Sci-Art Lab Workshop: 31st August - 1st September 2005
Creativity, Performance and the Brain
Border Crossings
During this two-day workshop, Michael Walling (Artistic Director: Border Crossings)
and Paul Howard-Jones (Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol) worked
with three actors (Sophie Hobson, Jonathan Lisle and Clêre Stephens) to explore creative
processes as they relate to neuroscience and to performance. Jeff Teare was also present
for the Theatre of Science, and contributed to the workshop as both actor and dramaturg.
The aims of the workshop were:
to explore a scientific model for the creative process
to research a devised play on the subject of creativity, performance and the brain
The workshop began with Michael leading the actors through a number of creative
exercises which might be employed as starting points in a creative devising process. In
most cases, a stimulus was provided to set the Exercise going (these were variously
pictures, words, lines of dialogue and objects). In each case, the stimuli were selected
with a view to scenes emerging which might be relevant to the themes of the workshop,
but there was considerable freedom given to the actors, as is common in such processes.
It was discussed how models of creativity from cognitive science involve us moving
backwards and forwards along a continuum of focus. At one end we are unfocused and
generative of ideas, at the other end we examine initial material, and evaluate the ideas
we generate, in a focused, controlled and analytical manner1.
In response to these exercises, Paul proposed an analogy between the processes that take
place in a rehearsal room during devising, and the workings of the brain itself. In
particular, the level of control exercised by the director was felt to be significant. In
creative processes, the selective resignation of control appears to be important. In a
cognitive model of the brain, ideas from an effectively infinite reservoir of past
experience (Long-term memory - LTM) can enter a space of limited capacity (Working
Memory - WM) where they can be combined to make new concepts for exploration. In
theatrical WM space, ideas enter, temporarily co-exist and, sometimes, combine to create
wholly novel outcomes. Just as a cognitive model provides insights about fostering
creativity within an individual, an exciting possibility would be to apply it analogously to
the theatrical space. It was suggested that focus might be changed through tension.
Tension has been shown in laboratory studies to influence focus, and can thus be
expected to influence where we are on the continuum of focus - i.e. whether we generate
or evaluate. Tension, we proposed, might thus be useful in positioning individuals at
different points along the continuum of focus. One example where this already occurs is
the ever-tightening schedule that can encourage an artist to generally move from an
unfocused but highly generative mind state to one that requires a critical sorting and
evaluation of ideas that have been generated - as the deadline looms closer.
We set about varying the degree to which actors were focusing by encouraging them to
work from different states of tension. When two actors were both in low states of tension,
they were highly generative but the dialogue created was discursive and strangely
disconnected, as when an individual approaches a dream state. It was novel but
meandered around with little meaning or form. When they were both in higher states of
tension, they were both highly focused but the dialogue became fixated, much as tension
fixates an individual’s thinking. The actors tended to towards a stalemate of opposition
and conflict. However, as predicted, when there was a mismatch in tension the dialogue
became much more interesting and progressed in unexpected directions but with a more
integrated and emergent narrative. The low tension actor would often stimulate the
dialogue novel ideas, while the more tense actor would selectively draw upon those cues
and attempt to integrate them into their focus. In short, with the two actors representing
the two mind states required for creativity, the creative process took on an explicit form
expressed in the improvised dialogue. So a model of creativity within an individual can
be useful in devising and understanding social processes of creativity in a physical space.
Another interesting aspect was the extent to which the audience responded to the
mismatch of tension on the stage. There was a sense in which those observing developed
different sub-texts in their heads about what was going on. We became divided, and
creative, within and between ourselves about who we were relating to and what was
going on. The improvisation drew the observer in and engaged their own interpretative
creativity.
To explain this latter result, PHJ discussed how mirror neurons in our brains allow
unconscious engagement with the unconscious (and conscious) mind states of others2.
These special neurons have been described as facilitating a type of mind reading through
physical encounters with other human beings3. (In evolutionary terms, they have allowed
us to predict the actions of others - very useful in the potentially hostile environments of
prehistory). This emerging knowledge from neuroscience highlights why theatre can
create a greater impact than other media. In this example, watching the mismatch of
tension engaged the observers themselves in switching automatically and uncontrollably
between two mind states at either end of their continuum of focus, as they put themselves
into the mind of either actor. This probably helped facilitate their own interpretative
creativity as they moved from a state in which they generated to a state in which they
evaluated.
This led on to a series of improvisations around ideas of control, as it relates to the
relationship between directors and performers; and brain disorders which involve a lack
of verbal inhibition4 - effectively a loss of control over inhibiting and expressing ideas.
This improvisation again, as in the state of low tension, held the actor at that point on
their continuum of focus where they were very unfocused and highly generative.
However, this time it was not produced by reducing tension and they were, as in the
disorder, required to maintain it irrespective of the dynamics within or around them. The
actor described the experience as liberating, hard work, but also slightly risky. As
expected from our understanding of this mind state, there was no control over what
comes out! From the observers point of view it was disorientating. The improvisation had
a poetic “flow of consciousness” feel to it, and a “think aloud” nature that left the actor
exposed and vulnerable. This idea - that a commitment to expressive and creative poetry
could be a pathology that left one vulnerable - was interesting. It is indeed true that
sufferers of verbal disinhibition (such as following subarachnoid hemorrhage) are
ambivalent about the desirability of their own condition - they seem aware that their
creativity both imprisons
them in chaos and liberates them through expression. Some report using art as a way of
gaining control, as if trying to focus the constant generation of ideas into an integrated
meaningful outcome is part of their attempt to focus generally.
A further theatrical investigation of our relationship with our own brain involved
exercises exploring our ideas of truth and fiction. A common drama exercise, in which an
listener challenges a storyteller by saying “that’s a lie” - so forcing a shift in the story,
was adapted for this investigation. Here, one performer told a story, while another
challenged them to objectify their perceptions on scientific grounds, suggesting that their
neurobiology may have altered perceptions. For example, “Was your emotional reaction
due to low levels of serotonin?” “Was your excitement caused by high levels of adrenalin
associated with other, quite unrelated, issues?”. “Was your attraction caused by dopamine
released by sexual pleasure?” In this way, a scene developed which illustrated how our
perception of objective truth can be mediated by our own biological constructions,
including those relating to our brain. The interesting thing here is that the character whose
identity was shifting and disintegrating in the face of scientific knowledge was able to
remain credible. There were resonances with our own experience as modern human
beings whose behaviour is being “explained” more and more. Are our identities becoming
increasingly plastic in the face of what experts choose to objectify? At what point, we
wondered, do we decide that some aspect of our behaviour is not neurochemistry but
indisputably us? Who is in control?
Continuing the theme of disorder and control, we set up a sequence of improvisations
based on the news story of the “piano man”, in which somebody was found on a beach
with no apparent language or identity. Various different acting approaches were
employed to explore what might be going on in such a brain. The role of the person
finding them was also felt to be very interesting: since the natural tendency is to “create”
a personality and a narrative for them. This resonated with the previous exercises in
which the observer automatically has to create a narrative for what they see. It appears
that creativity is a common function in our daily lives, enabling us to “read” others. There
seems 2 types of control, hwoever. One in which we are focused and analytical when we
are one end of our contimuum of focus, but the other that allows us at will to enter a
generative and associative state. Perhaps freedom, inner freedom, rests to a large extent
upon this second type.
The story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was introduced as a fictional approach to brain
disorders and controlled, and uncontrolled, movement between mental states. This led to
a number of improvisations around the creative process, with the actors playing
performers and directors in a stage or film adaptation of this book. It was noted how
control of the creative process was always the key issue in these improvisations, and how
that carried political and economic meaning as well as reflecting the cognitive processes
of the brain itself.
A prop brain (of realistic size and weight) was used as a stimulus for improvised scenes.
We discussed the ways in which the natural response to a brain is to endow it with
personality. This issue again relates to performance, since identity (and the loss of, or
creation of, identity) is central to performance. Paul raised a number of key issues around
what identity is, and whether it is in fact another narrative that we create: a theoretical
concept like the soul or even the mind (which in cognitive neuroscience is considered
such). This was again related to the Jekyll-Hyde paradigm: and it was suggested that
acting, including our everyday imporvisations in different situations, might be modelled
as a psychological process of constant self-creation and recreation.
The workshop culminated in a mock-up of an experiment which we hope we will be able
to conduct in the next stage of this process; with the actors performing creative tasks
(including being deliberately non-creative) while placed in a brain scanner. This activity
was a replication of a preliminary experiment that led on to actual brain scanning. This
initial work supports the above discussion and implicates an area of the brain associated
with high-level conscious control in creative story telling, as well as unconscious
processes (such as retrieval of remotely associated material from memory)5.
The workshop suggested powerful lines of research for both the artistic and scientific
sides of the project. The next stage will be a longer workshop, during which a number of
creative exercises will be monitored under scientific experimental conditions, allowing
for an analysis of the process in neurological terms. Experience of this scientific
experimentation will also contribute to the improvisations themselves. The devising
process will proceed alongside these experiments, responding to the initial ideas
generated in this first workshop, and to the ongoing experimental process. This will lead
on to the creation of a play around the themes of the workshop.
References
1] Howard-Jones, P.A. and Murray, S. (2003) Ideational productivity, focus of attention
and context. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 153-166.
2] Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2002). From mirror neurons to
imitation: Facts and speculations. In A.N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds), The imitative
mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases. Cambridge studies in cognitive
perceptual development (pp 247-266). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3] Meltzoff, A.N. (2002). Elements of a developmental theory of imitation. In A.N.
Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain
bases. Cambridge studies in cognitive perceptual development (pp. 19-41). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
4] Lythgoe MFX, Pollak TA, Kalmus M, de Haan M, Chong WK Obsessive, prolific
artistic output following subarachnoid hemorrhage , NEUROLOGY 64 (2): 397-398 JAN
25 2005
5] Howard-Jones, P.A., Blakemore, S.J., Samuel, E., Summers, I.R., Claxton, G. (2005)
Semantic divergence and creative story generation: an fMRI investigation, Cognitive
Brain Research, 25, 240-250