Advertisement

Making Creativity Work: Marking Out New Territories

  • Birgit Wildt
Chapter

Abstract

Creativity has poured into a diversity of disciplines replacing the language of aesthetics and style with democratic empowerment. From Beuys to business leaders, from art critics to cultural philosophers, creativity gained recognition as being part of life, part of everyone’s everyday life. Taking on the force of a moral agenda, creativity became a way of living and being, a propaganda tool in the portfolios of higher education—even in business schools—generating an aura that seemed to promise “utopian alternatives” and “social happiness”.

Starting with a provocation, this chapter values creativity in relation to production and co-production, seen as a passage of time and space which might not fit the market but the maker. Looking at creativity as a state of encounter through exchange and shared learning, this chapter welcomes the creative act in the context of ambiguous pedagogies, communities of practice, transitional learning spaces and equality of meaning making.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number 1107857].

References

  1. Addison, N. (2014). Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: From performativity towards emergence and negotiation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amez, L., van Kerckhoven, B., & Ysebaert, W. (2014). Artistic exposition within academia; challenges, functionalities, implications and threats. In M. Schwab & H. Borgdorff (Eds.), The exposition of artistic research publishing art in academia (pp. 118–135). Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, D. (2012). Contemporary art and art in education: The new, emancipation and truth. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austerlitz, N., Blythman, M., Jones, B. A., Jones, C. A., Grove-White, A., Morgan, S. J., et al. (2008). Mind the gap: Expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education. In L. Drew (Ed.), The student experience in art and design higher education: Drivers for change (pp. 125–148). Cambridge: JRA Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2012). Arts-based research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  9. Barthes, R. (2002). A lover’s discourse, fragments. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, M., & Büchler, D. (2010). Communities, values, conventions and actions. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 82–98). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Borgdorff, H. (2012). The conflict of the faculties: Perspectives on artistic research and academia. Leiden: Leiden University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borgdorff, H., & Haarberg, J. A. (2014). Research assessment and qualification frameworks. In M. Wilson & S. van Ruiten (Eds.), SHARE handbook of artistic research education (pp. 230–237). Amsterdam: ELIA European League of Institutes of the Arts.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. (1987). Subjects of desire, Hegelian reflections in twentieth-century France. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crockett, C. (2012). Pedagogy and radical equality: Rancière’s ignorant schoolmaster. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, 12, 163–173.Google Scholar
  18. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. Deleuze, G. (2003). Francis Bacon: The logic of sensation. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G. (2007). Two regimes of madness, texts and interviews 1975–1995. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  21. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Berkeley Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Duchamp, M. (1957). The creative act. Paper presented at the session on the creative act, Convention of the American federation of arts Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  24. Elkins, J. (2009). On beyond research and new knowledge. In J. Elkins (Ed.), Artists with PhDs: On the new doctoral degree in studio art (pp. 111–133). Washington, DC: New Academia Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Gaver, W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. CHI, 5, 233–240.Google Scholar
  26. Grosz, E. A. (2001). Architecture from the outside: Essays on virtual and real space. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Grosz, E. A. (2008). Chaos, territory, art: Deleuze and the framing of the earth. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Guattari, F. (1995). Chaosmosis: An ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Sydney: Power Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Gunn, V. (2015, December). Student learning and “enabling constraints”. Paper presented at the pedagogy of ambiguity: Creative practice and arts-based forms of learning & assessment across arts & humanities conference, Kings College London, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Harman, K., & McDowell, L. (2011). Assessment talk in design: The multiple purposes of assessment. HE, Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holert, T. (2009). Art in the knowledge-based polis. e-flux, 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, R. (2014). Exposition. In M. Schwab & H. Borgdorff (Eds.), The exposition of artistic research: Publishing art in academia (pp. 52–64). Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Irwin, R. L., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as practice-based research. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo, & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with a/r/tography (pp. xix–xxxiii). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  34. Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. jagodzinski, j., & Wallin, J. (2013). Arts-based research: A critique and a proposal. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kjørup, S. (2010). Pleading for plurality: Artistic and other kinds of research. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 24–43). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Lange, S., Reynold, R., & White, D. (2016). A journey around my classroom: The psychogeography of learning spaces. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1, 122–129.Google Scholar
  38. Leavy, P. (2013). Fiction as research practice: Short stories, novellas, and novels. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  39. Manning, E. (2008). Creative propositions for thought in motion. 5 Inflexions, 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
  40. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mendoza, H. R., Bernasconi, C., & MacDonald, N. M. (2007). Creating new identities in design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26, 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nowotny, H. (2016). The cunning of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Orr, S. (2015, December). Creative education and the pedagogy of ambiguity. Paper presented at the pedagogy of ambiguity: Creative practice and arts-based forms of learning & assessment across arts & humanities conference, Kings College London, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Orr, S., Yorke, M., & Blair, B. (2014). The answer is brought about from within you: A student-centred perspective on pedagogy in art and design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, Special Issue: Curriculum and Pedagogy, 33, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osborne, P. (2013). Anywhere or not at all: Philosophy of contemporary art. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  47. Parr, A. (2010). Repetition. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 225–226). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pinar, W. F. (2004). Foreword. In R. L. Irwin & A. de Cosson (Eds.), A/r/tography: Rendering self through arts-based living inquiry (pp. 9–25). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.Google Scholar
  49. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. Raunig, G. (2013). Factories of knowledge industries of creativity. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  52. Rogoff, I. (2010). Free. e-flux, 14, 1–11.Google Scholar
  53. Sayers, E. (2016). From art appreciation to pedagogies of dissent: Critical pedagogy and equality in the gallery. In A. Hickey-Moody & T. Page (Eds.), Arts, pedagogy and cultural resistance: New materialisms (pp. 133–152). London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  54. Shreeve, A., & Batchelor, R. (2012). Designing relations in the studio: Ambiguity and uncertainty in one to one exchanges. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17, 20–26.Google Scholar
  55. Shreeve, A., Sims, E., & Trowler, P. (2010). A kind of exchange: Learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sontag, S. (2009). Against interpretation and other essays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  57. Valéry, P. (1970). Collected works of Paul Valery, Volume 14: Analects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. von Hantelmann, D. (2010). How to do things with art. Zurich: JRP Ringier.Google Scholar
  59. Wesseling, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Wesseling (Ed.), See it again, say it again: The artist as researcher (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: Valiz.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, M. (2013). Discipline problems and the ethos of research. In M. Wilson & S. van Ruiten (Eds.), SHARE handbook of artistic research education (pp. 203–217). Amsterdam: ELIA European League of Institutes of the Arts.Google Scholar
  61. Žižek, S. (2014). Event: Philosophy in transit. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Wildt
    • 1
  1. 1.Writer & ResearcherLondonUK

Personalised recommendations