Myth of the Muse, The. Douglas Reeves

creativity. We argue the ways in which many of these concepts are, in fact, more myth than reality. Chapters 2 through 8 each focus on one of the seven virtues of creativity. We illustrate how each is important to creativity and provide insights for inspiring and cultivating creative habits. Once you and your team have reflected on each of the facets that contribute to creativity and considered the suggested classroom applications, you’ll no doubt be wondering how such practices can be assessed. We recognize the term creativity assessment may seem like an oxymoron. How can such a subjective concept be objectively evaluated? In appendix A, we provide evidence from our own research as well as a metarubric practitioners can use to support creativity assessment, evaluate their existing assessments, and identify areas in which those assessments can be adjusted to better support creativity in classrooms. Appendix B offers a few helpful tips for leaders as they guide teams in their work toward creative virtues.

Preconceptions of Creativity

      Please take a few moments to consider your own preconceptions about creativity by identifying whether you agree or disagree with the statements in figure I.1 (page 8). Whether you already consider yourself a creative type or the last time you flexed those muscles was in creating an art project out of macaroni at summer camp, we know this is true: every reader approaches the subject of creativity with certain assumptions. We hope that your candid responses to these statements will help you identify and confront many of those assumptions.

      However certain you may be of your agreement or disagreement with these statements, we believe you’ll be surprised by how the growing body of evidence about creativity will challenge your preconceptions.

      Figure I.1: Creativity assumptions.

      Visit go.SolutionTree.com/21stcenturyskills for a free reproducible version of this figure.

CREATIVITY REFLECTIONS

      1. With a partner or in a small group, discuss your responses to the statements in figure I.1. Note the statements for which there is no consensus, and discuss your reasoning behind your responses.

      2. Start a personal creativity journal. Take notes in whatever format is useful for you—handwritten journal or typed notes—but keep in mind evidence suggests that the most effective notes are the ones taken by hand (McGloin, 2015). You might also consider using a mind map (Buzan & Buzan, 2002) in which you begin with a central idea and then use images, arrows, and words to express how each branch (or associated topic) of the mind map relates to the central idea and to other branches.

      3. What parts of your personal and professional life would benefit from a higher level of creative thought and expression?

      4. What important challenge that you face right now in your classroom or school have you been unable to address? Please don’t stop and search for a solution right now, but write the challenge in your creativity journal and let it percolate as you continue to read this book. It is important that you approach the chapters in this book with a specific challenge in mind that is in serious need of a creative solution.

      CHAPTER 1

       CREATIVITY MYTHS

      We begin with our own working definition of creativity: the process of experimentation, evaluation, and follow-through that leads to a significant discovery, insight, or contribution. This definition is in stark contrast to many prevailing definitions of creativity that focus only on the final product of creative work and the original genius of the creator. Many of these popular conceptions are based on myths that, we will argue, are simply illusions.

      Our definition of creativity, however, implies that the failures of these artists and inventors are every bit as creative as their successes. Indeed, the iconic works that we celebrate as great art would not receive the acclaim they are accorded today without thousands of unknown failures. In this chapter, we will first explore the myths of creativity and then examine our alternate conception of creativity and its foundational elements.

The Muse

      For at least three millennia, the prevailing explanation for creativity was divine inspiration or muses—a linguistic heritage that gives us the modern museum. We get this term from Greek mythology, in which there are nine sister goddesses (muses) of music, poetry, arts, and sciences. One of the sisters, Calliope, was the wisest of the muses. She is often depicted holding a tablet in her hand and has been credited by poets from Homer to Dante with inspiration for their work. African, Asian, Nordic, Celtic, Mayan, Persian, and Native American civilizations shared the same tendency to attribute creative insights to divine inspiration. But while contemporary writers may no longer give tribute to Calliope and her eight sisters, the myth of the muse casts a long shadow that to this day colors the way many people view artistic work. We may not attribute creative inspiration to the gods, but it remains tempting to think of creativity in quasi-mystical terms. In his 1835 essay for The New-England Magazine, Victor Hugo wrote, “It seems that poetic inspiration has in it something too sublime for the common nature of man” (p. 204). Even nearly two centuries later, many Westerners still cling to the belief that creativity is a mysterious force bestowed on a special segment of the population at birth. This myth implies that neither environment, will, nor consequence has the power to nurture creativity.

The Creative Type

      They have been known by many names: bards, bohemians, tortured artists, absent-minded professors. We all recognize the caricature: head in the clouds or nose in a book, unconcerned with conventional appearance or customs, the “creative type” is simultaneously ridiculed for his or her eccentricity and lauded for his or her genius. They are tropes in fiction, from Sherlock Holmes to Victor Frankenstein, and some people continue to attempt to live out the stereotype of eccentric genius, from the hipster communes of Brooklyn, New York, to the one black sheep at every family reunion. They are defined not only by their capacity to be creative but also in their opposition to the norm. It is a distinction played out over and over again: there are those who can create, and then there are the rest of us. The U.S. Department of Labor even distinguishes between creative and noncreative professions (Burkus, 2014).

      But we hope to show you that this distinction is an artificial one. The notion that some people are simply born creative, that the miracle of invention can somehow be attributed to genes, was long ago undermined in a research study of fraternal and identical twins (Reznikoff, Domino, Bridges, & Honeyman, 1973). After testing more than a hundred pairs of twins, researchers found “little consistent or compelling evidence … to support the notion of a genetic component in creativity” (p. 375). Additionally, David Burkus (2014) notes that while it may take supremely confident personalities to engage in the risk taking required for creativity, the skills of creative problem solving can be learned. He asserts, “Even codependent, risk-averse narcissists can be taught how to generate ideas more easily and combine possible outputs to leverage synergy” (p. 7).

Big C and Little c Creativity

      Researchers have often drawn distinctions between Big C creativity—the sort of insights that lead to Nobel Prizes or talents that seem to be inborn—and little c creativity—the sort of insights that are merely functional in nature or that are developed through study. Recent research, however, challenges this dichotomy. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart didn’t write the majestic Coronation Mass in C Major without playing some C major scales and arpeggios; and Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins, and James Watson didn’t