Several years ago I was listening to NPR on my way to work, and the guest on the show was discussing the evolution of children's toys and their affects on children's imaginations. The guest's point was that modern toys limit children's imaginations because they are designed and marketed to be used in a specific way. Because toys are being manufactured to suit specific types of play and to provide advertisement for some other form of entertainment, children do not use their toys as creatively as they used to use them. The guest gave the example of children playing outside with a stick. One minute it could be a gun, the next it could be part of a fort, and the next minute it could be something entirely different. It's not even a toy, but children would use their imaginations and make it into anything they wanted. Children play outside less than they ever have, and they are provided with more toys than have been accessible in the past. With access to so many toys and such busy lives, children don't have as many opportunities to play and experiment with other objects and foster imagination. I think there is some truth to this idea, but I don't believe modern toys are as limiting as the guest suggested. I think that toys today show what creative people can do; some are extremely sophisticated and spark curiosity and imagination. I have an implicit definition of creativity that necessitate imagination, and I think that it is important to pay attention to what kinds of toys children are spending their time manipulating. Toys should provide opportunities for interaction, imagination, and creation.
This past summer I taught a seminar at Governor's School on the ethics of aid. It focused primarily on the foreign aid given to the tsunami victims in Sri Lanka, but one of the issues we discussed was the affects of aid on innovation. Many communities and people around the world depend on aid in order to survive (this can be seen in the United States as well); however, there are just as many people surviving in similar conditions who do not receive any type of aid. Why are some people so dependent and others are not? One argument is that aid breeds dependence and discourages efforts to create alternatives. Another piece of my definition of creativity would have to be the motivation to change the state of something. Whether its through coming up with an alternative, adding to something, or taking something away. Creativity has to come from somewhere, and it usually helped along by the need for something to happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Two very poigniant "random thoughts" on creativity. We're in the midst of deciding on toys for Alanabeth who has just recently turned two. It's VERY DIFFICULT to decide on what's appropriate and what's just too overwhelming with sounds, colors, and gadgets. I'm drawn to the redesigned, updated version of older toys from when I was a child and I find that she is too. Sometimes the stimulation is too much for her to handle. I think there is a fine line between how it's presented (i.e. colors, lights, movement, etc.) and the possibilities for what it can become through the imagination.
On the other note: it's funny you mentioned the aid and breeding dependence. Again, this is a fine line issue relating to the Goldilocks and the Three Bears syndrome: too much, not enough, or just right. I think it's also amazing to watch the imagination and creativity (as well as malice) of those who must access these traits for survival (i.e. Survivor).
Good thinking...caused me to stop and ponder ;)
Post a Comment