RE(FORMING) KNOWING: RECONCEPTUALIZING THE ROLE OF CREATIVITY IN KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMIES Teresa M. Tipton, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Anglo-American University Prague, Czech Republic teresa.tipton@aauni.com KEY WORDS: Creativity, Cultural Policy, Social Pedagogy, Innovation, Knowledge-economy, School Reform ABSTRACT: In Adorno’s letters to Walter Benjamin concerning his Arcades study, Adorno critiques Benjamin’s treatment of the dialectical image, concluding that his study lay in the crossroads between magic and positivism, and only theory could break the spell of its bewitchment (Adorno et. al, 1977: 129). Benjamin’s dialectical image was invented with the intention of fracturing the phantasmagoria of capitalist ideologies from historical narratives in order to develop ‘the critical moment’ that would awaken the sleeping masses from their alienated subjectivity. Drawing upon this critique in relationship to art education’s dialectical image of itself at the cultural crossroads, if theory can break the spell of an image’s immanence, then only epistemology can break the bonds of its dialectical catastrophe. Addressing the dialectical crossroads in art education, this paper presents an epistemological case for the reformation of knowledge and how it is accounted for in the arts. While arts and cultural education has been extensively researched for more than fifty years, the arts remain educationally marginalized and the presence of arts education specialists and programs in western public schools have been reduced. In spite of the field’s sophisticated advances, there remains no major instructional systems design theory and models for teaching art. Yet, the expectations for knowledge-based economies in the US and the European Union, are driven by policies supporting innovation without addressing creativity’s fundamental role in its development. Arguing that creativity has been mystified as unteachable and thus neglected instructionally, this paper advocates reforming what is considered ‘knowledge’ in education through the teaching of creativity and not solely the subject matter of art. By developing instructional design theory and supporting models teaching creativity, knowledge-based outcomes through arts and cultural education are (re)cognized, establishing protocols for innovation without marginalizing the arts. Should arts and cultural education’s own slogan be, ‘teach creativity, not art.’

INTRODUCTION: In his unfinished Arcades Project, Walter Benjamin (1940) theorized that all objects of history contain contradictory interpretations that are unlocked by experiencing the objects without possessing them. He called such intentional juxtapositions and their interpretations dialectical images. Their purpose was to reveal the ideological content

of historical narratives in order to bring new relationships into everyday living practices and awaken a critical self-consciousness about their social conditions. As a new research methodology, Benjamin’s dialectical images were grounded in his argument that from the time of Descartes in the 17th century, object and subject had been divided theoretically and a new approach was needed in order to unite them. Benjamin’s study of the Parisian Arcades from the mid-1800’s intended to show that the means of production behind the Arcades, arguably the world’s first shopping malls and the social practices that they spawned, supported the marginalization of social groups in urban spaces. He aimed to reveal the fragmentation of historical narratives and their ideologies where previous abstract conceptualizations about ‘others’ became physicalized into actual geographies. His methodology intended to produce a critical moment where embedded ideologies within dialectical images were punctured and their latent catastrophe revealed, mobilizing the potential for a critical consciousness to be actualized. In Adorno’s letters to Walter Benjamin concerning his Arcades study, Adorno critiqued Benjamin’s treatment of the dialectical image as immanent, concluding that his study lay in the crossroads between magic and positivism, and only theory could break the spell of its bewitchment (Adorno et. al 1977: 129). Using Benjamin’s research methodology of juxtapositions across images and their dialectics regarding ‘knowledge’ and its development through schooling practices, I specifically juxtapose discourses about knowledge as defined and mandated through EU-27 initiatives and policies for school reform, with those from arts and cultural education. I argue for reformulations of knowledge and creativity in order to mobilize new initiatives for actualizing both by teaching creativity as a subject. Under EU policy for supporting culture in a globalizing world, in 2007 the European Commission urged EU schools to emphasize the development of social competence. Social competence is understood as the communicative, emotional, behavioral and cognitive skills necessary to succeed in society. Social competence is highly correlated to intercultural competence, to which arts and cultural education contributes developmental skills, dispositions, and attitudes. However, social competence as developed through arts and cultural education has not been given the recognition it deserves. In addition, because culture has been narrowly aligned with the development of fine arts skills and disciplines, little is known about other forms of culture, including popular culture, and how culture operates today through social networks and uninstitutionalized environments. The purpose of this article is to move this topic out of the margins of discourse by asking how can these aspects of culture contribute to educational practice in the development of creativity and innovation and become recognized as an element of school reform? I argue that the discourses in arts education in particular have been instrumentalized as ‘added-value’ in service to all other disciplinary outcomes and contributes to the form of the discipline’s own mystification. And if only theory can break the spell of the dialectical image’s immanence as Adorno suggested, I argue that only epistemology can break the mystification of art education’s own ideological structure. For that reason, I conclude that what is considered knowledge per se must be reformed through educational perspectives that teach multiple forms and modalities of

knowing, for which creativity has a fundamental role. More emphatically, should arts and cultural education’s slogan be, ‘teach creativity, not art.’ CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION The new slogan for the European Union as, ‘Innovation Union’ as part of its Europe 2020 campaign for a developing a ‘smart, sustainable, and inclusive economy’ (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm) follows earlier initiatives to develop a knowledge-based economy across national borders and support transnational mobility. Knowledge-production is a contemporary enterprise whose premises in the EU are based beyond the development of reason, individualism and science to the creation of new financial markets rewarding the entrepreneurial development and management of intellectual property and patents. The premises for developing knowledge-based economies in the EU are encoded into research frameworks funding primarily science and technology initiatives supporting higher education, research institutes and industry collaborations. The creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2010 for coherent and compatible higher education across Europe (http://www.ehea.info/) has contributed in further emphasis on the foundational efforts of an European Science agenda. The academic disciplines of the social sciences and humanities, on the other hand, have not yet been equally or adequately represented with funding for reform, nor investments in the research and development of their qualitative systems and forms of knowledge. Since 2000, reforms initiated under the Bologna Accord (1999) and the Lisbon Treaty (2010) for all schools of the EU have emphasized strengthening core competencies in mathematics, science and language. Knowledge from art - of which culture is a part, hence the term art and cultural education - remains on the periphery of institutional acceptance and practice (Sullivan 2005). Since 2008, cuts to arts and culture sectors amounting to a reduction of 25-35% of their budgets (Tuning 2012), have affected EU cultural operators and school programs alike. It should be stressed however, that budgets for culture from EU programmes were already below the EU’s own policy studies’ recommended levels (Jácomo 2012), pointing to a larger problem that is conceptual as well as financial. The result is that EU driven school reform efforts have not given adequate investments and resources to teach the diverse languages of arts and cultural education, upon which creative competencies are based. Contributing to the further marginalization of arts and cultural education as ‘non-essential’ language development is the way in which culture as a term has been narrowly interpreted through the fine arts. In EU cultural policy, culture is still defined through classical and romantic ideals in language that uses "...'cultural sensibility' and ‘..the awakening of a curiosity regarding the arts and our cultural inheritance’, and ‘the development of taste and a sense of quality’ [1]. Representing a growing trend for legislated, national standards in educational frameworks influencing other post-industrial countries, values from the eighteenth and nineteenth century can also be found in national curriculum from Australia, Great Britain, as well as the U.S.A.’s National Visual Arts Standards (1994) and its curriculum model of disciplined based arts education (DBAE). Enculturation, as a goal of arts and cultural education policy and programs, is giving way to a shifting

emphasis on culture, and not the arts, for enhancing economic growth and development. Whereas educationally, teaching the arts is increasingly considered unproductive. A fundamental mismatch rhetorically and practically is missing the one common link between both: creativity. Current EC cultural programmes stress their purpose to be the enhancement of the common European cultural area and encouraging the emergence of a sense of European citizenship (Cultural Programme 2010: 41), concepts that lack common consensus and understanding. Without the practical reality of how they come to be and function, they, too, are contemporary ideals. In policy and in practice, the universalizing discourse of producing a common cultural area and European identity lacks both definition and practice for what and how a common identity of ‘Europeanness’ would look like and be educationally. Instead, the EU's current emphasis on 'social cohesion' as a pressing need for a rapidly diversifying population, has positioned arts and cultural education into yet another kind of instrumentality, used to experience cultural identity and teach multiculturalism for citizenship education. Missing in discourses for comprehensive school reform across the EU is the recognition that other forms of knowledge exist and occur from other kinds of languages (e.g. visual, media, kinesthetic, interpersonal, etc.), which would open the possibility for integrating competencies for creative industries across schooling practices. A formidable challenge to the integration of diverse forms of knowledge pedagogically is the constraint from national curricula and accountability criteria of measurable outcomes tying achieving educational benchmarks to public and private funding. Representing a growing trend for influencing other non Western countries, standardizing knowledge production by ‘tuning’ educational structures to pre-set competencies may well become a new Lisbon Strategy agenda. Rhetorically the EU’s Tuning Project at the higher education level intends to encourage educational and degree programs to look for reference, convergence, and common understanding through defined competencies (www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/). But practically, the standardized European Qualifications Framework has already defined and allocated credits and competencies to academic sectors. RECREATING CREATIVITY Over the past twenty years, research in creativity has exponentially increased, especially through psychological theories and their experiments. Its appearance in cognitive psychology has emphasized empirical experiments in the study of creative cognitive processes applied to task-specific cases, especially in design and industrial education. Recent studies tend to lend support to earlier cognitive approaches to creativity (e.g. Gardner 1982, Perkins 1981) by using brain imagining technology to to test neurological pathways and activity in the brain and to measure the effects of mental imagery for the completion of task objectives (Ellamil et. al 2011). Current theories from neuroscience and new disciplines such as Connectomics, study routes of neural impulses to develop models and theories about creativity, such as processes of creative thinking (Sutherland, Ward 2007; Ward, Smith, Finke 1999), and Finke’s (1996) model of generative and evaluative phases.

Nevertheless, many educational and social assumptions about creativity remain rooted in an 19th century Enlightenment paradigm that individuals are born innately creative (or not), and that aesthetics, if it is still taught at all, is rooted in learning about the authors of philosophical systems who argue for various systems of perceptions and beauty. Both remain pedantically structural and pervasively intact. Creativity has been defined as producing novel ideas that are useful (Sternberg 2003). By narrowly correlating creativity to production, whether artistic or conceptual, its evidence remains within the individual, and is objectified as a property that is possessed (or not). The idea that individuals are born innately creative is further mystified by the educational belief that creativity can not be taught. The reflexive conundrum operates like a lemiscate: if creativity cannot be taught, it cannot be measured; what cannot be measured means there is no evidence of it. Within accountability schemes for outcome measures in schools, this caveat has meant creativity cannot be claimed to be produced, it appears, except in cognition studies, using experimental designs, as a tool furthering industrial design thinking. The outcome is creativity’s near absence from core competencies and their supporting curriculum in EU schools. Rhetorically, there persists an attitude that creativity is a psychological trait or cultural spaces, impeding its inclusion in the language of educational competencies generally and arts education in particular. Reframing knowledge through creativity offers the opportunity for the plurality of visual knowledge and their languages to be recognized and taught within the culture of education itself. On the other hand, Wilson’s (2010) idea of developing social creativity as a discipline, and not an aspect of the creative process, risks confusing practice with process, and unnecessarily qualifying it. For this reason, teaching creativity can be multimodal, phasic and dimensional, across territories and cartographies, but it remains itself, no less a mystery than science, which we still teach in spite of its own uncertainties. In spite of art education’s sophisticated advancements over the past century, however, there remains no major instructional systems design theory for teaching art or creativity as subject knowledge. EU reforms for schools in the pre-primary to secondary phases of education are formulated without addressing creativity’s fundamental role in knowledge-production and its dissemination. In policy and in funding, the EU continues to neglect the creative capacitation upon which innovation is based. In a bold move that addresses these shortcomings in the EU approach and establishing a framework for identifying and teaching creative competencies, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (2010) launched a framework program for creativity education and infuse it into all levels of public schools through art, music and physical education. The Learning and Creative Teaching Framework outlined an integrated approach for teaching creativity, innovation and enterprise as a core competency for students. To subject the teaching of creativity to its social and economic dimensions is also problematic. Does teaching creativity mean that teaching unmeasurables in art no longer happens? But more importantly, is subjecting the teaching of creativity to the measures of knowledge production as indicated by grades and academic

achievement a ‘sufficient’ approach to instructional design? Is supporting the current system of ‘meritocracy’ as the world’s new financial elite are built upon (Hayes 2012), a ‘sufficient’ a strategy to give culture value? To emphasize what creativity and culture can produce economically, is missing one important dimension: if culture is produced, it also needs participants, users, and consumers, for which individual or social creativity cannot educate alone. By juxtaposing these two discourses against one another, I use Benjamin’s methodology to puncture their respective ideologies in order to awaken awareness for needed reforms within art and cultural education’s own conceptualizations about itself. This paper makes a case that educational systems supporting knowledge-based economies need to equally attend to the development and funding of the creative industry through an integrated approach for the teaching and learning of creativity as a component of all forms of knowing through arts and cultural education. Thus, I advocate for the reformation of epistemology about knowledge through the teaching of creativity and not solely the subject matter of art. KNOWLEDGE AS A MOVEMENT OF BECOMING While the valorization of cultural education has been extensively studied, argued, and researched internationally for the last fifty years1, schooling practices remain entrenched in the development of competencies favoring science, mathematics, technology, and written and spoken language. Since 1999, the mandate for educational reform in secondary and higher education in European Union states under the Bologna Accord has produced more emphasis on standardized curriculum assessing cognitive aspects of learning demonstrable through standardized testing. Prior to PISA and No Child Left Behind, former models of learning based on the ability to construct or repeat propositions based on binary logic and its refutations, were already inadequate to navigate within dynamic systems of change2 (Abbott & Ryan 1999; Shor & Freire 1987). After twenty-five years of international attempts to manage educational output, it can be seen that framing ‘output’ structurally in the current context, acts as a deterrent to innovation, spontaneity, and experimentation. At the same time, art and cultural institutions have also come under growing pressure to demonstrate a new public role to a growing number of stakeholders. Thus, it is important that the basis of innovation be reformed within a plurality of perspectives and positions, integrating creativity, innovation and social competencies within arts and cultural education practices. A formidable challenge for education to integrate new praxis and not just produce new knowledge, is the constraint from administrations and national governments legislating assessment benchmarks for measurable, accountability criteria tied to

1 Harvard’s Project Zero created extensive research on the impact of the arts in educational development including longitudinal studies from Goodman, Gardner and Perkins, amongst others. For a more complex analysis of the transformative power of cultural arts education, see Bamford, 2006; Chapman, 2003; Duncum, 2001; Gardner, 1990; Greene, etc.). 2 See also Sternberg, 2003; Atkinson, 2006; Hernández, 2000; Smith-Shank (1994 and 2004) and Cultuurnetwerk Nederland, 2002.

public and private funding for education. Early group dynamics research from which later action research models have developed (Lewin et al. 1951) revealed that individuals in groups within autocratic leadership, acted aggressively and disruptively. And yet, systems of education in western countries have structurally moved in the direction of increasing autocratic and punitive measures tying student performance standards to funding protocols while expecting the curriculum to be increasingly democratic and open. This fundamental mismatch can be found operative in every level of the western public education schooling system today. Within contemporary educational practices, however, there is a fundamental dichotomy between schooling practices that are focused on testing learning as demonstrable achievement of standardized outcomes and their indicators, and how knowledge may function and evolve in the future. Schooling systems tend to pre-determine meanings given to cognitively produced information, coding knowledge in specific ways. The determination of ‘input’ of information produced for learning ‘out(come)’ is not solely an objective determinant, devoid of context. There is a question of relationship to context(s) for use and interpretation. It is important to re-examine a movement that represents different phases of an overall learning cycle which has multiple dimensions and characteristics. Many complications arise however, when educational systems apply knowledge structures and processes derived from the 19th century as current knowledge structures replicate, to the conditions of the 21st century. As Kristeva (1986) emphasizes, inquiry must turn to the very suppositions and constructs that its propositions are embedded with. The agenda to educate individuals in service of the knowledge industry must be critically examined to understand how representations for the individual, subject, and identity are formed on the imaginary and symbolic levels by the influence of language, visual representations and ideological apparatuses (Fulková & Tipton 2011). Examining both input and output as a part of an interdependent and interactive cycle, for which the role and function of knowledge in the overall educational system has yet to be fundamentally re-formed, how can education accommodate contemporary spatial and multidimensional contexts of learning? For this investigation, is knowledge itself sufficient as an answer? THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CREATIVITY Laying the foundation for demonstrating the importance of communication processes in the construction of knowledge, Vygotsky (1978) posited that sign and symbol systems and their meanings are constructed through social interaction. Within the social context of learners and cognition, knowledge emerges and is formed structurally through the negotiation of meaning-making processes in active social interaction. Knowledge is not just produced, it is created. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire explained that deficits of comprehension, (to which the current knowledge agenda for measurable student learning outcomes is tied), are related to misunderstanding about the gnosiological cycle. By ‘gnosiological cycle’ he meant the distinct moments in the cycle of knowing, which has separate phases related to each other. (Shor & Freire, 1987: 7). Freire describes this cycle as two moments: one when knowledge is produced and one when it is known. By seeing these moments, we can better understand what happens when we try to teach or to

learn. (Shor & Freire 1987: 7) “What happens generally is that we dichotomize these moments; we make them separate...we reduce the act of knowing the existing knowledge into a mere transference of the existing knowledge.” (Shor & Freire, 1987: 8). Under the mimetic influences of new digital media, it is important to inquire into how the gnosiological cycle functions today. What Benjamin began to develop and our current digital landscape complicates is that language is now ‘seen’ through cultural interfaces that may entail virtual interactions and not just social ones (Manovich 2001). In the 20th century, a dominant cultural interface was through cinematic artefacts that brought movement into space and transformed it temporarily through narrative (Rodowick 2003), influencing the development of sensory-perceptual systems and intellectual experiences that are no longer tied solely to language. Rodowick argues that through the context of digital media culture, sense becomes a kind of presence without signification (2000:11) which acts to create new forms of cognition that originate within spatial forms of understanding from virtualized, digital media platforms, confronting previously ideas about representation and reality. Arts and cultural education recognizes that meaning is also encoded into everyday symbolic and expressive practices, their relationship to social groups and the power relations between those groups as they are constructed and mediated by forms of culture (Lister and Wells: 61). Society and culture, of which the media is now an integral part, interacts continuously in a dynamic process, creating a symbolic environment that is entered at the moment of birth (Gerber, Gross, Morgan and Signorielli 1994 as cited by Giles 2003: 22). Using signs in patterns and configurations begins even with young children who do not yet speak (Matthews, 1997). Schooling systems tend to hierarchically code meanings given to families of signs into developmental frameworks that attribute interpretation in specific ways. But the impact of digital media contests this, changing the structure of learning from cause and effect modalities created from mechanistic thinking during the industrial revolution into the experience of simultaneous apprehensions that act as leylines of indeterminate possibilities. Today’s students experience multimedia stimulations from sound, image, and text through interactive, virtualized spaces as participants, not just viewers. Presence is no longer form-based, time-based, or place-based (Manovich 2001). How imagination enters into and engages the experience of learners within multiple contexts through digital media is greatly changing the way perceptual and intellectual abilities are achieved and demonstrated. It is possible to say that today knowledge is transmitted as much through media as it is through schooling practices. Language is also ‘seen’ through cultural interfaces (Manovich 2001). Cinematographic artefacts that bring movement into space and transform it temporarily through narrative, are the dominant cultural interfaces of the 20th century. (Rodowick 2003). Cinematic artefacts and their digitized effects, influence sensory-perceptual and intellectual experiences that are no longer tied solely to language but create new forms of cognition that originate within spatial models from virtualized, digital media platforms. Signs are in a continuous movement of resignification (Smith-Shank 1994). At the same time, in the context of digital media culture, sense becomes a kind of presence without signification (Rodowick 2000:11).

Thus, a new symbolic order of pattern and randomness emerges in virtuality, where the interactive, multimedia web of this global phenomenon transpersonalizes the interplay between codes and signs. Hayles (2003) posits this as a new field of dematerialized embodiment within a rapidly morphing field of electronic data ‘flickering’ through electronic, digitized, and computerized interfaces. Virtualized embodiment has led to an uncoupling of formerly, linearly conceived materiality and its concomitant but slower, evolutionary patterning, into a new kind of presence - the instantaneous and real-time tele-presence of the 24/7 camera switched on, observed and commented on in a global perturbation of unperceived, virtual and ‘real’ observers. Mind interacts experientially with these different simulated, recorded, and telecast environments, not just gaming inside prefabricated corridors of interactive software programs, but pushing previously constituted borders of what was previously considered versions of ‘reality’ to which knowledge is corresponded. Currie & Ravenscroft (2003) contributes an understanding that direct perception and visualization both produce a somatic response in the body. In other words, when something is imagined but not directly perceived, there is still a bodily response as if the event, object, or person were actually seen. Thus, imagining is also a form of visual experience, from which visual intelligence emerges. This is essential for the development of a collective imagination of what can be possible, a necessary component of innovative thinking. Digital media is changing the structure of learning from cause and effect modalities into the experience of simultaneous apprehensions that act as leylines of indeterminate possibilities. Today’s students experience multimedia stimulations from sound, image, and text through interactive, virtualized spaces as participants, not just viewers. Interactive, multimedia cyberworlds transpersonalize the interplay between codes and signs within a dematerialized, rapidly morphing field of electronic data. The content of imagining through virtual worlds is closely and systematically tied to the content of the perception without being part of direct perception itself. Currie & Ravenscroft (2003)’s research into the imagination of non-perception contributes an understanding that visualization produces a somatic response in the body, even without being directly perceived. In other words, there is a bodily response from what is imagined but not directly experienced or seen. To understand how this is relevant to the production of knowledge and the teaching of creativity, it is important for education to attend to how the mind interacts experientially with simulated, recorded, and telecast environments and the prefabricated corridors of interactive software programs. Both push previously constituted borders of what was considered the physical laws of ‘reality’ to which knowledge has been traditionally correlated. Thus, imagining is also a form of visual experience. This is essential for the development of creative imagination of what can be possible, a necessary component of innovation. How imagination enters into and engages the experience of learners through digital media is greatly changing the way perceptual and intellectual abilities of students are developed and demonstrated. It is possible to say that today knowledge is transmitted as much through media as it is through schooling

practices. FUTURE ANTERIOR

Contemporary research on the social functions of discursive practices provide frames of reference by which students can recontextualize their experience. Wells (1999: 127) states:

In particular, we are all in agreement about the importance of three features: the essentially dialogic nature of the discourse in which knowledge is co-constructed; the significance of the kind of activity in which the knowing is embedded; and the important role played by the artifacts that mediate the knowing. Contextually examining how knowledge is shared and functions is necessary

in order to develop shared agreements about how participants formulate and deliver communications. This shifts the emphasis on knowledge as product to communication processes through which meanings of can be negotiated. Wilson (2010) points to these as social dimensions of how the creative process functions within individuals who are considered creative.

In studying the movement of thought into conscious awareness, the Nobel-

prize winning physicist, David Bohm (1994) proposed that individuals study the development of a proprioception of thinking to assist in the revelation of thought’s underlying edifices. Bohm studied thought’s movement of becoming through undirected group dialogue and recommended cultivating a non-judgmental witness to distinguish between thoughts as memories, acts of perception, abstractions, and semi-automatic thoughts, from those that arise from intelligence, where fresh insights, new orders of understanding, distinctions of relevancy, and new structures are perceived. Beside images, thought also exists in perceptions of movement, light, and sound. Bohm (1994) concluded that because belief systems and knowledge systems sometimes operate invisibly, systemic change requires the integration of dialogic processes to plumb the system of thought as it is constructed and used. He elaborated that inner movement not only creates and maintains structure, but that it can also dissolve it. “There is nothing known that does not ultimately dissolve into movement in this way.” (italics the author’s 1998:78). Here Bohm is elaborating on the movement of attention which is involved in all our sensory perceptions, and in the act of understanding the whole of perception and thought. (italics the author’s 1998:79)

By considering the primary significance of movement in this general sense, which includes art, inward experience at the psychological level, and what is to be meant by life, we can perhaps indicate at least the germ of a different world view, which can function to call attention to our outward perceptions and inward feelings in a new way, so that we can be free of the habitual and automatic function of the traditional view that this movement is meaningless, without some thing that is ‘doing the moving’. (1998: 80).

To study thought’s movement of becoming is to study how change processes are enacted and affected by the flow of thoughts dialogically. Generally speaking, however, our educational and cultural policies have not moved beyond examining what that ‘some thing’ is and ‘how’ it is ‘doing the moving.’ By emphasizing that movement is primary, Bohm’s purpose is not just to draw attention towards what knowledge is understood within a cycle of becoming known. “The fitting of knowledge to useful function is what is emphasized in technology (from the Greek ‘techne,’ meaning ‘the work of an artisan’)” (1998: 81). Here Bohm describes that it is the artisan who makes knowledge useful by fitting it together within the apprehensions of lived experience, art’s special technology. In other words, knowledge is apprehended and used, not just known. Art and cultural education has an important integrative role to play, to weave and knit knowledge together through creative enactments. Negotiating shared understanding is a complex but essential process within increasingly conflicted multicultural and transnational environments, for which it is important to build a moral imagination (Lederach 2005). The inclusion of dialogic communication practices in conjunction with processes of meta-learning, develop critical thinking about the interpretive and meaning-making strategies through which individuals co-construct and use diverse forms of knowledge (Tipton 2008). After twenty-five years of international attempts to manage educational outputs for professional preparation in jobs, 45% of which the EU has recently determined don’t exist yet (Europe 2020), it can be seen that framing predefined professional outcomes structurally can act as a deterrent to innovation, spontaneity, and flexibility. Considered in this manner, knowledge must be reconsidered and recontextualized as emergent and fluid in dynamic systems where information functions as autopoeitic processes through which complex systems interact and change (Luhmann, 1999). To recognize that other forms of knowledge exist and occur from culturally diverse languages such as visual, auditory, interpersonal, media, and kinesthetic (etc.), means reframing knowledge-based outcomes in conjunction with process-based forms of knowledge becoming known through social interactions and communication. Digital media provides the platform for functionally teaching creativity, developing culture, supporting intercultural communication skills and structures, and critically work with images through multimodal forms and languages. The act of knowing is a set of complex investigations into interactive, self-organizing systems. Knowing emerges out of how information is experienced and used; situated within cognitive structures which develop and change according to the context of how they are activated through processes of interaction, not only how they are generated (Wells 1999; Wilber 2000). Reframing knowing as an integrative process which involves intuition and imagination as well as analytics, occurs as a negotiated process in communication between perception, reception, experience, and cognition. Today’s learners need to know how to discover probable information, negotiate meaning-making processes within rapidly changing environments, and apply creative imagination to problem-finding as well as problem-solving situations within multi-disciplinary teams. Shifting the emphasis from knowledge as product to knowledge as communication processes allows the meaning of information to be negotiated and represented in culturally sensitive ways, considering intercultural dimensions of art and culture as

social pedagogy. Negotiating shared agreements is a complex but essential process within increasingly conflicted multicultural and transnational environments, for which it is also important to build a moral imagination (Lederach, 2005). In this realm, cultural arts education can encourage democratic citizenship processes by creating public spaces for developing and sharing opinions about how information is expressed, examined and used. Favareau (2002) argues that the intra-psychic and inter-relational aspects of cognitive development must be attended to neurosemiotically. This means that knowledge is context dependent, which is relational and negotiated, forming the conditions through which cognition is situated. Considered in this manner, knowledge is recontextualized as emergent and fluid, in dynamic systems where information does not function solely as input and output devices within new technological contexts, but as autopoeitic processes through which complex systems interact and change (Luhmann 1999). Knowing needs to be developed within open systems, with flexible and creative structures through which the emergence of wisdom, not just knowledge, can occur. This means that transforming instructional design systems to support cultural creatives is not solely for the purpose of economic productivity. It means that inquiring personally, socially, and culturally into what creativity is for, and how it can be taught and nurtured, means deciding for what the cultural and economic roadmap of one’s own purposefulness will be and how. This is an interpersonal agenda that cannot be imposed upon, it can be offered to students as being useful. Creativity must be discovered within the act of being creative. And for this, why wouldn’t schools be teaching the subject of creativity itself? PROBLEM-FINDING FOR THE CULTURAL CREATIVES INDUSTRIES (CCI) In the field of cultural arts education, graduates of secondary institutions in the EU are expected to become a part of an increasingly globalized workforce producing ‘cultural capital’ through creative enterprises supporting a creative economy. However, EU policies are being implemented in this domain without school systems intentionally producing creative competencies to support them. The EU call to define the scope and impact of cultural and creative activities in local economies implies the necessity of developing a new form of analysis of how the creative economy works (Agadic & Addict 2011: 10). If creativity is understood as “the use of cultural resources as an intermediate consumption in the production process of non-cultural sectors, and thereby as a source of innovation” (KEA 2006: 2), let us call attention to how it is nurtured. If culture can adapt itself to new forms of economy, schools need new economic investments to produce successful cultural operators and creatively cultivate the dispositions, attitudes and behaviors of cultural participation as audiences, advocates, ambassadors, organizers, philanthropists and volunteers. Since 2007, EC white, green and blue papers rhetorically support development of cultural and creative industries (CCI) as a part of the development of ‘culture capital’ and the cultural sector across the EU, but their own calls have not been correlated with investments at the promised levels, essentially subsuming needed cultural initiatives into the development of ad hoc, local ‘creative networks’ without the necessary means to support them. Instead, networks rely on the infrastructure of

local communities and not educational and cultural institutions for their diffusion. Castells goes further in arguing that ‘…networks may constitute the new morphology of societies which substantially modifies the results of logical operations and production processes, experience, power, and culture itself” (2005: 605). Schools have an additional role to play in supporting networks within communities and schools by connecting experts across regional platforms and sharing resources. As Cope and Kalantzis (2000) explain, it takes more than situated practice and overt instruction to create cultural understanding. It requires both critical framing and the application of meaning-making practice to another context or site (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000:35). For this to occur, should the discipline of art education begin to teach creativity, and not just art? Would it not be for useful purposefulness that education would try to discover and support a process of creativity and teach all students how to not just think creatively but be inventive and discover what only the individual can decide for themselves - what is meaningful and how. For this to happen, educational and cultural policies and the discourses behind them must move beyond homogenizing discourses where creativity and culture are strategies for actualizing social and economic development; we must activate their movement of becoming. On the other hand, former ideas of enculturation as a goal of art and cultural education policy and programs, is slowly giving way to a shifting emphasis on empowerment. Empowerment occurs in the contemporary context of arts and cultural education by nurturing the authenticity and primacy of the individual's response, conditioned by the context of his or her own social or cultural group (Fulková, Straker, & Jaros 2004). Examining empowerment through the reflective process of meta-reflection, it is possible to establish a context for how each individual reveals their own unique process in the construction of their own thinking, experiences, perceptions, and meanings. Cognition alone cannot account for or accommodate the indivisible wholeness of creativity as a force, a force of life, not just a process by which encounters with design thinking or visuality occur. For this understanding, we cannot look to knowledge-alone for either economy or strategy. We must look to the creative imagination that resides in each person as a birthright, and their public right as a person and citizen to develop and use it. After all, who is knowledge for? Thus, as Jaros (personal communication, March 17, 2004) suggests, there are unanswered questions about the knowledge-economy and all that it subjugates in its service. Educationally, we need to ask and answer not just what is new knowledge, but who is it for? As a strategy for developing the social dimensions between interpersonal and intra-personal meaning, the cultivation of reflective practice recognizes the importance of inquiry through multiple sign systems in tandem with multiple modalities of knowing (Tipton 2008). Creativity needs to be taught intentionally through an educational framework that recognizes the unpredicatability of its mystery as well as the certainty of its production, contributing an understanding that both aspects are necessarily connected. Both contribute aspects of process and product-based learning modalities and realize contributions, not all of which can be represented by written language. If what can be imagined but cannot be assessed means that it doesn’t become a performance objective, the definitive operating paradigm becomes a form of defacto

censorship. It is clear that cultural development needs to be redefined at all levels of institutionalization and that new policy is needed at all levels of reform efforts. It is already clear that policy equally needs international research findings that can be put to work with committed institutional partners through self-studies, needs assessments, futuring, and charettes. More than ever, we need new models of creativity that function within the local context through formal schooling practices. Reformation processes must be supported as well by imaginative new epistemologies that bring these various strands together into study as well as practice. Supporting this development, the EC’s Green Paper (2010: 18) states, ‘Art and culture have a unique capacity to create green jobs, to raise awareness, challenge social habits and promote behavioural shifts in our societies, including our general attitude to nature.’ Yet, in spite of the EC’s own statistics that cultural industries contribute 2.6% to the EU-27 GDP with 5 million jobs (cite), ironically the same EC web text continues, ‘However, there are no reliable and comparable statistics at European level that could fully underpin and provide evidence of their actual contribution to European economic and social development.’ (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/eurostat-essnet-culture_en.htm). Such uncertainty is not just from the use of disjunctive statistical formulas through which cultural impact is numerically proven. In spite of the EU study (2006) documenting that the cultural sector is developing faster than the rest of the economy, the Lisbon Strategy for reforming education supports the knowledge economy with its largest investments in ICT, science and industrial technologies. In EU cultural policy, while the arts are arguably a part of culture, the way both terms are used remain a chicken and egg dilemma through which both domains are financially overlooked. As Benjamin would argue, there is a hidden ideology underneath the need to assess a sector through measures for which quantification and definitions are elusive. Culture may have been in existence as long as science, but justifying its existence in curriculum and subjecting its valuation to statistical measurements which either do not exist or are through inadequate ones that do, unequally subjects the discipline concrete assessments, not all of which can be documented through language. Because it is not knowledge about creativity that can result in people being creative. Creativity activates knowledge. Being creative is actualized through doing. For that reason, knowledge alone can never be adequate to respond creatively to the challenge ahead for our learning and teaching organizations and schools. Our current knowledge has failed to teach us how to implement the most basic of human needs, one of which is creativity (Max-Need ?). Creative solutions to all of our perceived problems that do not recognize that the social dimension of knowledge is grounded in actual practice – a practice that knows about and adapts itself through creativity - will fail us as well. Because it is not knowledge about creativity that can make people creative. Being creative is actualized by doing creativity. Creativity activates knowledge. For this reason, teaching knowledge alone will fail us as well. To juxtapose the numbers alone with the actual social conditions of arts and cultural funding in the EU, a fundamental inequity is structurally represented, demonstrating how the field continues to be economically marginalized in spite of all the EU banner headlines of support. In 1989, UNESCO (2000) declared that traditional and popular

culture is part of mankind’s universal patrimony and a powerful means of connection between different people and social groups and an affirmation of their cultural identity. Following an international study linking sustainable development to culture, UNESCO went further to call for redefining the meaning of cultural heritage to include its intangible aspects in cultural development (UNESCO 2000). The report was successful in calling for culture to be representing in all discussions of development. Supporting cultural heritage brings more questions for educational systems and their practices, such as how do the arts retain their contributions to cultural heritage (as well as its education) when entrepreneurial innovation is what EU school reform investments are supporting? To some, the social role of creativity and its enduring contributions to culture beyond economics needs no further advocacy. But when the EU allocates a substantial sum of funding for guaranteeing bank loans to cultural operators as part of its policy to provide ‘cultural access’ as it did it in its 2014-2020 cultural programme, there is a need for a greater critique of what ‘real’ access is and where does it begin? These various initiatives, policy studies, research reports, and statistics needs to be tied together in a new way so that real support can be given to the teaching of creativity through arts and cultural education, and not just expecting the system to produce graduates who are creative. This is not to say there is nothing more to be said. Understanding that crossing disciplinary boundaries into the realm of interactive dispositions and intercultural processes involves more than being taught how to use concepts from pre-defined and structured theoretical, symbolic, and material artifacts. If new pedagogy is going to guide new worldviews, new working relationships and social enterprises, we need new structures that guide their development, step by step, and process by process through which the purpose of education and learning can be fundamentally refigured through creativity. Singapore has developed just such a comprehensive educational framework, with one of its six core competencies being creativity, innovation and enterprise (www.sp.edu.sg). As Jaros (2002)3 argues, it is the fragmentation of knowledge by a structural inequity in the knowledge-production system that needs to be recognized before knowledge-based economies can flourish for all. Thus, there are a number of unanswered questions about the educational reform for the knowledge-based economy that require actions from both the policy side and investments in their realization. On the delivery side, we have to clarify, formalize, and make more specific the structural inequality in the knowledge-production system with new teaching and assessment practices that diversifies forms and structures of knowing and their various languages of enactment as aspects of a culture of creativity and not just literacies or the subject matter of art. On the conceptual side, both top-down and bottom up methods of curriculum design are problematic. In the case of traditional programs of instruction, they remain buried

3 These next two paragraphs were written by Dr. Milan Jaros from the Center for Research in Knowledge, Science & Society, Department of Physics at Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. Dr. Jaros contributed this unpublished text as a part of a proposed EU Framework project to examine how cultural identities are constructed and function through diversity, media, and social discourses.

under ‘established’ theories of social and scientific developments and a structure of education slow to transitition. Jaros (2002) asks, “What is it that drives the current social and technological practices? What new ways of ordering and specificity of thought - such as those studied in the learning process – do current material exchanges impose and how do such “ways of thinking” find their place in the course of instruction? Transforming instructional design systems equally depends on understanding that the interpersonal aspects of cognitive development have an intra-psychic dimension and must be attended to neurosemiotically and not just empirically (Favareau, 2002). We can look internationally for new models, approaches, and strategies in the cultural sector itself such as ACVIC in Barcelona, Spain (acvic.org), that move the field of arts and cultural education, scholarship, and authorship into new realms of social pedagogy. Pedagogically, we can look to how creativity is currently being taught through Singapore’s Ministry of Education with an integrative framework Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO), initially developed by MIT and integrated with design thinking. The framework is currently under implementation in Singapore’s educational systems in order to strengthen the creativity, innovation and enterprise dispositions of students at all levels (www.sp.edu.sg). Thus, the role and function of creativity in the overall educational system can be fundamentally re-formulated through models and frameworks. To accommodate the contemporary spatial context of creativity, its various skill sets need to be defined and examined beyond psychological or behaviorially based theories and research paradigms. Teaching creativity as a discipline involves engaging students in process-based forms of knowing that are already emerging. Creating the networks that tie public and private investments together into functional productivity for the new systems of formation in arts and cultural realms needs visionary cultural policies, using international research studies and their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS Benjamin drew upon the development of a self-determined, autonomous being, proposed as the Lockean individual, who was already correlated to economic interests through analogies of proprietorship over one’s own person. (Cummings 2009). In policy and in funding, there is a need to dissolve this direct correlation between the individual and economics in order to develop new narratives and their epistemologies about the creative capacitation upon which culture and innovation are based. In doing so, policy and investment can be directed to realizing the social pedagogy of cultural development, recognizing its strong foundation through arts and cultural education in schools. If the discipline of arts and cultural education can redefine its image of itself through the development of creativity, its multiple forms of visual knowledge and literacies can continue to contribute to the formation of cultural heritage and artistic knowledge in service to a fundamental reformation of schooling itself. But if cultural knowledge has been narrowly defined to areas of the fine arts and anthropology, which are already neglected in schools, will it be economics that pulls schools back across their own knowledge gap looking to arts and cultural education for a new integrative praxis and not just new knowledge? As public schools around

the world succumb to the pressure to train young people for the sector needs of global entrepreneurs and technological industrials, the arts and cultural realm has more importance to education, not less. Or will the unsustainable models from current business paradigms ensure that cultural agents and their enterprises are still narrowly defined and stay marginalized in both education, cultural policy and practice? Puncturing the mystification of even our own rhetoric requires a critique of how knowledge functions without conscience. Collectively we must look at what the evidence from what our current knowledge systems and societies have produced: a global system borrowing more than one billion euros a day to sustain its dependencies, dumping toxic waste into the worlds’ water systems and destroying the planet’s living ecosystems without nurturing their sustainability. We do not need more of what brought this knowledge into form. We need creative new discourses from those who have been excluded from both the dialogue and the profits to help us make connections to what is already known so that something new and as yet unimagined, can still be conceived of and born. We need to create a culture of creativity that will interact across disciplinary dividing lines to face a crisis that is not just economic or social, but is fundamentally one of the lack of creativity, a failure of consciousness itself. On the other hand, the current malaise in the world is not the fault of education, capitalism, or economics. Neither can the state of the world be obscured by promoting hegemonic discourses valorizing scientific progress through the development of new technologies and new knowledge without recognizing the cultural life through which societies develop. Our future cannot be addressed by knowledge alone but by shifting our relationship to meaning-making processes and becoming responsible for the profound importance of nurturing our relationships not just to knowledge but also to each other. When Benjamin brought his methodology into discourse, like the angel of history he foretold of economics of unimagined catastrophes, a future now past. As the 2010 and ongoing BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated, in spite of the impact of the world’s largest ecological disaster, the question of how to creatively solve the problem remains beyond the know-how of the company and the worlds’ experts themselves. Knowledge, economics, and technology alone have failed to produce this formidable and urgent task. Is it then sufficient and even intelligent to support the generative processes of creativity within the structures of the current educational system from which the world’s current enterprises develop and reproduce? Creating sustainable practices that respect the development of an interconnected, world community and the environments of which we are all a part needs the wisdom of a creative capacitation. If we are to truly change our commitments to what learning is for and why, it will not be to put knowledge or intelligence to better use but to epistemologically recognize that we are all here, sharing this fragile planet together, trying to find creative solutions to balance between material science and the culture of our lives. Preparing for future societies today lies within our potential to use new media platforms for a different kind of knowing through the culture of spatial models where relationships to

former boundaries of materialized embodiment can be unframed and reformed through new languages, some of which unspoken and unseen, can only be felt. Educational systems and policies supporting knowledge-based economies can attend to the development and funding of the creative industry through an integrated approach for the teaching and learning of arts and cultural education as a component of all forms of knowing. Instead of innovation, however, arts and culture are in a state of uncertainty, what happens when organizations and institutions are systematically defunded and the work of cultural operators marginalized. Instead of knowledge per se, our educational practices need to develop creativity as a field of study and research, not just creative thinking, that functions not solely for economics but through the economy of social relationships and the synergy of imagination. Knowledge is not just for economic development; it is for community development as well. The hope for systemic transformation lies within the imaginative potential of schools to integrate and use different kinds of models and their paradigms in service of creative knowledge production, not only for the benefit of entrepreneurs but for the creative benefit of all. The inclusion of adequately funded programs for the development of creative competencies and visual literacies through arts and cultural education is essential to this reform. The question remains, how can creative and cultural knowledge be integrated and taught through instructional practice in schools and contribute not just knowledge production but to community development and innovation itself. Acknowledging that creativity can be taught opens the possibility for integrating social competencies from creative activities across schooling practices and subjects. With a chronic and continual disinvestment of cultural arts education in many national educational budgets for more than forty years and seemingly more to come, should the discipline’s own slogan be ‘teach creativity, not art’?

References: Abbott, J., & Ryan, T. (1999, November). Constructing Knowledge, Reconstructing

Schooling [Electronic Version]. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 66-9. Atkinson, D. (February 2006). School Art Education: Mourning the Past and Opening

a Future. International Journal of Art and Design Education, (25)1, 16-27. Bamford, A. (2006). The WOW Factor: Global Research Compendium on the Impact

of the Arts in Education. New York: Waxmann Münster. Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a System. London and New York: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1998). On Creativity (ed. L. Nichol.). London and New York: Routledge Chapman, L. H. (2003). Studies of the Mass Arts. Studies in Art Education, 44(3),

230-245. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational

Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.

Cultuurnetwerk Nederland. (2002). Arts and Culture in Education: Policy and Practice in Europe. [Conference Results]. A Must or A-Muse. Utrecht: Cultuurnetwerk Nederland.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Duncum, P. (2001, June 10). Theoretical Foundations for an Art Education of Global Culture and Principles for Classroom Practice. [Electronic Version] International Journal of Education & the Arts, 2(3), 1-11.

European Commission Green Paper (2010) Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries. Brussels: COM(2010) 183, pp. 1-20. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/greenpaper_creative_industries_en.pdf

KEA European Affairs (2006). The Economy of Culture in Europe. Study prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture. http://www.keanet.eu/ecoculture/studynew.pdf

Favareau, D. (2002). Constructing Representema: On the Neurosemiotics of Self. S.E.E.D. (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy and Development) 2(4), 3-24. Retrieved June 4, 2003, from http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol2-4/favareau.pdf

Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M. and Christoff, K. (2011). Evaluative and generative modes of thought during the creative process. Online: NeuroImage 59 (2012) 1783–1794. http://www.christofflab.ca/pdfs/Ellamil_2012_NeuroImage.pdf

Finke, R. A. (1996). Imagery, Creativity and Emergent structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 381-393.

Fulková, M., Straker, A., and Jaros, M. (February, 2004). The Empirical Spectator

and Gallery Education. International Journal of Art and Design Education 23 (1), 4-15.

Fulková, M. & Tipton, T. (forthcoming 2010). Diversifying Discourse: The Influence of Visual Culture in the Perception and Creation of Art in School-Aged Children. In Faulkner, D. & Coates, E., ( Eds.) Expressive Nature of Creativity in Childhood. London: Routledge.

Fulková, M., and Tipton, T. (2008) A (Con)text for New Discourse as Semiotic Praxis. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 27 (1), pp. 27-42.

Gardner, H. (1990). Art education and human development. Los Angeles: Getty Education Institute for the Arts.

Giles, D. (2003) Media Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hayles, N.K. (2003) Virtual bodies and flickering signifiers, in A. Jones (ed),

Feminism and Visual Culture Reader; pp. 497-506. London: Routledge. Hernández, F. (2000). Educación y Cultural Visual. Barcelona: Octaedro.

Jácomo, A. (2012). Cultural and Creative Sector in Portugal: An Overview. Jaros, M. (2003) Onto-Poetic Signatures of Mathematical Analogy in Arts and Literature. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts, Archive; 4 (2), July 2003.

Accessed September 14, 2007 from http://blackboard.lincoln.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/users/dmeyerdinkgrafe/archive/jaros.html

Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press. Lederach, J.P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace.

New York: Oxford University Press. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. D.

Cartwright (Ed). New York: Harper. Luhman, N. (1999) Paradigm Lost: Über die ethische Reflexion der Moral. Frankfurt

a.M.: Suhrkampf Verlag, Czech edition: Láska jako vášeň. Paradigm lost. (Transl. Petříček, M., 2002) Praha: Prostor.

Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Matthews, J. (2003 2nd edn) Drawing and Painting. Children and Visual

Representation. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Max-Neef, M. (1992), Development and Human Needs, in Real-life Economics:

Understanding Wealth Creation, [ed. Paul Ekins and Manfred Max-Neef], London and NY: Routledge, 197-213. http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/general/resources/2007-manfred-max-neef-fundamental-human-needs.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2011.

National Arts Education Association (1994). National Visual Arts Standards. Reston, VA: NAEA. http://www.arteducators.org/store/NAEA_Natl_Visual_Standards1.pdf

Perkins, D. N. (1981). The Mind's Best Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Rodowick, D. (2001). Reading the figural, or, philosophy after the new media, (p. 2-

14). Durham: Duke University Press. Smith-Shank, D. (Ed). (2004). Semiotics and visual culture: Sights, signs, and

significance. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Smith-Shank, D.L. (1995). Semiotic pedagogy and art education. [Electronic

Version]. Studies in Art Education, 36(4), Summer 1995 Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Tipton, T. (2008) Teaching Visual Culture Through Semiosis: Transforming

Postmodern Paradigms in Art Education. Dissertation. Charles University in Prague.

Tipton, T. (2007). „Redefining Inclusion: Bringing Dialogic Practice into Programs for Gallery and Museum Education”. Aktuání otázky zprostředkování umění Teorie a praxe galerijní pedagogiky, vyzuální kultura a výtvarná výchova. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, Pedagogická Fakulta, Katedra výtvarné výchovy.

UNESCO Culture Sector (2000), World Culture Report 2000: Cultural diversity, conflict and pluralism. Paris: UNESCO Publishing (No. 2000-120). [Electronic Version] www.unesco.org/bpi/WCR2000.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., Finke, R.A. (1999) Creative Cognition: Handbook of Creativity. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press

Ward, T. B. (2007) Creative Cognition as A Window on Creativity. Methods 42, 28-37

Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality (pp.146-9). Boston: Shambala.

Wilson, N. (August 2010). Social creativity: re-qualifying the creative economy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3) 367-381.