Overall, the panelists (see profiles below including videos and links) were highly talented and accomplished but, for me, the program did not live up to its title and description of:
...illuminates questions about whether creativity is innate or learned, whether the innovative brain has distinct structural or chemical features, and whether we can enhance our ability -- and that of our children -- to be creative.
Part of the problem was that there were way too many panelists (eight) and too short a time (one hour and a half) for any of the speakers to shed light on the nature and source of creativity and genius. And part of the time that was available could have been better used to illustrate the specifics of brain research that were discussed such a Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), synesthesia and how scientists study and analyze brain activity. Good one-minute videos of these and related concepts could have nailed down these topics for audience participants.
And the implicit premise behind the panel is a bit far-fetched: Let's bring together neuroscientists and accomplished artists such as Bill T. Jones and Matthew Ritchie (profiles below) and have the scientists explain why the artists are brilliant. How can you really do that given some of the limitations of this program that I described above.
Bill T. Jones Does Collaborative Improvisation
My favorite part of the program was watching Bill T. Jones do a dance improvisation with cellist Chris Lancaster. Jones said to Lancaster: let's create a musical feeling to reflect upon President Lincoln's legacy. Jones then said his objective was to create as many different shapes as possible within a one-minute time frame.
Then, they started. It was a pleasure watching Jones improvise. Sometimes, he moved in a quick, fluid manner from one shape to the next and at other times, he would hold a pose for a fraction of a second before moving on.
I thought that this collaborative improvisation would have been a great springboard for discussion of the neurological basis of creativity, but I feel that this only happened to a limited extent.
The Battle Between Scientists and Artists
I think that Bill T. Jones and Matthew Ritchie were responding to what they felt was too much focus on the part of the neuroscientists on the operation of a single person's brain to understand the sources of creativity.
Ritchie was highly scornful of the notion that there are mad geniuses working in isolation who have their movie-made "aha" moments. The real world doesn't work that way, he said. Artists and others work with collaborators that they admire and ideas are generated from long hours of dedication and on-going exchanges.
Jones said that he was essentially a socialist and that we struggle with the nature of authorship. The best work that results from his collaborations do not come about because he has all the answers. It comes from multiple collaborators.
I think this idea of collaborative intelligence could have been explored more by the other panelists.
A Possible Alternative Approach for This Panel
I would have preferred to see a much smaller panel for this session. Maybe a moderator, an artist and a neuroscientist.
I'll pick Bill T. Jones to illustrate my idea. I would have based this program around short, improvisational dance demonstrations that Jones performed throughout this conversation.
So if the program opened with the improvisation that Jones did perform last, a good, non-rushed conversation could follow. Not one where the bar was set too high and the goal was to answer ultimate questions about how the brain works and sources of creativity. But for a meaningful, non-adversarial discussion about the creative process in action. As moderator I would simply ask, "Bill, what was going through your mind as you performed the improvisation." Then the neuroscientist, based on the latest research and insights from this field, might offer different ways of thinking about Jones' creative approach. And, I hope, an interesting in-depth conversation would emerge from these simple beginnings.
Maybe the Armitage Gone! Dance program I'm seeing Saturday night at the Guggenheim will be more along these lines.
Yes, I take issue with the structure and focus of last night's panel. But I think that all of the panelists have a wealth of knowledge and insight that I look forward to learning more about. I put together the following annotated bios of the speakers (with videos for all but one of the presenters). The bios themselves come from The World Science Festival website with some minor editing on my part.
Psychologist and biomedical engineer David Eagleman studies how humans perceive time as well as synesthesia, a condition in which stimulation to one sense triggers an involuntary response in others (seeing music in colors, for example). He is director of the Laboratory for Perception and Action and an assistant professor of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine. The following video about synesthesia features Professor Eagleman:
Saul Griffith
Saul Griffith is the president and chief scientist of Makani Power, a company that is seeking to harness clean energy from high-altitude wind. He is a 2007 MacArthur Award-winning inventor, entrepreneur and writer. Here's a video interview with Griffith in which he discusses his efforts to reduce his carbon footprint:
John Hockenberry - Moderator
John Hockenberry is an award-winning journalist with twenty-five years experience in radio, broadcast television and print. He is co-host of WNYC and PRI's The Takeaway, host on The DNA Files, and a contributor to The Infinite Mind. He is also a Distinguished Fellow at the MIT Media Lab. Hockenberry interviewed Kurt Vonnegut in Second Life in 2006 - Vonnegut's last sit down interview:
Bill T. Jones
Bill T. Jones, a Tony Award-winning choreographer and dancer, has changed the face of American dance. He has infused issues of identity, form and social commentary into hundreds of award winning shows worldwide. Jones is the artistic director and co-founder of the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company in New York City.
Excerpts from Chapel/Chapter (2006):
Excerpts from The Breathing Show (1999):
Vilayanur Ramachandran
V.S. Ramachandran investigates the nature of self and human consciousness. His work spans the causes and effects of synesthesia and phantom limb pain to questions about visual perception and the brain. He is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego. Ramachandran talks at 2007 Ted conference on "A journey to the center of your mind."
Matthew Ritchie
Matthew Ritchie is a painter, sculptor and digital artist. His work combines science, architecture, history, and the dynamics of culture to explore the idea of information, and is featured in the collections of numerous institutions, including MoMA and the Guggenheim Museum. In 2001, Time Magazine listed him as one of its 100 innovators for the new millenium. Ritchie profile on PBS's Art:21:
Michael York
Michael York has enjoyed a successful international acting career for over 40 years, creating an impressive body of work on stage, screen, and in the recording studio. As well as lecturing, he is the author of five books, including one on acting Shakespeare. And here is a brief glimpse and a single "shocking" word from Michael York in the closing minutes of Cabaret:
Posted by
Doug Fox on May 30, 2008 8:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://greatdance.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/2436
Despite the limitations of the setup, it's such a great start to open communication lines across disciplines to share and to use each other's knowledge to build your own. It's so thrilling to me that people are looking at the biology of creativity and getting experts talking to one another cross-subjects. I can totally see how such a smattering of experts in these different fields can come together and have their egos be too big for one room. :) It's quite an ambitious lineup; for Ramachandran alone, I heard him speak for 3 hours during our college seminar.
To answer the question of the neurological basis of creativity, I think more basic questions have to be answered first. For instance, science has yet to determine where voluntary movement stems from in the brain. And how do you measure it? If you're in front of a roomful of people and order them to raise their hand anytime within the next hour, is this voluntary movement (so you can measure through fMRI which brain areas get activated when they do raise their hand), even though the audience is being TOLD to do something? It's hard to even define voluntary movement, not to mention try to measure it. We don't know how to examine voluntary movement, in addition to determining how to look at the creation of it.
I guess I also don't understand what synesthesia has to do with creativity. I see synesthesia more as a biological basis of metaphors (connecting two different things and associating them together, like the number six and a blue color), but not necessarily creativity. I know Ramachandran does synesthesia research as well - I told him I had a friend who had it, and he was interested in studying him. :) A friend of mine was a composer, and with each music note on a page, he saw a tinge of color with it, a blue color, for instance, for the middle D.
I've always been a proponent of interdisciplinary study (my undergrad major was an interdisciplinary major), yet the fear is always that one person is going to be proficient in many fields but an expert in none. The biggest way around this is to collaborate with people who are experts, and to keep communication lines open. Anyways, thanks for the great report! Your alternative approach seems more focused, and better suited for an audience to follow.
It was great having all of the speakers together from both the creative and neuroscience side -- even though I did have my frustrations with program.
I know that there was brief mention about the connection between synesthesia and creativity but I don't recall right now. Hopefully, I jotted it down in my notes - I'll review them.
I like your interdisciplinary perspective and that's, of course, one of the main focuses of this blog.
The Kinetic Interface blog on Great Dance starts with the premise that by focusing on the body and movement we can better understand, engage with, and contribute to many of the technological and scientific changes that are reshaping our daily lives.
To share stories and ideas, offer feedback, and ask questions, please email Doug Fox.
2 Comments
Despite the limitations of the setup, it's such a great start to open communication lines across disciplines to share and to use each other's knowledge to build your own. It's so thrilling to me that people are looking at the biology of creativity and getting experts talking to one another cross-subjects. I can totally see how such a smattering of experts in these different fields can come together and have their egos be too big for one room. :) It's quite an ambitious lineup; for Ramachandran alone, I heard him speak for 3 hours during our college seminar.
To answer the question of the neurological basis of creativity, I think more basic questions have to be answered first. For instance, science has yet to determine where voluntary movement stems from in the brain. And how do you measure it? If you're in front of a roomful of people and order them to raise their hand anytime within the next hour, is this voluntary movement (so you can measure through fMRI which brain areas get activated when they do raise their hand), even though the audience is being TOLD to do something? It's hard to even define voluntary movement, not to mention try to measure it. We don't know how to examine voluntary movement, in addition to determining how to look at the creation of it.
I guess I also don't understand what synesthesia has to do with creativity. I see synesthesia more as a biological basis of metaphors (connecting two different things and associating them together, like the number six and a blue color), but not necessarily creativity. I know Ramachandran does synesthesia research as well - I told him I had a friend who had it, and he was interested in studying him. :) A friend of mine was a composer, and with each music note on a page, he saw a tinge of color with it, a blue color, for instance, for the middle D.
I've always been a proponent of interdisciplinary study (my undergrad major was an interdisciplinary major), yet the fear is always that one person is going to be proficient in many fields but an expert in none. The biggest way around this is to collaborate with people who are experts, and to keep communication lines open. Anyways, thanks for the great report! Your alternative approach seems more focused, and better suited for an audience to follow.
Jolene, thanks for your comment.
It was great having all of the speakers together from both the creative and neuroscience side -- even though I did have my frustrations with program.
I know that there was brief mention about the connection between synesthesia and creativity but I don't recall right now. Hopefully, I jotted it down in my notes - I'll review them.
I like your interdisciplinary perspective and that's, of course, one of the main focuses of this blog.
Leave a Comment