or make or do something just because…They are often viewed as, well, just plain “weird”. However, the compulsion to DO something with this dissonant urge is where we see real creativity manifest itself.
So, does that mean that repression defeats creativity? Well, it may quell this compulsive dissonance urge in people, so it may stifle the initial buds of the creative flowers, nipping them into submissive silence. However, not all of them can be cut off so easily. Some find sunshine or a place to extend outward into the wider world. Those that have the resources both internal and external to flourish, will send their shoots skyward regardless of the established fences of repression. Now the enlightenment periods of history do seem to indicate that flowering of expression and potential for creativity happen when there is a shift and recognition of some type of dissonance. How, then can this be effectively described. Consider the following metaphor.
Consider the world existence as a large pond, fed by a stream on one side and a waterfall on another. Inside the pond, things appear relatively quiet, with only a few ripples that move toward the waterfall at the far end. Everything appears to be harmonious, only it isn’t. Small variations in the stream and water coming i
n will alter the ripples on the surface such that they will move slightly away from their normal pattern. In addition, any rocks or leaves, or other items temporarily caught up in the overall current will move and make their own ripples that may at times go with those of the pond, but at other times move away from them. However, they are still subject to the forces of the water moving them around on the surface. If they don’t then they sink and are no longer relevant on the surface of the pond. Now, if you’ve followed so far, then consider that the creative people are the leaves, sticks, and rocks, in the pond. Actually, everyone could be one of these. However, some are under the surface and, thus, currently irrelevant to the “conversation” on the surface. Those that are relevant are making ripples in their own way toward, away, or laterally in relation to the slow overall current. Larger objects or items, make either larger ripples or ones that move out farther. Smaller ones, make smaller ripples, but they still make ripples, nonetheless. This is, I think, a good metaphor for creative people. The so called small “c” creative people make small ripples ( or waves), and the big “C” creative people make larger waves or ones that have an effect over greater distances. Those that have come and gone are under the surface, but that does not mean that they are gone forever. Any of them could be dredged up to the surface by a change in current objects or a change in the overall flow of the water in the pond…If or when, this happens and more of them create a more interesting ripple pattern in the pond…voila, we have the renaissance! Well, maybe not always, but at least it gives us a relative metaphor for conversation.Now, here is where it gets interesting. Those who make dissonant ripples in the pond, may even cause the overall current or flow of the stream to CHANGE COURSE, at least in some small ways. If a large boulder gets into the pond, making a big splash, it will cause a complete shift in the direction of the water on the surface of the small pond! This is what we may call a paradigm shift in society or its views. How does this happen? Either the current brings the boulder in, the water level changes, or the boulder FALLS into the pond from outside somewhere and makes a difference. So, there is no ONE way that this dissonance may occur, but many paths. However, the path of the water will have been changed by it and may not go back to its original pattern for a long time, if ever.
Now, the compulsion of this dissonance is the interesting part. What causes these items to move into their position? Gravity? Wind? Water currents? Or, is it a complicated combination of their size, shape, density, environmental factors and HOW THEY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER? So, the amount of dissonance may be relative, but it still exists, even in a small amount for each object! The overall conditions may favor or prevent full dissonance by any particular object at any time. However, with the right combination of design and environment…one stick can make a big splash in the pond.
Now, similarly, if a stick or leaf wants to make a ripple, but the water has pushed it up onto a rock, then it doesn’t have the chance to do anything in the pond right now. However, it may still have the chance to make ripples later, but the rest of the surface is not aware of it until, for some reason, it falls back into the pond. In the same sense, some creative people may want to remove themselves from the pond in order to prepare their ripple plan or wait until the conditions in the pond are more favorable to their type of ripple…
So, look at the people around you and ask yourself if they exhibit any compulsion for a particular dissonance. Do they feel a need to make waves? Do you feel a need to make a few for yourself? Keep your senses tuned and search for signs of dissonance. You may just witness the creative genius of the next era.
In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he challenged an "accumulation model" for advancing scientific knowledge and set forth a "paradigm shift model." His model articulates an idea of the "revolutionary character of scientific progress, where one theoretical structure is abandoned and replaced by another incompatible one." Implications of this include:1. the advance of science is largely non-cumulative but also involves the accumulation of facts and laws.2. Progress occurs through revolutions, and 3. Observation is theory dependent.
ReplyDeleteI'm not completely sure how you've linked your thoughts on compulsive dissonance, repression, and creativity for me to entirely understand, but it made me reflect on TJ, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and folks that we look to today who broke the mold of a conceptual framework that existed for them in their respective societies. In terms of creative people exhibiting a type of dissonnance that defies the usual efforts of a culture to marginalize it into submissive silence... Galileo, DaVinci, Copernicus, Newton, Edison, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Pasteur,etc. Did these creative types go beyond their respective society's normalizing influences? Also, does repression defeat creativity? Did the creativity in them get quashed or nurtured? Yes and no. It seems that the outside structure or oppressive external force may contribute to creativity. These creative types worked despite the cruel silencing that they endured.
I think of people like surgeon Judah Folkman in the 1960's who discovered angio-genesis, now considered standard teaching in molecular cell biology, but who lost all social, intellectual and academic respect at the time and was ostracized from the established medical, academic, and research communities (NSF)for thinking more creatively than his status quo in the box thinkers of the academy who went along like everyone else but who couldn't make any paradigm shift in the peer review process. Wouldn't Judah Folkman be considered a creative dissonant? He wasn't recongized by the college of his peers when he discovered, through his own empirical data and observation, that cancerous cells needed an outside source (blood supply) to grow. Folkman, an ex-Korean War army surgeon who had opened up wounded GI's looking into bodies and noticing how the body needs a steady blood supply for tumors noticed that the tumor shrank when denied this outside supply. He used to cut them out while in the army but nobody knew why it worked. Because nobody knew why and because this was a severe departure from what was accepted practice, he got kept questioned by the research and medical establishment of his thinking, harassed for his practice, and eventually left swinging in the wind outside of the medical establishment. Folkman's discovery eventually got him completely booted out of the medical academy and disallowed to practice in Boston surgically what he done thousands of times in the Army in Korea. While Folkman did live to see his views eventually adopted as part of the canon of molecular cell biology and credited before he died, it serves as a great story for the tensions and questions that come up for creative geniuses, creativity and problem-solving in general,creative press, and how to know what creative ideas belong in the wastebin and what don't!Kuhn and Folkman: How does Science recognize meaningful paradigm shifts in the moment as opposed to 20/20 hindsight? How does Science police itself yet allow for revolutions? Was the medical establishment wrong in stopping what they perceved as a "Dr. Frankenstein?" How has Folkman's "out of the box" ideas impacted cancer research and made us all think where the next creative genuis lives? Kuhn's progess occurs through revolutions is right. Where can we look beyond those surface conversations as you write Tim? I don't think Folkman consciously wanted to make waves or publicly have a compulsion for a particular dissonance but it happened to him. Perhaps the world knows better now that we won't view the next creative geniuses with the same disdain that he endured.
ReplyDeleteHow's this for a simple comment? I love the pics. :)
ReplyDelete