There are people on the Creativity Champion list from all around the globe. I'm in Chicago. I'd like to ask folks to weigh in on this question - What policy advice would you give to the next President of the United States to advance creativity here and globally?
9 comments:
Hi there, Tom,
I'm in the Netherlands myself, but I feel that, for anyone to advance creativity, either in the US or globally, there would need to be a worldwide movement aimed at a new basic human right - the universal right to self-respect. This would incorporate the need for safety, redistribution of food, work, means and wealth. It would necessitate approaching intelligence the way Howard Gardner* does, in combination with the right to continuous learning. Only when such conditions are met – and more like them, I suppose - can you start advancing creativity at all.
Cheers, Josee->
*Garner distinguishes nine intelligences that are all of equal merit.
**
Use us USA
***
Japs, Indian
www.linkedin.com/in/jpsingh123
A cabinet level position - Department of Creative Action - would be in charge of filtering all administration actions through a CPS model to make sure the team has 1. Defined the Problem, 2. Developed new and useful ideas, 3. Planned for Action & 4. Set up measurement criteria.
Idealistic? yes. Necessary? Absolutely. How much longer can the US live in this illusion that our might makes us the world leader. the world economy (SEE: EURO) is moving forward and if we don't find creative solutions we will also lose our world edge on innovation.
I'm in NJ, home of the Sopranos and other fine representations of the arts. One thing I would not do is create a cabinet position. One thing we don't need is more government. What we need is for government to leave people alone. For example, some in Congress are pushing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which would essentially put an end to the expression of free thought and ideas mainly on radio.
I still do believe that the United States is and must continue to be a world leader. The proof of this is in the individual and not the government. I'm not an American Idol fan but I just read that last year this franchise raised $76 million for charitable causes. This was backed by US & MNE corporations but was largely funded by the individual. So what does this long-winded response intending to communicate? Cut taxes, reduce the size of government, give tax breaks to artists and artistic endeavors, reward individuals for creative accomplishments. The re-distribution of wealth doesn't work and history has proven this to be so. Penalizing people for accomplishment also supresses creativity. I just think we need to systematically get out of the way of people!
I'm heading in a completely different direction than Robm is.
A cabinet level position is a great idea. I say this primarily because what a cabinet level position is for is to advance a mission of creative empowerment within the Executive Branch of government, and consequently the nation. This is done for government and often as an influencer to businesses. To assume this creates "more government" makes the presumption that we're talking about something like the "Department of Energy", or the "Department of Education", which we're not. What size it should actually be is another matter entirely.
Tax Breaks for "Artists": The problem is when you start talking about tax breaks for people, it's a form of reverse welfare. Giving tax breaks doesn't mean they have more money -- you had to have made money in the first place to be able to get taxed on it. It also doesn't mean that your artistic endeavor is or will be supported by government or even by corporations or individuals. More often than not, anything the government supports as art (or creative endeavor) has to have some sort of cultural restrictions on it, which stifles creativity.
It's funny how Robm mentions American Idol and their charitable work. American Idol could probably be classified as a fairly non-creative endeavor (not even referring to the charitable work, in fact Nashville Star is a much more creative endeavor considering those performers have to write their own work as well as perform the work of others). A) The Artists rarely if ever get to write or perform their own work. B) All performances as well as performer presentations are heavily censored and marketed events C) The endeavor is entirely supported by corporations, not just the advertisers, but the producers of the program themselves. Yes, the show was innovative at one time in it's genre, but that's as far as I'd take it.
Robm said "The re-distribution of wealth doesn't work and history has proven this to be so.", I'm not sure which history he's talking about so broadly, but if he's referring to the Communist state of USSR, unfortunately there's still one around (China) and they cover a good chunk of the world and have a higher population, and they now Export more than we do. That is not to say "they're better than we are", but given that America's sending plenty of money to China on a daily basis by our purchases of common goods, I'd be very concerned that America's on a road to more and more of the same and a lot less creative advancing. We as a country produce less and less. Wal-Mart and Target are great examples of this as we're importing the majority of what is sold in our consumer storefronts isn't American-made product.
We are in agreement that individuals needs to have more power in this country -- but to do that you will likely need more laws, and more government, that protects your consumers from being charged unfairly for what they consume (gas, water, basic utilities, media consumption, food) and regulation does succeed. While I think most Americans would agree with the rhetoric that "re-distribution of wealth doesn't work" they would be wrong about what that means when "liberals" are talking about regulation. Nobody's opposed to you making money by your creative endeavors -- but making money at the expense of ignoring your society and economic realities is shortsighted and will end up punishing those who could be creative, innovative and supportive for all our fellow citizens. Not to mention if you enable people to solve problems by giving them a better base of the resources to do so (universal health care, education, support in the arts without restrictions, etc) you create a situation where everyone can contribute. That my friend, can't be done without some taxes -- because it'll take money to pay these foolish corporations to provide services to us.
And for that you have to trust the individuals to support that, in cooperation with your government, because sure as heck, the trends in American business (as well as the business owners) have long been geared toward hanging onto their money, not spreading it around to the hardworking employees, or charitable endeavors. No company will ever help you -- only a government charged with that mandate, or all the individuals within a community working together to help solve the the problems and support each other.
Facilitators without Borders- Think How many requests for intervention the US govt receives. What if it had a team that networked with nonprofit facilitation entities to send facilitation teams to help empower people to help themselves.
u S Team,
Double - is = Bar aa Bar +
please visit: www.ironManMovie.com
and check the names of the characters carefully...
Ton-y can refine things on reaching Amir-ica
ThanX
Er.JaP Sing
Hello from Chicago! I recently (2 months ago) moved here from San Diego, California and am soaking up the many differences and similarities of these two beautiful cities. Both showcase talent in unique ways that I really appreciate.
I would say that true leaders show strength and deepen loyal support by elevating others' through recognizing creative accomplishments. President Clinton was rhetoricaly effective at pointing out small successes done by communities or companies and encouraging others to emulate their success on a larger scale. Thus charter schools took root for small steps toward improving education. Awarding the Nobel Prize for micro-credit in poor communities showed how a little can go a long way toward elevating people out of poverty. Al Gore's talk on global warming has given urgency to going green and pointing out that it's not easy to go gree, but the payoff can have social AND monetary payoffs for the effort.
If people believe that their creative endeavors might be celebrated, and possibly invested in, then greater effort will be put into being unqiue and doing things no one else is doing. But first you need to have something with the courage to say things that no one else is saying.
I will start. America is currently the greatest country by default. Unless we are more honest and fair in how we live, work, and play in the world, then others will always remember how we alter the rules to favor US and will do their best to not let us forget tomorrow how we treated them today and yesterday. To me, 9/11 was an inevitability based on decades of one-sided policies. true partnerships require give and take, not take and take and take some more.
A creative solution by Bush (I can give credit when merited, even though his words and actions reflect creativity of the one-sided nature) that has gotten little attention is bringing Iraqi students to American Universities to study and return home to use their knowledge to re-build their country (that the U.S. destroyed, ahem).
Similar to the Chilean experiment that worked to some extent in the 1990s. Chile sent students to college in America who used California's economy as a model that compares with Chile geogrpahically with California but inverse to the equator. Hence the Chilean wines that were devleoped in its own version of Napa Valley.
Overall, celebrate small creative successes to motivate others to emulate thinking and doing that which is not in line with the status quo. Perhaps we need to be more critical of status quos overall to determine whose needs it is truly serving and honestly assessing if it's for the greater good.
Cheers,
Alex
p.s. I am looking for work. Any help is appreciated.
Hi, Tom,
.
Great question! One good way to advance creativity is to teach it as its own separate subject in the schools.
.
By this, I mean: A general course in Thinking Skills could be taught as a separate subject in schools, beginning with the Middle School level.
.
Thinking Skills would include straightforward, basic thinking skills as well as creative thinking skills. Parallel with such a course, the various thinking skills would also be integrated across the curriculum, into each of the other subjects the students are studying.
.
Creative thinking skills could be part of the same spectrum as basic thinking skills, just adding some different ways to generate and organize ideas.
.
Within our Department of Education, there might be a sub-level cabinet post for the Development of Thinking Skills.
.
What are your thoughts?
.
Arlene and Jaxon Teck
Post a Comment