Creativity is a well-trodden word in the sport sciences. The aim of my chapter, however, is to shift focus from creativity, to creating. More than a matter of semantics, this shift encourages us to move from a logic fixated upon outcomes and the innovative ideas purported to precede them, to a logic that appreciates processes which are always unfolding. To advance this shift, I draw on three threads germane to this processual logic. First, creating is generative: it carries on through experiences undergone in the doing of our lives. Second, creating is temporal: it flows along in duration. Third, creating is relational: it is attuned and responsive to that which surrounds us. Although intending to advance this shift, my aim is as much speculative as it is certain. This should not be construed as a weakness, but as an embodiment of the chapter’s very ethos. For in this speculation, I hope to stir a conversation that invites you, the reader, to join—thereby taking this chapter from the confines of the book in which it is enclosed, and casting it out into the tangle of the world. Would this, then, still be my chapter? Or, would it be our-chaptering?

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

From Creativity to Creating: Thinking with a Processual Logic

  • Carl T. Woods

摘要

Creativity is a well-trodden word in the sport sciences. The aim of my chapter, however, is to shift focus from creativity, to creating. More than a matter of semantics, this shift encourages us to move from a logic fixated upon outcomes and the innovative ideas purported to precede them, to a logic that appreciates processes which are always unfolding. To advance this shift, I draw on three threads germane to this processual logic. First, creating is generative: it carries on through experiences undergone in the doing of our lives. Second, creating is temporal: it flows along in duration. Third, creating is relational: it is attuned and responsive to that which surrounds us. Although intending to advance this shift, my aim is as much speculative as it is certain. This should not be construed as a weakness, but as an embodiment of the chapter’s very ethos. For in this speculation, I hope to stir a conversation that invites you, the reader, to join—thereby taking this chapter from the confines of the book in which it is enclosed, and casting it out into the tangle of the world. Would this, then, still be my chapter? Or, would it be our-chaptering?