As an art teacher, I have found that much of my instruction tends to be geared towards teaching students how to work with certain mediums, largely emphasizing technique over idea. In the past, I faced some level of criticism from other art educators for going about my instruction in this way. Most of this criticism appears to surround the same concern: That one should spend less time teaching students technique and more time teaching students how to be creative.
This is not just a concern that has surfaced within the domain of art education. The push to teach “big picture thinking” (in line with higher order thinking) and to teach creativity to students has been emphasized in education across all subjects. In the midst of this push, however, there still lingers an important question that has yet to be answered: Is creativity a learned skill?
For that matter, is “big picture thinking” even a learned skill? Or are these qualities that we associate with higher order thinking more innate of human beings? And if not, then would this mean that a person is born inherently lacking in creativity, hence requiring the need to be taught “how to be creative” by outside influences (like their instructors)? Or, perhaps, is it a mixture of both?
Dr. James Rolling, Chair of Art Education at Syracuse University, suggests that questions like these tend to play into the “nature vs. nurture” debate in education. When applied to the subject of creativity, however, Dr. Rolling proposes that this debate is asking the wrong question. He points out that what we refer to as creativity and its associated indicators are largely socially-derived concepts, and as a result, they tend to be subjective, abstract, and flexible (i.e., their concepts may change from culture to culture, or even from class to class). He goes on to state that, as a largely subjective and immeasurable concept, it is perhaps too difficult to determine the source of creativity and how it is developed (nature vs. nurture), at least at this time.
That certainly makes things challenging for art educators: How does one teach a student to become an abstract quality that can’t be measured? How does a teacher fairly assess a concept that is subjective and culturally-influenced? Maybe you can’t.
But maybe you don’t need to.
I tend to lean more on the side of the fence that suggests students are inherently creative and big picture thinkers. In fact, I can’t think of people who come up with more innately creative ideas than children do. However, like Dr. Rolling suggests, this may be due at least in part to my own personally-conceived notions of what I deem to be “creativity.”
Regardless, the basis for my decision to teach largely to techniques and processes is that I’ve never found myself needing to teach students “how to have a creative idea.” Most students already have creative ideas when they come to me: Ideas for imaginative movies they want to make; fantastic images they have in their heads that they want to get on paper; and grand stories they want to write. What I feel they need from me is less instruction on “how to be creative,” but more instruction on how to make the ideas they already have come to life. Much of this, I feel, does rely on teaching them less innate skills that they can’t imagine on their own: How to use video editing software; how to shade their drawings in pencil; and how to map out a story.
The only danger I could foresee with “teaching to technique” is when the time dedicated to the instruction or the assignment guidelines associated with instruction competes with the students’ ability to pursue their inherent creativity (i.e., to explore their own ideas). In this instance, the goal is not to “teach creativity,” but simply to ensure one’s instructional practices don’t hinder the innate creativity that already exists in students.
Of course, this isn’t the first time these thoughts or concerns have been addressed. Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB), a teacher-driven grassroots organization that supports choice-based art education, has been supporting the claim of innate, “unteachable” creativity for over 30 years. The TAB school of thought in art instruction sees the student as an artist already, fully capable of making creative decisions on their own without support or guidance. A TAB classroom emphasizes offering students their choice of materials and then “providing ample time and space for them to pursue their own ideas.” The instructional practices associated with TAB, in turn, lend themselves to inquiry-based learning and project-based learning.
However, TAB isn’t without its unique challenges, and some of those challenges still relate to the direct instruction of technique and how much it should be emphasized. If students can make their own creative choices, then this will naturally entail them making accompanying decisions about medium, tools, and techniques. When and to what extent then should the instructor intervene to teach students about the use of these mediums and tools? And how does an instructor ensure they teach these techniques in a way that does not inadvertently sway or influence the students’ creative decisions?
What is your opinion? Do you believe creativity, as we perceive it, can be taught or is it innate? And what role then should teaching to techniques play within the art classroom?
