Let me begin by way of confession: I used to hate studying history. In college, it was torture for me to sit through American History. Even my Art History classes pushed me to the edge of human endurance. Ironically, this past year I was asked to teach a unique class at DaVinci Academy called The History of Art and Science. I was intimidated. How could I teach the very subject I so greatly disliked? But, as I considered the class, I soon realized that, at it's core, it was nothing more than the history of creativity . . . and, as many of my family and friends know, I like to talk about creativity . . . a lot. I fully agree with Sir Ken Robinson when he writes, "The highest form of intelligence is thinking creatively." And now I had the chance to teach my students to be creative through analysis of history's greatest cultures and individuals. I found a reason to enjoy history, and my obsession for creativity gave it meaning. I think overall, my first year of teaching the class was successful, but I feel I only scratched the surface of the class's potential. I'm reading a lot, hoping to expand the class's concepts, but I would like to also get some input from others . . . yeah, by "others" I mean you. I want to know what you think. In particular, I would like to bounce around some ideas and questions and get your feedback. So let's start with these:
Who is more creative, an artist like Michelangelo, whose greatest works were commissioned by the Catholic church, or an artist like Van Gogh, whose art was inspired only by his own observations and imagination? How do we define and measure creativity in a way that lets us compare these artists? What system of metrics can we use?
There you go. Please, leave your comments below and help start a discussion. Thanks.
Book Recommendation: The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything by Sir Ken Robinson