I was asked by Dance/USA to write an article about the importance of dance companies participating in the digital world. This is a topic I feel very strongly about. For most companies, the dilemma is how to allocate resources to this new need when they are stretched so thin already. The article was published in the DUSA e-journal on June 28, 2011 at: http://www.danceusa.org/ejournal/post.cfm/dancing-with-a-digital-presence
I am evangelical. Evangelical about the need for every dance artist and company to have a digital presence and footprint. Evangelical because any artist who does not plan and implement such a presence or footprint can only expect a diminished audience in the future
In 1995, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen coined the term “disruptive technologies” to describe unanticipated technological changes that fundamentally alter the markets in which they are introduced. Such changes disrupt a then-existing market and the way consumers interact with that market, requiring companies to quickly and radically adjust their businesses. Some examples include the Ford Model T, which made the horse and buggy obsolete, or, more recently, downloadable digital media, which marked the severe decline of CDs and DVDs. Faced with such a change, a mature business must find the resources to adapt its methods to the new technology while, at the same time, maintaining its existing customer base and revenue stream.
Our younger and our future dance audiences, born into a world where digital content and communication are ubiquitous, have already incorporated these disruptive digital technologies into their lives. A soon-to-be-released study by WolfBrown finds that younger audience members have a significantly greater interest in technology-based dance engagement activities than older audience members.1 Therefore, I am unequivocal about the need for most artists and companies to find the required resources to create digital content. Unfortunately, this demands a complete rethinking because most non-profit dance company business models allocate resources to creating work for the stage and for marketing those works, with little, if any, surplus remaining to invest in creating media content.
In our metric-driven arts environment, which demands measureable results, the proposition of reallocating existing resources for media development is a challenge because there is minimal guarantee of a measureable return on that investment. Even those, such as the Metropolitan Opera, who have plunged into this new world wholeheartedly, have reportedly invested a level of resources beyond what even our largest dance companies or most prominent artists can afford. One would expect, then, that our younger, newer companies and artists, who have not yet allocated all of their resources and who are more naturally predisposed to living in the digital world, will more rapidly and completely adapt to the possibilities of the new technologies, incorporating such work into the essence of what they do.
And then, as always, the aesthetic questions of how media intersects with dance and choreography become paramount in considering presenting dance in a media format. The three-dimensional space a dance occupies differs fundamentally from the space a dance occupies in a virtual or digital medium. The rules of these spaces differ from each other, and achieving desired aesthetic results requires approaches uniquely appropriate to the performance medium. At the least, this requires modification to adapt the work to the space in which it appears. During periods when concert dance was regularly seen on television, choreographers adapted their works to capture their vision on camera in a way that was, arguably, successful in the choreographer’s mind’s eye.2 Unfortunately, that model -- adapting dance works in a studio with a media team whose expertise was in the aesthetics of the virtual space of television -- became economically unsustainable as the funding environment changed. Since then, the vast majority of dance (as well as theater and opera) is captured in live performances,3 and generally results in what are felt to be disappointing two-dimensional viewer experiences.
Paradoxically, the ease of creating and distributing digital content today has resulted in large amounts of available dance footage and a diverse set of viewing options of varying quality. Unfortunately, little of it seems to have the high professional standards we might wish to see representing our artform and our artists digitally. Currently, quantity seems to be trumping quality, partially due to the continuing stratospheric cost of creating high-quality digital performances. Recent data, however, seem to provide some clues about how audiences are using digital media to access dance and suggest an approach that may be helpful to those struggling with these issues.
In February, the NEA released a research report that provided deeper analysis of the 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts.4 One of the critical findings for our field is that “the vast majority of participation in theater and visual arts is through attendance, whereas the majority of participation in music and dance occurs via electronic media.”5 Compared to the small portion (8 percent) of the U.S. adult population who participates in the arts solely by attending performances,6 “over half reported viewing or listening to a performing arts event or a visual arts program (via recorded or broadcast media), or accessing arts performances or programming online (via Internet).”7 However, other data indicates that active or serious dancers are the only cohort to express a real interest in watching a dance performance on a digital device.8 This relatively limited interest in watching digital performances, contrasted with the large portion of the audience participating in dance digitally, argues i) for creating digital content that is ancillary to the core business of putting dances onstage, and ii) for not investing the significant resources required to make acceptable digital performances for audience viewing.
In the face of this data, it is hard to deny that companies and artists must engage with digital technology in some fashion, the greater the better, or face diminished audiences for their work in the future. It may well be, however, that the best use of resources is not in the digital capture or presentation of performances but in areas of marketing opportunities and audience engagement programs. Despite this, it is possible to imagine the balance shifting toward reallocating resources for aesthetic issues as technology and audience tastes continue to evolve.
Of course, as the argument above implies, the key to success in the age of digital media is articulating a clear strategy, the goals desired, a plan for implementation, and the benchmarks to measure that success. With such a framework in place, any dance organization or artist can properly evaluate the need for and scale of acceptable allocation of limited resources to this endeavor. However, there is no question that such resources must be spent and that participating in the digital realm is essential for communicating with audiences and capturing their imaginations and support in the future
Footnotes
1 WolfBrown. (2011). How Dance Audiences Engage: Summary Report from a National Survey of Dance Audiences, July 2011, Draft made available June 1, 2011, p. 49.
2 There have always been artists who have attempted to incorporate media into their dance and movement work as one element of the total work they are investigating. Given the focus of this piece on the challenge for artists and companies in utilizing digital media or incorporating it into their business model, incorporating media as another element of a creative work is outside the scope of the discussion.
3 “Live” here refers to the method of capture of the dance performance, thus including simultaneous broadcast (Live from Lincoln Center, e.g.), as well as live-captured post-production edited versions of dance performances (Dance in America, e.g.).
4 Novak-Leonard, Jennifer and Brown, Alan. (February, 2011). Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation (Research Report #53). Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts http://www.nea.gov/research/SPPA-webinar/Novak-Leonard.pdf
5Novak-Leonard and Brown, p. 16.
6Ibid. p. 83.
7Ibid. p. 71.
8WolfBrown, p. 61. Given the greater interest in younger audiences for digital dance performances, an interesting question is whether the aesthetic disappointment is more or less important to artists dependent on the state of the digital environment in which they matured.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Scientists and Artists
Yesterday, I attended the kick-off meeting of a new partnership between SUNY, the SUNY Research Foundation, and the New York Academy of Sciences. This partnership, an outgrowth of the SUNY strategic plan and New York State strategic plans for SUNY to be a prime motivator of economic development in the state, was established to support the implementation team on which I serve. Our mandate is to develop an entrepreneurial culture throughout the state and in SUNY.
The meeting, held at the Academy offices overlooking the Ground Zero site, was all day and was attended by some thirty SUNY, Research Foundation, and Academy colleagues. Each of the SUNY representatives was asked to make a brief presentation on their campus' research, funding, technology transfer, etc. Needless to say, we don't compete in this arena, so my presentation took a different point of view.
Here are my comments with the five slides I was able to present.
Comments at the Kick-Off meeting of the
SUNY-New York Academy of Sciences Partnership
February 24, 2011
But it is difficult to quantify the direct effect of the arts in terms of prospective economic development. While artists embody the characteristics we are looking for - risk-taking, innovative thinking, resilience, and a necessary tolerance for failure – the effect of producing art or of artistic communities is only indirectly measureable and almost only in retrospect after a great investment of time and effort. In a world in which precious resources must be allocated and in which we are less and less competitive, we are all striving to identify the most efficacious use of our resources to produce maximal results. As we have fallen behind other cultures and societies, we have focused on our competitive shortcomings in science, mathematics, and related subjects, choosing in many cases to elevate these areas over the arts, whose benefits are harder to quantify.
So how exactly can the arts participate in our goal of reenergizing our economy and in economic development?
As a starting point, I would posit that the traditional distinction between the arts and sciences is, in some ways, a false one since artists and scientists engage in like explorations. I would go farther and argue that the essence of scientific advancement is driven by the very same impulses that drive artistic activity – understanding the world, taking risks in this exploration, pursuing this exploration until a satisfactory conclusion is reached, and a persistent attempt to conform the exterior world of experience to the inner world of the mind. While their means of expression may be different, both scientists and artists seek to respond to experience and increase our understanding of the wonder of nature and life.
Part of my argument last August was that creativity, the ability to imagine or invent something new, is not limited to any single discipline. In fact, the “symptoms” attendant to creativity - an openness to newness or change, a flexibility of thought and outlook, a natural curiosity, and, at least in certain areas, an ability to synthesize data in ways that may be at odds with common or accepted ways, can easily describe the successful scientist. It will not be a surprise to any of you that the successful scientist, like the successful artist, necessarily has a tenacity and corresponding tolerance for failure. Innovation, creating something new from the old, requires many of these same traits as well.
Recently, I have been reading the works of Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein, who have been looking into the relationship between artistic activity and successful scientists. What they have found is that there is a “very significant relationship between success as a scientist and evidence of adult arts and crafts avocations.”1 They surmise that successful scientists who are also practicing artists have a wider range of physical and intellectual skills than the average person or scientist. Their data show that a Nobel laureate in science is 29 times more likely to create in the arts than a member of the public.2
In my talk last year, I commented that creativity often involves the synthesis of complex and sometimes apparently unrelated data into a coherent whole. The Root-Bernsteins similarly state: “Creative scientists [have the ability] to explore a wide range of apparently unrelated activities and to connect the knowledge and skills gained thereby into integrated networks that can be brought effectively to bear in raising and solving important scientific problems.”3
But how, getting back to where we began, does this relate to economic development?
Looking ahead and planning how to ensure New York State is competitive, there is a critical place for the arts. As data and experience show, those who integrate the arts into their training and experience are more likely to be more creative and, therefore, able to make a more impactful contribution to business and society. Let’s not forget this as we allocate our diminishing resources and strive to build an entrepreneurial culture and spur economic development.
Thank you.
1 Root-Bernstein, Robert, et al. “Arts Foster Scientific Success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma XI Members.” Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, Volume 1, Number 2 (2008): 53.
2 Ibid. 55.
3 Ibid. 56-57.
4 Ibid. 57.
5 Ibid. 58.
6 Root-Bernstein, Robert and Michelle. "A Missing Piece in the Economic Stimulus: Hobbling Arts Hobbles Innovation." Imagine That! Annals of Ordinary and Extraordinary Genius. Psychology Today, 11 Feb 2009. Web. 20 Feb 2011.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Capitalization
Here is a comment I posted earlier on Andrew Taylor's blog The Artful Manager on the subject of capitalization of not-for-profits. This topic is being discussed at the current Grantmakers in the Arts conference.
I'd like to propose an additional thought to this interesting and critical discussion: the traditional model of capitalization for traditional arts organizations is upside down from an incentive and operational point of view.
In commercial enterprises, one invests capital to stimulate future revenue, which one assumes (or maybe hopes) will far surpass the original capital invested. Often this investment takes, at least partially, the form of investment in research and development. Such businesses are used to, and have many means to maximize their capital. One mechanism is to increase it through leverage, which is mainly possible because of the expected potential return. As we have all recently seen, some businesses were able to leverage their capital by 100:1, even when not creating anything of tangible value.
Traditional arts organizations can be seen as businesses requiring tremendous research and development to accomplish their core mission. Every new production, dance, film, painting, sculpture, or piece of music is a research and development project that may or may not return any revenue at all.
And yet, the most popular capital that the organization can accumulate, usually in the form of an endowment, is not able to be leveraged. In fact, because the underlying premise is preservation of capital and not research and development, the organization has what I refer to as "negative leveraging," usually requiring $20 dollars of capital to be able to spend $1 (the prudent draw of 5% on endowment). I would argue that these strictures provide exactly the wrong incentive for these organizations that have high research and development needs and costs. Imagine a pharmaceutical company that has to have $20 in the bank for every dollar it spends on research and development!
Preservation of capital is about preserving the institution and not the mission (at least not directly). Leveraged investment in research and development is about building the future of the organization and directly supporting the mission activities.
I am not advocating we scrap the rules around endowments, but only that a real discussion of the purposes and uses of capital for such businesses, whose mission to create requires great research and development would be very helpful. Perhaps our organizations would be stronger and more importantly, more successful in their core mission to create, with another model to follow.
I'd like to propose an additional thought to this interesting and critical discussion: the traditional model of capitalization for traditional arts organizations is upside down from an incentive and operational point of view.
In commercial enterprises, one invests capital to stimulate future revenue, which one assumes (or maybe hopes) will far surpass the original capital invested. Often this investment takes, at least partially, the form of investment in research and development. Such businesses are used to, and have many means to maximize their capital. One mechanism is to increase it through leverage, which is mainly possible because of the expected potential return. As we have all recently seen, some businesses were able to leverage their capital by 100:1, even when not creating anything of tangible value.
Traditional arts organizations can be seen as businesses requiring tremendous research and development to accomplish their core mission. Every new production, dance, film, painting, sculpture, or piece of music is a research and development project that may or may not return any revenue at all.
And yet, the most popular capital that the organization can accumulate, usually in the form of an endowment, is not able to be leveraged. In fact, because the underlying premise is preservation of capital and not research and development, the organization has what I refer to as "negative leveraging," usually requiring $20 dollars of capital to be able to spend $1 (the prudent draw of 5% on endowment). I would argue that these strictures provide exactly the wrong incentive for these organizations that have high research and development needs and costs. Imagine a pharmaceutical company that has to have $20 in the bank for every dollar it spends on research and development!
Preservation of capital is about preserving the institution and not the mission (at least not directly). Leveraged investment in research and development is about building the future of the organization and directly supporting the mission activities.
I am not advocating we scrap the rules around endowments, but only that a real discussion of the purposes and uses of capital for such businesses, whose mission to create requires great research and development would be very helpful. Perhaps our organizations would be stronger and more importantly, more successful in their core mission to create, with another model to follow.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Creativity
Last week, I was asked to deliver closing remarks at the Purchase College Faculty Retreat. The topic was fostering creativity on the college campus. Below are my comments.
******
Good afternoon. For those of you who don't know me yet, I am Ken Tabachnick, the new Dean of the School of the Arts. Thank you for offering me this opportunity to give you a few of my thoughts on this intriguing topic we have been discussing all day: creativity. I would also like to thank our Provost, Damian Fernandez, for putting together this program and for getting us all thinking about these issues that are critical to our success in serving our students and community.
This morning's program was planned to foster discussion on creating an environment that would encourage greater creativity in our classroom and studio learning. The materials distributed for today's program offer a simple definition of creativity: the ability to imagine or invent something new. The materials also acknowledge some of the factors or “symptoms” attendant to creativity: an openness to newness or change; a flexibility of thought and outlook; a natural curiosity; and, at least in certain areas, an ability to synthesize data in ways that may be at odds with common or accepted ways. They also note that creativity is the result of a constant evaluation of the input involved, which requires continuous hard work.
George Balanchine, the most prolific dance creator of the twentieth century famously said: There are no new steps, only new combinations. Mr. B., as he was affectionately called, was born at the turn of the last century, and was trained in the Vaganova technique of classical ballet, which adopted a particular interpretation of the basic canon of ballet technique or steps. His training, like that of the ballet dancer of today, would have included endless repetition and correction in an attempt to ingrain the necessary steps, common to all ballet technique, into his body and psyche so that they were automatic and precise.
As so often happened, Balanchine's words held much more meaning than their simplicity implied. There are no new steps acknowledges his training in the closed universe of ballet technique, while accepting that this body of information is still relevant for him and that he did not reject it. By focusing on new combinations, Mr. B. innately understood that his part in creating a revolution in the famously conservative world of classical ballet lay in the way he looked at, synthesized, and manipulated the data he had – the steps. His willingness to spend his life “playing” with the basic givens of the well-established technique, led to a revolutionary way of presenting and appreciating classical ballet, which continues to influence dance-makers to this day.
In retrospect, great creative insight always seems simple and clear. Ballet technique is designed to show the grace and beauty of the dancers by giving the appearance of defying gravity for as long as possible. Before Balanchine, dancers slowly raised their leg to its apogee, lengthening the time we see them “fighting” gravity in order for the limb to rise. Balanchine, looking at the laws of gravity in a different way, realized that the effect desired would be emphasized even more by reversing the dynamism of the movement, focusing the dancer's energy on quickly reaching the apogee and slowly lowering the limb. Simultaneously, he subtly, almost imperceptibly shifted the dancer's center of gravity off the vertical axis. The result was an exciting reinvention of the entire canon of ballet technique.
Similarly, he attacked the prevailing concept of dramatic development and created a body of work based on what some would call the “plotless ballet,” which was, as Richard Feynman might say, a “perfectly reasonable deviation.”* Responding to critics' complaints about Mr. B's abandonment of narrative storytelling in ballet, Balanchine responded something along of the lines of: A beautiful woman enters an empty room. A handsome man follows close behind. Where is not the story in this?
Like so many others whose creativity has resulted in, what Thomas Kuhn would refer to as a paradigm shift, Balanchine's ability to so fundamentally alter the art of ballet stemmed from, and would not have been possible without, his deep immersion in the status quo of his time. It is axiomatic that creativity with far-reaching and resonant deep implications is the result of deep immersion like Balanchine's coupled with exposure to other diverse inputs that inform the immersive experience.
But, creativity is not restricted solely to the arts, nor is it solely relegated to formal training. It can be messy, disorderly, and even poorly articulated. In my experience as a designer, lawyer, arts manager, fundraiser, teacher, and father, I have seen creativity in every area, in every field. I am amazed at the richness of creativity I see in daily life in large and small ways.
One of the most vexing aspects of creativity is its inability to clearly align with morality and goodness. The historical record leads one to conclude that creativity is agnostic, taking no account of good or bad, or the creator's beliefs. In spite of this, we may be able to appreciate and revel in the results creativity brings, even if we don't revel in the creator him or herself. For this reason, it should be encouraged and fostered at every opportunity in every way.
Truly resonant creativity opens our eyes to a new way of seeing the world or doing something. We can see it in DJ Spooky's Rebirth of a Nation, Danger Mouse's Grey Album, Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point, and Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton's insights on Ptolemy's cosmology. Look at the contrasts in this list: an African-American artist remixes one of cinema's seminal, though racist, early works; a young DJ from right here in White Plains creates a new work based on the Beatles' iconic White Album, created almost a decade before the DJ was born; a Jesuit priest describes the inevitable end of time in contradiction to accepted religious orthodoxy; and independent thinkers challenge the accepted state of the universe over centuries.
This college was born out of the belief that a true liberal arts background, integrating the arts with more intellectual study, is necessary to being a fully formed person, capable of fulfilling the highest potential. Rephrasing this, I would argue that a diverse, broad general set of knowledge is essential to the foundation of fostering creativity. We might disagree on the details of that set of knowledge, but I have no doubt that without such broad general knowledge, the fertile soil of creativity is lacking nutrients.
In addition, sufficient specialization and understanding of the existing state of belief about a particular topic is necessary before creation can occur in that area. Finally, an attitude of openness, whether conscious or not, is critical to the psychic freedom required to see the same set of details in a different way, which is creativity.
Tori Haring-Smith, the president of Washington & Jefferson College and a noted speaker on creativity, suggests that we should consider training students first to be specialists and then generalists, which is the exact opposite of the traditional training students receive. The truth is, however, that for resonant creativity to flourish, both are needed. A creative person must have exposure to a broad and diverse portfolio of thought and theories. As importantly, a deep immersion in the then existing state of a subject with all of its attendant history is essential to the break that is embodied in the creation. Additionally, one must be able to analogize or apply other models of thought in a nonlinear way to what appears to be an inapplicable situation to foster the truly resonant creativity we all crave.
It seems to me that Purchase College, mixing specialized conservatory with extensive liberal arts education, has been and continues to be the embodiment of the broader ecology of creativity.
Looking ahead, one of our greatest challenges is determining how to counter what I refer to as “the flat thinking” engendered by surfing and immediately (supposedly) “assimilating” information, which has been made possible by the internet and living in the digital world. I believe that for creativity to resonate and have an impact, it must be the result of “deep thinking,” rooted in contemplation, whether conscious or not, over time until the creative insight appears. For us then, the goal should be encouraging our students and ourselves to continually examine our subjects bringing broad and diverse possibilities to bear. Not all of our efforts will succeed, but the other thing that every creative person understands, even if that understanding is innate and not overt, is that creativity includes failure, often repeated and over long-periods of time. Once gripped by the creative impulse, a creator has no choice but to pursue his or her creative urge, sometimes despite overwhelming barriers or high costs. Despite the hard work and challenges involved, creative people do not give up; they keep thinking, exploring, and experimenting.
In 2004, the magazine Fast Company published a story about research done at the Entrepreneurial Management Unit of the Harvard Business School. The study, looked at creativity in seven commercial ventures and tried to understand the “experiences and thought processes that lead to creative breakthroughs.” The characteristics the study identified give us an outline for our efforts. Here is what they found:
1. There is no such thing as a creative type. Almost all research shows that “anyone with normal intelligence is capable of doing some degree of creative work.” In addition to the various characteristics I and others have discussed, the study highlights intrinsic (not external) motivation as critical to creativity.
2. Money is not a creative motivator. As noted above, intrinsic, not extrinsic motivation is critical. Bonus and pay-for-performance plans tend to make people risk-averse, which does not foster creativity.
3. Time pressure does not fuel creativity. Time pressure prevents people from engaging with an issue in the way that results in creativity. Focus is critical, and distractions prevent the deep engagement required for the creative impulse to arise.
4. Creativity is “positively associated with joy and love and negatively associated with fear, anger, and anxiety. AND
5. Collaboration is more effective at fostering creativity than competition. The most creative teams are those that have the confidence to share and debate ideas.
In closing, I would like to describe an experience that a wonderful conductor/educator named Benjamin Zander describes in his book: The Art of Possibility,** which he wrote with his wife Roz, a psychologist. In struggling with how to address the closed minds of his students when he was attempting to foster their creativity, he realized that the students were concerned and being held back by their anticipation of not receiving the grade they wanted. To release them, he told the entire class that they would be getting an 'A' at the end of the year. The only requirement was that each student had to write a letter describing, at the end of the class, what he or she had accomplished in order to receive the A. As he describes it, “this A is not an expectation to live up to, but a possibility to live into.”
While I do not recommend this as a proper pedagogical methodology, I think you can see how such a strategy creatively addresses some of the blocks to creativity that the Harvard study and many of us in the field have noted. Developing such strategies for ourselves and our students is imperative if we are to successfully engender creativity here on campus.
Thank you.
********
* From a letter by Richard Feynman to Mrs. Whitehouse of the California State Curriculum Commission, dated April 13, 1966, in regard to a 5th grade textbook by Scott Foresman:
******
Good afternoon. For those of you who don't know me yet, I am Ken Tabachnick, the new Dean of the School of the Arts. Thank you for offering me this opportunity to give you a few of my thoughts on this intriguing topic we have been discussing all day: creativity. I would also like to thank our Provost, Damian Fernandez, for putting together this program and for getting us all thinking about these issues that are critical to our success in serving our students and community.
This morning's program was planned to foster discussion on creating an environment that would encourage greater creativity in our classroom and studio learning. The materials distributed for today's program offer a simple definition of creativity: the ability to imagine or invent something new. The materials also acknowledge some of the factors or “symptoms” attendant to creativity: an openness to newness or change; a flexibility of thought and outlook; a natural curiosity; and, at least in certain areas, an ability to synthesize data in ways that may be at odds with common or accepted ways. They also note that creativity is the result of a constant evaluation of the input involved, which requires continuous hard work.
George Balanchine, the most prolific dance creator of the twentieth century famously said: There are no new steps, only new combinations. Mr. B., as he was affectionately called, was born at the turn of the last century, and was trained in the Vaganova technique of classical ballet, which adopted a particular interpretation of the basic canon of ballet technique or steps. His training, like that of the ballet dancer of today, would have included endless repetition and correction in an attempt to ingrain the necessary steps, common to all ballet technique, into his body and psyche so that they were automatic and precise.
As so often happened, Balanchine's words held much more meaning than their simplicity implied. There are no new steps acknowledges his training in the closed universe of ballet technique, while accepting that this body of information is still relevant for him and that he did not reject it. By focusing on new combinations, Mr. B. innately understood that his part in creating a revolution in the famously conservative world of classical ballet lay in the way he looked at, synthesized, and manipulated the data he had – the steps. His willingness to spend his life “playing” with the basic givens of the well-established technique, led to a revolutionary way of presenting and appreciating classical ballet, which continues to influence dance-makers to this day.
In retrospect, great creative insight always seems simple and clear. Ballet technique is designed to show the grace and beauty of the dancers by giving the appearance of defying gravity for as long as possible. Before Balanchine, dancers slowly raised their leg to its apogee, lengthening the time we see them “fighting” gravity in order for the limb to rise. Balanchine, looking at the laws of gravity in a different way, realized that the effect desired would be emphasized even more by reversing the dynamism of the movement, focusing the dancer's energy on quickly reaching the apogee and slowly lowering the limb. Simultaneously, he subtly, almost imperceptibly shifted the dancer's center of gravity off the vertical axis. The result was an exciting reinvention of the entire canon of ballet technique.
Similarly, he attacked the prevailing concept of dramatic development and created a body of work based on what some would call the “plotless ballet,” which was, as Richard Feynman might say, a “perfectly reasonable deviation.”* Responding to critics' complaints about Mr. B's abandonment of narrative storytelling in ballet, Balanchine responded something along of the lines of: A beautiful woman enters an empty room. A handsome man follows close behind. Where is not the story in this?
Like so many others whose creativity has resulted in, what Thomas Kuhn would refer to as a paradigm shift, Balanchine's ability to so fundamentally alter the art of ballet stemmed from, and would not have been possible without, his deep immersion in the status quo of his time. It is axiomatic that creativity with far-reaching and resonant deep implications is the result of deep immersion like Balanchine's coupled with exposure to other diverse inputs that inform the immersive experience.
But, creativity is not restricted solely to the arts, nor is it solely relegated to formal training. It can be messy, disorderly, and even poorly articulated. In my experience as a designer, lawyer, arts manager, fundraiser, teacher, and father, I have seen creativity in every area, in every field. I am amazed at the richness of creativity I see in daily life in large and small ways.
One of the most vexing aspects of creativity is its inability to clearly align with morality and goodness. The historical record leads one to conclude that creativity is agnostic, taking no account of good or bad, or the creator's beliefs. In spite of this, we may be able to appreciate and revel in the results creativity brings, even if we don't revel in the creator him or herself. For this reason, it should be encouraged and fostered at every opportunity in every way.
Truly resonant creativity opens our eyes to a new way of seeing the world or doing something. We can see it in DJ Spooky's Rebirth of a Nation, Danger Mouse's Grey Album, Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point, and Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton's insights on Ptolemy's cosmology. Look at the contrasts in this list: an African-American artist remixes one of cinema's seminal, though racist, early works; a young DJ from right here in White Plains creates a new work based on the Beatles' iconic White Album, created almost a decade before the DJ was born; a Jesuit priest describes the inevitable end of time in contradiction to accepted religious orthodoxy; and independent thinkers challenge the accepted state of the universe over centuries.
This college was born out of the belief that a true liberal arts background, integrating the arts with more intellectual study, is necessary to being a fully formed person, capable of fulfilling the highest potential. Rephrasing this, I would argue that a diverse, broad general set of knowledge is essential to the foundation of fostering creativity. We might disagree on the details of that set of knowledge, but I have no doubt that without such broad general knowledge, the fertile soil of creativity is lacking nutrients.
In addition, sufficient specialization and understanding of the existing state of belief about a particular topic is necessary before creation can occur in that area. Finally, an attitude of openness, whether conscious or not, is critical to the psychic freedom required to see the same set of details in a different way, which is creativity.
Tori Haring-Smith, the president of Washington & Jefferson College and a noted speaker on creativity, suggests that we should consider training students first to be specialists and then generalists, which is the exact opposite of the traditional training students receive. The truth is, however, that for resonant creativity to flourish, both are needed. A creative person must have exposure to a broad and diverse portfolio of thought and theories. As importantly, a deep immersion in the then existing state of a subject with all of its attendant history is essential to the break that is embodied in the creation. Additionally, one must be able to analogize or apply other models of thought in a nonlinear way to what appears to be an inapplicable situation to foster the truly resonant creativity we all crave.
It seems to me that Purchase College, mixing specialized conservatory with extensive liberal arts education, has been and continues to be the embodiment of the broader ecology of creativity.
Looking ahead, one of our greatest challenges is determining how to counter what I refer to as “the flat thinking” engendered by surfing and immediately (supposedly) “assimilating” information, which has been made possible by the internet and living in the digital world. I believe that for creativity to resonate and have an impact, it must be the result of “deep thinking,” rooted in contemplation, whether conscious or not, over time until the creative insight appears. For us then, the goal should be encouraging our students and ourselves to continually examine our subjects bringing broad and diverse possibilities to bear. Not all of our efforts will succeed, but the other thing that every creative person understands, even if that understanding is innate and not overt, is that creativity includes failure, often repeated and over long-periods of time. Once gripped by the creative impulse, a creator has no choice but to pursue his or her creative urge, sometimes despite overwhelming barriers or high costs. Despite the hard work and challenges involved, creative people do not give up; they keep thinking, exploring, and experimenting.
In 2004, the magazine Fast Company published a story about research done at the Entrepreneurial Management Unit of the Harvard Business School. The study, looked at creativity in seven commercial ventures and tried to understand the “experiences and thought processes that lead to creative breakthroughs.” The characteristics the study identified give us an outline for our efforts. Here is what they found:
1. There is no such thing as a creative type. Almost all research shows that “anyone with normal intelligence is capable of doing some degree of creative work.” In addition to the various characteristics I and others have discussed, the study highlights intrinsic (not external) motivation as critical to creativity.
2. Money is not a creative motivator. As noted above, intrinsic, not extrinsic motivation is critical. Bonus and pay-for-performance plans tend to make people risk-averse, which does not foster creativity.
3. Time pressure does not fuel creativity. Time pressure prevents people from engaging with an issue in the way that results in creativity. Focus is critical, and distractions prevent the deep engagement required for the creative impulse to arise.
4. Creativity is “positively associated with joy and love and negatively associated with fear, anger, and anxiety. AND
5. Collaboration is more effective at fostering creativity than competition. The most creative teams are those that have the confidence to share and debate ideas.
In closing, I would like to describe an experience that a wonderful conductor/educator named Benjamin Zander describes in his book: The Art of Possibility,** which he wrote with his wife Roz, a psychologist. In struggling with how to address the closed minds of his students when he was attempting to foster their creativity, he realized that the students were concerned and being held back by their anticipation of not receiving the grade they wanted. To release them, he told the entire class that they would be getting an 'A' at the end of the year. The only requirement was that each student had to write a letter describing, at the end of the class, what he or she had accomplished in order to receive the A. As he describes it, “this A is not an expectation to live up to, but a possibility to live into.”
While I do not recommend this as a proper pedagogical methodology, I think you can see how such a strategy creatively addresses some of the blocks to creativity that the Harvard study and many of us in the field have noted. Developing such strategies for ourselves and our students is imperative if we are to successfully engender creativity here on campus.
Thank you.
********
* From a letter by Richard Feynman to Mrs. Whitehouse of the California State Curriculum Commission, dated April 13, 1966, in regard to a 5th grade textbook by Scott Foresman:
“In 5th grade, chemistry and sound is [sic] good an clear, but material on weather and electricity are [sic] not very good. In particular, in both these parts (weather and electricity) the teacher's manual doesn't realize the possibilities of correct answers different from the expected ones and the teacher instruction is not enough to enable her to deal with perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track.”
Michelle Feynman, ed. Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track (Basic Books, New York, 2005), 214.
** Benajmin and Rosamund Stone Zander. The Art of Possibility (Penguin Books, New York, 2002), 25-32.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Reimagining
Reinventing the Library, from Intelligent Life's Summer 2010 issue, delves into the changing relationship between physical spaces and the activities that take place within those spaces. At the same time, it highlights the evolving nature of our most basic cultural activities and some of the responses we are trying in order to adjust to the fundamental changes taking place.
As a side note, the article presents additional evidence that the intuitive assumptions we make regarding the changes wrought by technology upon our more traditional activities may not be correct. The just released NEA study Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation and the recent National Theatre study of the effect of simultaneous broadcasts of their productions on attendance at live theater, Beyond Live, both provide evidence of the dangers of making unsbstantiated assumptions.
People have feared that the broadcast of live opera and theater in movie theaters would cannibalize or destroy attendance at the live performance. Audience 2.0 presents data that audiences who experience performances digitally are more engaged and have a higher rate of attendance at live performances than those who do not. Beyond Live found that digital performances of England's National Theater reached a different audience than those already attending the live performance. By and large, these audiences were poorer and were more likely to have not been to the theater before. Furthermore, those seeing the performances in the theaters said they were more likely to attend a live performance when they were in London than they had been before seeing the digital performance.
Similarly, Reinventing the Library, while explaining how reading has been negatively impacted by technological innovation, explores the increased investment in library buildings that cities are making. Central to this investment, however, is the reimagining of the relationship between the public and the library and the function the library fulfills. The implication of the article is that libraries continue to serve as vital centers of community and communal activity, though they may not be limited solely to providing safe shelters for private reading and investigation. Rather, the relationship between the reader and the library has changed and libraries' needs are adjusting.
As in the music industry, the television and film industry, and the live performance industry, distribution sources and delivery methods have multiplied dramatically, throwing our established industries and businesses into turmoil. Library architects are in the forefront of revitalizing the library by redesigning their physical being, and through such changes, the very raison d'etre of the library. Thus, they will survive and be strengthened.
What is most striking and heartening about these trends is that rather then abandoning the traditional arts we all adore, some are choosing to reimagine them and our relationship with these arts, thus insuring their future viability and health.
As a side note, the article presents additional evidence that the intuitive assumptions we make regarding the changes wrought by technology upon our more traditional activities may not be correct. The just released NEA study Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation and the recent National Theatre study of the effect of simultaneous broadcasts of their productions on attendance at live theater, Beyond Live, both provide evidence of the dangers of making unsbstantiated assumptions.
People have feared that the broadcast of live opera and theater in movie theaters would cannibalize or destroy attendance at the live performance. Audience 2.0 presents data that audiences who experience performances digitally are more engaged and have a higher rate of attendance at live performances than those who do not. Beyond Live found that digital performances of England's National Theater reached a different audience than those already attending the live performance. By and large, these audiences were poorer and were more likely to have not been to the theater before. Furthermore, those seeing the performances in the theaters said they were more likely to attend a live performance when they were in London than they had been before seeing the digital performance.
Similarly, Reinventing the Library, while explaining how reading has been negatively impacted by technological innovation, explores the increased investment in library buildings that cities are making. Central to this investment, however, is the reimagining of the relationship between the public and the library and the function the library fulfills. The implication of the article is that libraries continue to serve as vital centers of community and communal activity, though they may not be limited solely to providing safe shelters for private reading and investigation. Rather, the relationship between the reader and the library has changed and libraries' needs are adjusting.
As in the music industry, the television and film industry, and the live performance industry, distribution sources and delivery methods have multiplied dramatically, throwing our established industries and businesses into turmoil. Library architects are in the forefront of revitalizing the library by redesigning their physical being, and through such changes, the very raison d'etre of the library. Thus, they will survive and be strengthened.
What is most striking and heartening about these trends is that rather then abandoning the traditional arts we all adore, some are choosing to reimagine them and our relationship with these arts, thus insuring their future viability and health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)