Though the argument is not robustly put forward, it
worth considering Chet Bower's claim that such per-
sonality types, and the whole notion of 'individual
creatives' to which Western liberal education remains
committed, are perhaps a lot of the reason why our
societies are currently so unsustainable. His (easily
caricaturable) counter is to suggest that we need to
educate for more humble forms of collaborative cognition
(e.g., learning from and with your elders and others,
rather than unquestioningly striving to demolish what
they have evolved so that it can be replaced with your
own project(ion).)
http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx01401/
http://tinyurl.com/mk6daz
Another version of the same argument is the late
Neil Postman's _Teaching as a Conserving Activity_
http://tinyurl.com/lzemdy
If the world (of entertainment for example) is spend-
ing all its time convincing us that we are creative
individuals, it is the dialectical duty of education
to critically teach the reverse; that all design is
redesign for example:
http://www.designaddict.com/essais/michl.html
In this context, the following sounds like a new
pathology to be included in the next DSM:
Architect Personality Disorder (what Deyan Sudjic
calls 'The Edifice Complex').
> "If I were to summarize what is most generally characteristic of the
> creative architect as we have seen him (sic), it is his high level of
> effective intelligence, his openness to experience, his freedom from
> petty constraints, and impoverishing inhibitions, his aesthetic
> sensitivity, his cognitive flexibility, his independence of thought
> and action, his high level of energy, his unquestioning commitment to
> creative endeavor, and his unceasing striving for creative solutions
> to the ever more difficult architectural problems he constantly sets
> for himself". end quote
Cameron
|