The spelling exercise and jazz inprov comparison is interesting to me. There is such thing as correct spelling, but “correct” jazz? Not so much. I’m left thinking, where is the balance between pursing correctness and pursuing creativity. When is figuring things out for yourself beneficial and when is the use of a script more effectively or more efficient? As a society, I believe we rely heavily on scripts and the pursuit of the correct, and that this undoubtedly has implications on our world and surely on our individual creativity. But I do think there are many contexts where these scripts are good. So, my takeaway is this: in a world that is so concerned with being correct, what are the scripts that I’m following? Are they benefiting me, my neighbors, the world? How do I respond to others not following the scripts? And why?
Thank you for your thoughts, Steven! These are great questions. I'm glad you point out that following scripts is good and necessary, and that what we need is a balance between script-following and creativity. Definitely.
I really like the last question: how do I respond to others not following the scripts? It is so easy, so natural to respond with impatience and denial. But why not with curiosity? Or even, like Miles, with no-questions-asked affirmation and interest? At least intellectually. When it's time for action, we can always go back to our own judgment and the script we prefer.
On the idea of correct spelling: you're right, there is a correct spelling for our words, and it is important that there is. But it is not, I think, the kind of correctness 2nd graders, or people in general, imagine it to be. What we call correct spelling is the result of historical processes, including change, error and chance. A current example of what typically happens would be, I think, the idiom "for all intents and purposes." Maybe you've heard people say "for all intensive purposes;" and it could easily happen that we someday hit a tipping point, with enough people believing the phrase to be that, and then the standard, correct, accepted way of speaking and writing the idiom would be "for all intensive purposes." To me this stands for the way a lot of our words came to be spelled the way they currently are.
Love, love, love! Finally got around to reading, and this resonated so deeply. It reminds me also of learning a new language or inventing something, and the journey to hear or create the 'correct' thing. But the 'mistakes' along the way reveal the most about this new thing you're doing, and teach you more and more about how you think about your own language and your own process, and all the untranslatableness of the things in between. The 'mistakes' keep the endeavor of creation and learning refreshing.
You're right, our "mistakes" do teach us about ourselves, the way we think in language or music or some other domain. They are like little windows on our untrained, unruly selves :) Thank you, Nicoletta!
Good stuff G. I found the "truth" in this related to just how early we start conditioning people to scripts and just how much those scripts can constrain our creativity throughout life. I can't deny that scripts have value, but there is clearly a cost. Interestingly, there are scientists interested in studying how to train kids to be creative (although I suspect kids would find ways to be creative all on their own if adults would get out of the way), and at least some of those studies suggest creativity is linked to cultural sensitivity (paste this link into your browser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100693). Apparently if you don't force kids too much to live and think inside a box, they don't try to force others there as well. ; - )
Creativity is native, spontaneous, and if we don't force kids into a box, they will be creative: I believe that! Thanks for the article. I look forward to reading it!
Wow, what a powerful way to start my Monday morning. First, I'm really enjoying the webs you're weaving between your work with kiddos and your interest in jazz and improvisation. Second, I appreciate how your writing is getting my gears turning as you explore these ideas around "correctness" and being able to turn whatever happens in reality into medicine. What is "correct"? Who decides what is "correct"? On my own journey of unlearning, I'm especially grateful for this line: "The 'answers'! These accidents, themselves the results of mistake, chance and time." Finally, the Herbie Hancock video is gold! I feel like you can see how Miles' response to his chord *still* astounds him (see his facial expressions at 3:39). Thanks, Garrett.
Thank you, as usual! It is such a pleasure to have you as a reader. And YES! Thank you for appreciating the Herbie clip in all its humility, honesty and glory, every digression, expression and gesture. You are totally right: it still astounds him, like he is discovering it all over again - which is what makes it so fun to watch: https://youtu.be/FL4LxrN-iyw?t=218.
I disagree. My brother was a “trained musician,” highly trained, symphonic. He was hardly a robot; he was also a teacher. A symphony orchestra generally needs a conductor, not merely to keep everyone on the same page, but to add flavor and nuance. Each recording of Mozart’s piano sonatas is different, as played by trained musicians. Abstract art is often best executed by highly trained and practiced painters.
The spelling exercise and jazz inprov comparison is interesting to me. There is such thing as correct spelling, but “correct” jazz? Not so much. I’m left thinking, where is the balance between pursing correctness and pursuing creativity. When is figuring things out for yourself beneficial and when is the use of a script more effectively or more efficient? As a society, I believe we rely heavily on scripts and the pursuit of the correct, and that this undoubtedly has implications on our world and surely on our individual creativity. But I do think there are many contexts where these scripts are good. So, my takeaway is this: in a world that is so concerned with being correct, what are the scripts that I’m following? Are they benefiting me, my neighbors, the world? How do I respond to others not following the scripts? And why?
Thanks for the thoughts!
Thank you for your thoughts, Steven! These are great questions. I'm glad you point out that following scripts is good and necessary, and that what we need is a balance between script-following and creativity. Definitely.
I really like the last question: how do I respond to others not following the scripts? It is so easy, so natural to respond with impatience and denial. But why not with curiosity? Or even, like Miles, with no-questions-asked affirmation and interest? At least intellectually. When it's time for action, we can always go back to our own judgment and the script we prefer.
On the idea of correct spelling: you're right, there is a correct spelling for our words, and it is important that there is. But it is not, I think, the kind of correctness 2nd graders, or people in general, imagine it to be. What we call correct spelling is the result of historical processes, including change, error and chance. A current example of what typically happens would be, I think, the idiom "for all intents and purposes." Maybe you've heard people say "for all intensive purposes;" and it could easily happen that we someday hit a tipping point, with enough people believing the phrase to be that, and then the standard, correct, accepted way of speaking and writing the idiom would be "for all intensive purposes." To me this stands for the way a lot of our words came to be spelled the way they currently are.
Love, love, love! Finally got around to reading, and this resonated so deeply. It reminds me also of learning a new language or inventing something, and the journey to hear or create the 'correct' thing. But the 'mistakes' along the way reveal the most about this new thing you're doing, and teach you more and more about how you think about your own language and your own process, and all the untranslatableness of the things in between. The 'mistakes' keep the endeavor of creation and learning refreshing.
You're right, our "mistakes" do teach us about ourselves, the way we think in language or music or some other domain. They are like little windows on our untrained, unruly selves :) Thank you, Nicoletta!
Good stuff G. I found the "truth" in this related to just how early we start conditioning people to scripts and just how much those scripts can constrain our creativity throughout life. I can't deny that scripts have value, but there is clearly a cost. Interestingly, there are scientists interested in studying how to train kids to be creative (although I suspect kids would find ways to be creative all on their own if adults would get out of the way), and at least some of those studies suggest creativity is linked to cultural sensitivity (paste this link into your browser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100693). Apparently if you don't force kids too much to live and think inside a box, they don't try to force others there as well. ; - )
Creativity is native, spontaneous, and if we don't force kids into a box, they will be creative: I believe that! Thanks for the article. I look forward to reading it!
Wow, what a powerful way to start my Monday morning. First, I'm really enjoying the webs you're weaving between your work with kiddos and your interest in jazz and improvisation. Second, I appreciate how your writing is getting my gears turning as you explore these ideas around "correctness" and being able to turn whatever happens in reality into medicine. What is "correct"? Who decides what is "correct"? On my own journey of unlearning, I'm especially grateful for this line: "The 'answers'! These accidents, themselves the results of mistake, chance and time." Finally, the Herbie Hancock video is gold! I feel like you can see how Miles' response to his chord *still* astounds him (see his facial expressions at 3:39). Thanks, Garrett.
Thank you, as usual! It is such a pleasure to have you as a reader. And YES! Thank you for appreciating the Herbie clip in all its humility, honesty and glory, every digression, expression and gesture. You are totally right: it still astounds him, like he is discovering it all over again - which is what makes it so fun to watch: https://youtu.be/FL4LxrN-iyw?t=218.
As a musician myself, I greatly enjoyed reading this. Thank you for such an interesting and engaging article.
Thank you, Micah! Experience is the authority - I'm really glad this spoke to something in your experience in music.
I disagree. My brother was a “trained musician,” highly trained, symphonic. He was hardly a robot; he was also a teacher. A symphony orchestra generally needs a conductor, not merely to keep everyone on the same page, but to add flavor and nuance. Each recording of Mozart’s piano sonatas is different, as played by trained musicians. Abstract art is often best executed by highly trained and practiced painters.