誰扼殺了我們的創造力？

TED（Technology、Entertainment、Design的縮寫）大會的宗旨是“用思想的力量來改變世界”，它于1984年由理查德·溫曼和哈里·馬克思共同創辦。每年來自全球不同學科的頂尖學者與實踐者們會云集該大會，將自己的研究成果凝聚在一個18分鐘的演講里。演講內容涵蓋科學、藝術、政治、建筑、音樂等。

Ken Robinson，全球知名創新與創造力專家，在開發創造性和創新能力方面是國際公認的領袖人物。本文節選自他在TED大會論壇上就創建一個呵護而非摧殘創造力的教育體系而發表的演講，語言深入淺出、發人深思。

We’ve all agreed on the really extraordinary capacity that children have， their capacities for innovation. And my 1)contention is， all kids have tremendous talents and we 2)squander them， pretty ruthlessly. So I want to talk about education and creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy， and we should treat it with the same status.

I heard a great story recently， I love telling it， of a six-year-old girl who was in a drawing lesson. The teacher said usually this little girl hardly paid attention， but in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and said， “What are you drawing?” and the girl said， “I’m drawing a picture of God.” And the teacher said， “But nobody knows what God looks like.” And the girl said， “They will in a minute.”

Picasso once said that all children are born artists. The problem is remaining an artist as we grow up. I believe passionately that we don’t grow into creativity， we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it. So why is this?

Every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects—every one; it doesn’t matter where you go， you’d think it would be otherwise but it isn’t. At the top are mathematics

and languages， then the 3)humanities， and the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth. There isn’t an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think maths is very important but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they’re allowed to， we all do. We all have bodies， don’t we? Truthfully what happens is， as children grow up we start to educate them

progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.

If you were to visit education as an alien and say what’s it for， public education， I think you’d have to conclude (if you look at the output， who really succeeds by this， who does everything they should， who gets all the 4)brownie points， who are the winners) the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn’t it? They’re the people who come out on top. And I used to be one， so there. And I like university professors， but you know， we shouldn’t hold them up as the 5)high-water mark of all human achievement. They’re just a form of life， another form of life. But they’re rather curious and I say this out of affection for them， there’s something curious about them， not all of them but typically， they live in their heads， they live up there， and slightly to one side. They’re 6)disembodied. They look upon their bodies as a form of transport for their heads， don’t they?

In the next 30 years， according to 7)UNESCO， more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. More people， and it’s the combination of all the things we’ve talked about—technology and its transformation effect on work， and demography and the huge explosion in population. Suddenly degrees aren’t worth anything. Isn’t that true? When I was a student， if you had a degree， you had a job. If you didn’t have a job it’s because you didn’t want one. And I didn’t want one， frankly. But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games， because you need an 8)MA where the previous job required a 9)BA， and now you need a 10)PhD for the other. It’s a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to 11)radically rethink our view of intelligence.

We know three things about intelligence: One， it’s diverse. We think about the world in all the ways we experience it. We think visually， we think in sound， we think 12)kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms， we think in movement.

Secondly， intelligence is dynamic. The brain isn’t divided into compartments. In fact， creativity， which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value， 13)more often than not comes about through the interaction of different 14)disciplinary ways of seeing things.

And the third thing about intelligence is， it’s distinct. I’m doing a new book at the moment called Epiphany which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I’m fascinated by how people got to be there. It’s really 15)prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of， Gillian Lynne. She’s a 16)choreographer. She did Cats， and Phantom of the Opera， she’s wonderful. Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said， “Gillian， how’d you get to be a dancer?” And she said it was interesting， when she was at school， she was really hopeless. And the school， in the 30s， wrote her parents and said， “We think Gillian has a 17)learning disorder.” She couldn’t concentrate， she was 18)fidgeting.

Anyway， she went to see a 19)specialist in an oak-paneled room with her mother and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this man talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having

at school. In the end， the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said， “Gillian I’ve listened to all these things that your mother’s told me， and I need to speak to her privately. Wait here， we’ll be back， we won’t be very long，” and they went and left her.

But as they went out the room， he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk， and when they got out the room， he said to her mother， “Just stand and watch her.” And the minute they left the room， she said， she was on her feet， moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said， “Mrs. Lynne， Gillian isn’t sick; she’s a dancer. Take her to a dance school.” Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.

I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology， one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we 20)strip-mine the earth， for a particular commodity， and for the future， it won’t serve us.

We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we’re educating our children. And our task is to educate their whole being， so they can face this future—by the way， we may not see this future， but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it.

我們一致認同，孩子擁有超凡的才能，或者說創新能力。我認為：每個孩子身上都蘊含著巨大的才能，卻被成人無情地磨滅了。因此，我想談談教育和創造力。我相信在當今這個時代，創造力在教育中的地位同讀寫能力一樣重要，理應得到同等程度的重視。

前些日子我聽到了一個很棒的故事，我喜歡逢人就講。有個6歲的小姑娘在上繪畫課。她的老師說，這個小姑娘上課一向不怎么專心，而這次卻不同。老師很好奇，于是走過去問小姑娘：“你在畫什么？”“我在畫上帝”，小姑娘答道。老師不解：“可是從來沒有人知道上帝長什么樣啊！”小姑娘答道：“等我畫好他們就知道了。”

畢加索曾經說過：每一個孩子都是天生的藝術家。問題在于我們長大之后能否繼續保持著藝術家的個性。我堅信，隨著年齡的增長，我們的創造力并非與日俱增，反而是與日俱減。甚至可以說，我們的創造力被教育扼殺了。怎么會這樣呢？……