Friday, September 22.. I957

SCARLET AND BLACK

 

MAN IS A CREATIilE Ailiiilihi.

By PAUL JONES

 

Following is the body of a
letter i received from Henry
Wilhelm. it is a reply to my
first column and very likely
expresses better the ideas
which I would have expres-
sed eventually as a follow-
up to that column. 1 would
preface the letter by asking
one question which 1 hope
you will keep in mind as you
read the letter: Does the con-
cept of creativity have any
meaning at Grinnell College?

Paul:

I read with some interest
your recent article “The Lone-
liness of the Long Distant stu-
dent" (which might be re-writ-
ten: “The Fear To Create in
the Overcritical College") in
the 5&3. You raised some in
teresting'questions, any one of
which is important, and I think
you ought to go into the subject
more in some future articles.

Your thoughts inspired me to
offer a few ideas of my own
on the subject: 1 would very
much agree with you in saying
(believing) that most students
and faculty at Grinnell have
worthwhile thoughts to express
'(or plays to direct, pots to
make, pictures to paint, poems
to write and photographs to
make) but that unfortunately
most people never let such im<
pulses come to the public
surface.

I would give the student a
bit more credit than you do, I
think, and put more or the
blame on the atmosphere cre-
ated as a byproduct of the
Grinnell idea of “critical" edu
cation. The fact that you get
as much material as you do for
NOUS is u sure indication that
there is a real creative interest
on the part of students at Grin-
nell.

in your article you said you
thought there was a fear at
"being criticized" at Grinnell,
and you went on to differen-
tiate between “the legitimate
iear of being walked on" and
the fear of being “measured
or judged." 1 would suggest
that, at least in the learning
and beginning stages, both the
fears you mentioned are equa‘l-
ly valid and legitimate in the
mind of the creative person.

When a person is learning to
feel free in expressing himself
I think the emphasis should very
much be on the quantity and
sincerity oi his efforts, and
very deﬁnitely not on someone
eise’s judgment ot "quality."
That is, in the early stages any
way, output ls much more im<
pnrtant than content.

It is in this area that I feel
Grinnell falls very short of the
Ideal. And I couldn't limit this

just to the classroom; things
like the review oi NOUS which
appeared in the Reporler last
semester, the general conversa-
tion most people engage in upon
seeing a student play, the criti<
cal attitude most people have
when looking at a student art
show, etc., all make the error
in not recognizing that the im-
portant fact is that someone
did or made something. Doing
is the important thing and 1
think this should receive most
of the emphasis.

0t course other recognition
is helpful in keeping the cre-
atlve impulse producing —— be
ing published is a very nice
incentive. And] would give
NOUS a great deal oi credit in
this area—it is probably the big-
gest single boost to individual
creators at Grinnell. 0 t h e 1'
things like Drama Workshops,
rock and roll bands, publica.
tions, bicycle coups, student
art and photography shows, en-
couraging comments from other
students and faculty, etc, are
all very important.

But the unfortunate thing is
that at Grinnell there is almost
no academic reward or encour—
agement for “creativity." I
would suggest that the art de
partment is the only area in
which there is real cooperation
between the academic and cre—
ative impulse. Some parts of
Theatre might also qualify
(however, I make a real dis—
tinction between the creative
and performing arts — I think
the writer is the real creative
one, the director might be tie
pending upon what he does to
the written script, and the actor
comes in a far third. This isn’t
to tie-value the Worth or skill
of the actor, i simply feel that
the actor is doing very much
the same thing that an orches-
tra performer does in playing
someone else's work. These
things are, I feel, usually more
of a technical skill than a
“creative" activity).

I think Grinnell has a real
confusion about culture, we
ativity, and performing. The
Music Department, in my mind,
is the most striking example
of this confusion — virtually
everyone is engaged in study-
ing, performing, and criticiz-
ing what others have done, And
the Music Department carries
the insult a bit lurther by gen-
erally restricting themselves to
the truly ancient. Jazz is hardly
felt and rock and roll is thought
vulgar. By now it should be
lairly easy to see that the good
“new" music in going to grow
out of folk and rock and elec—
tronic music. Grinnell is not
working in any or these fields.

 

Wayne’s Steakhouse

”the Rex”

cocktails — Beverages — Fine Foods

NEXT TO THE THEATER

Students are, but the college
is not. And the Lenox Quartet
is not either. or course, 1 sup
pose this is only a symptom of
Grinnell’s classical background
~— they used to study only re-
ligion, Latin, philosophy, math
and some literature.

As you said. most “creative"
people at Grinnell feel a sad
kind of aloneness. But don’t
blame the student. Blame the
theory of education, the kind
of faculty who are attracted to
the place and the unfortunate
association of the concept of
intelligence and the ability to ef<
ieclively criticize.

i think your image of Grin-
nell as a “quiet and sterile
place” is unfortunately correct.
One sees little of that fresh
joy of people freely creating.
And that perhaps takes us back
to a central point: the motiva-
tion behind creation should be
the enjoyment of the activity
and nut other’s comments on
the effort. Some would say the
ability to create is the only
thing that makes us human. If
that is true, then most of us
don't make the classification.

The other day I read about
a meeting of psychologists in
Washington in the newspaper:
one made the observation that
making sexual love was about
the only truly creative activity
that the average persons en-
gages in. If that is true, think
what would happen if examples
of “great lovemaking" (films,
on stage, etc.) were put on the
same pedestal that great works
or literature are put on. Most
of us junior critics would then
have to stop making love —
after all, we can't do it as well
as same.

There is that feeling in our
society that if you can't “cre-
ate" as well as the best can,
you shouldn't create at all. or
if you do anyway, you should
at least feel a little guilty about
your efforts. I offer you the
thought that every art award,
high price paid. good review,
classification by college profes
sors as a ”great work", have
all contributed to this state of
affairs. These things have also
probably contributed to the
“periods" in art — which I
think are only a reflection that
people aren't left free to create
what they would it they were
truly free.

Henry Wilhelm

PPPE BOOK
OF THE MONTH

Washington, D.C., a political
novel by Gore Vidal that in
high on the current bestseller
list, has been selected as the
October - November Political
Book of the Month.

The book presents the fiction-
al case histories of two U.
Senators who aspire to the
presidency ~ one in the pre-
World War II era and the other
today - and subordinate their
lives and loves to the quest.
Characterized by one reviewer
as_“a page turner," the novel
portrays presidential politics at
in best and at its worst.

A STUDENT OPINION

iiiiih Phithsdhiil

Ron Steinhorn is the chairman of the Grinnell Siutlen!
Movenlent‘s committee on open dorms.

By RON STEINHORN

ill spite of the nonrmaterialization at two weeks of “frequent
and fruitful discussions” proposed in the COfHPrAWS Board
statement at last Wednesday's open Senate meeting, the issue of
reform on social regulations has been widely discussed. Reading
Paul Jones' article in last week‘s 5&3 indicates that. far from be-
ing cognizant ol' the justification and objectives of scolal reform,
Jones has failed to grasp the basic premise behind any such re-
form movement. Hls contention that student activities are con-
cerned with lhe rules themselves rather than a lasting philosophi-
cal basis on which to build shows only a very limited and
traditional view of the rulemaking process.

By necessity, the ability to create a philosophy at rule making
and subsequently the rules themselves implies the right to do so.
Traditionally on the Grinnell campus, changes in social regula.
tions initiated by students must be approved by a faculty commit.
tee, the President of the college, and finally by the trustees. Thus,
the power to control student social life resides outside the student
body and increases in inverse proportion to its contact with the
students. I think that. no one will question that this accurately den
scribes the locus of the rulemaking power at the present time.

That this is a proper State of affairs Jones does not comment
upon. Instead, he criticizes student activists for being concerned
with specific issues rather than an overall philosophy and taken
us to task for “the narrowness of the aim." If it were true that
change in specific rules is the only objective of students, their the
objective would truly be very narrow.

The primary goal, however, is not initially that of rules
change but clarification of where the governing power on social
regulations should righlhilly reside, The present power finds its
source in tradition and its philosophy of action in a situation
ethics of expediency resulting in our present state of living in
hypocrisy.

in reference to the administration's philosophy behind social
regulation and rules enforcement, it is apparent that, in complete
contrast to Jones' naive wish “to call for a statement of actual
policy or principles on the part of the administration . . the ad-
ministration feels no need to put forth a statement of an overall
philosophy on social regulation nor does it presently show an in-
clination to do so.

The case last spring in which two students went to see Fresh
dent Leggett and presented a list of questions attempting to dis-
cover administration policy behind both academic and social is
sues immediately comes to mind, The questions were printed in
The Reporter but no reply was ever received, That the only ra.
tionale behind the administration's actions seems to be expediency
is born out by tile sporalic and inconsistent enforcement of exist.
ing regulations. While it may be hoped that the community court
will eliminate at. least some of the injustices of the present situa<
tion, it should be noted that the fundamental question, What Can—
stitutes a Valid power to create social regulations, has been com-
pletely ignored.

The basis of the administration‘s present power, tradition, can
hardly be taken seriously as is determining factor in the govern-
ing of our personal lives either in the present or the iuture. Other
reasons, that the administrators are “Older and wiser” for ex<
ample, are so subjective as to be worthless. in addition, any
claim that the administration has the right to regulate social cnna
duct simply because it now occupies a position of power on this
campus is neatly shot down by Rousseau in chapter three of book
one or The Social Contract. He concludes the following way:

“We must grant, therefore, that force does not constitute
right, and that obedience is only due to legitimate powers."

Who, then, constitutes the legitimate power in the area o!
social regulation? it is obviously not the administration. According
once more to Rousseau, legitimate power resides in the common
political will of the community which he calls the sovereign power.
In other words, the right of social regulation must be present in
the group over which the rules apply. The students, who are the
only persons who are members of the community over which the
social regulations apply, are thus the only ones able to legitimately,
exercise such a sovereign power over themselves.

Thus, I es’ entire article ignores the primaly premise at
student act. 'sts, that admi stratiun control of student social
regulations constitutes an unjustified assumption of power which
rightly can only be exercised by the students. Therefore, preoccu-
pation with a philosophy behind specific rules or the question of
creating good for all equally or for the greatest number in no!
appropriate at this time.

Certainly these must eventually become areas of concern, bill
whatever is decided on in the realm of either philosophy oi social
regulation or specific rules it will be the students alone who on
empowered to decide. To foil to do so will be to deny the esseiu
tlally human right of sell-creation by determining our own caps:
bililies and responsibilities,

 

