COLLABORATION AS CREATIVITY

Creativity as a phenomenon is often considered a solitary activity, and much of creativity research in the past has focussed on ‘product’ creativity where objectification is key. In western music this has led to the examination of musical scores and the creative processes involved in their production. The examination of the creative processes of performance is more readily identified with ethnomusicological study. Sawyer has argued that:

Musicologists justified their neglect of ‘performance practice’ by assuming that it was a relatively trivial task, primarily a technical one with little intellectual interest–the performer reads the score and translates it into the finger movements, breathing, or bowing necessary to generate the sounds. They didn’t think performance was important because they were members of a culture whose musical tradition didn’t value performance.

Sawyer, 2003: 16.

Such imbalanced reporting of creative processes has done a disservice to performers and performance and is currently in the process of being revised and investigated, especially in the study of performance as research. The effect of this neglect is far-reaching, with implied creative hierarchies consequently ignoring the creativity of performers. The study of collective or group creativity has also been neglected. This is also understandable given the difficulties in examining and finding appropriate methodologies for dynamic social interactions such as collaboration. Fortunately group creativity, and collaboration as creative process, is increasingly being researched, and collaborative teams of musicians and psychologists (illustrating their own disquisition by practice) are leading much of the investigation.

Collaborative working is a dynamic creative process as working together (especially in the arts) produces sparks that fan the flames of each individual’s creative spirit. Miell and Littleton have proposed that creativity is ‘fundamentally and necessarily social’, and that it can bring new and important insights to our understanding of both the processes and outcomes of creative activities (Miell and Littleton, 2004: 1). Artists in various forms have long since understood these assertions. Especially in opera and ballet where significant collaborative effort between a range of artists including composers, choreographers, and lighting directors is required if artistic cohesion is to be achieved. In theatre even the reclusive Samuel Beckett engaged in a variety of influential artistic relationships that not only enriched his ‘personal life but also informed his work as a writer and dramatist’ (Keaveney, 2006: 7). Perhaps the most intriguing of these relationships involved the devising of ‘artist’s books’ (livres d’artiste) where Beckett engaged in a direct creative process with a variety of artists including Jasper Johns, Louis le Brocquy and Max Ernst.

In music this collective approach to creativity is the modus operandi in a variety of genres, but it is less favoured historically in classical music. This is changing and is likely to change further as composers and performers realize the potential inherent in collaborative creativity. Nobody is entirely original or completely isolated from their cultural context; and the act of working together provokes, prompts, suggests, threatens, excites and subordinates ego, effectively connecting us to a wider world of knowledge and experience. In this study the ongoing dialogues developed a framework, not alone for the emergent interactions, but also to suggest paths for future collaborations. These nascent collaborations were suggestive of the potential for interactional synchrony within contemporary music.

6.4.1 Creative Synergies

In the final meeting with Guilfoyle we discussed his piece and the process engendered. I played through the piece and afterwards he observed:

When I listen to you, the process is no different to when I was composing, because when I’m composing I’m listening to it being performed. I’m listening to an imaginary you performing; when I hear you now, I hear as the listener [hears it].

Guilfoyle’s implication that composition and performance are integrated processes is mirrored in Foss’s comments from 1963: ‘the division of what is an indivisible whole, “music”, into two separated processes: composition (the making of the music) and performance (the making of music) is a division as nonsensical as the division of form and content’ (quoted in Schwartz and Childs, 1998: 326). Collaborating on the development of the new works for this research brought these related creative processes closer together. Bennett discussed how the meetings influenced his work and how collaborating was part of the creative process. The process ‘was influenced by doing stuff together and talking about music…it gave me the confidence to leave a lot to you based on my ideas, it also gave you a lot more creative licence’ (Roe-Bennett, 2005: Meeting 3). With Canning, whilst the process itself did not produce a piece for performance, he referred (with some percipience) to collaboration as being a more interesting process, especially as ‘there doesn’t have to be a fixed result’ and this produces a more creative mindset (Roe-Canning, 2005: Meeting 1). Extensive experience in working with musicians provided the foundation for the collaboration with O’Leary. The new work created was developed substantially through collaborative creativity. The following two extracts provide an example of the integrative nature of the engagement:

JoL: [PR playing]…oh that’s lovely, I really like that. That’s what Ambrosini’s [Italian composer]

piece was like.

PR: All that sort of filigree…

JoL: So you’re just holding the right hand

PR: If you wanted to indicate that, what you could indicate is [demonstrates this writing on manuscript]…

JoL: So this is your left hand and this is the right hand [pointing to notated scheme indicated] PR: And then it sounds like this…simply taking off this key [demonstrates]

JoL: Only the top one!?

[Track 27]

Roe-O’Leary, 2005: Meeting 2

And also:

JoL: [listening to PR playing samples] Don’t know what that is but it’s nice…just play me the E again

so I can hear it.

PR: [plays]…[Jane sings along]

JoL: Try the lower [octave]

PR: [demonstrates this on the clarinet]…it goes right down to the low C.

JoL: I could when I’m thinking of it…write the piece and then we could figure out what to put in after. PR: [keeps on playing-demonstrating]

JoL: Yeh, that’s a nice one.

[Track 28]

Roe-O’Leary, 2005: Meeting 1

This flexibility of attitude and the ambiguity implied in O’Leary’s score provided a locus for collaborative creativity. Sharp and Lutz refer to synergistic collaborations being possible ‘when one artist follows on and thoughtfully responds to the completed work of another’, finding opportunities to augment or perhaps critically comment upon this work (Sharp and Lutz, 2004: 196).

6.4.2 Co-Construction as Mode

There is an inherent tension in collaborative creativity as identity is challenged and assumptions are confronted head-on. Thus, collaboration requires courage and trust as personal insecurities can arise when working in a joint context. Collaborations make you question why and how you do things, as identification with one’s own work becomes a shared perspective, with motivation, purpose and energy bolstered by mutual commitment. Canning referred to sharing perspectives as confronting boundaries, ‘like seeing how a choreographer works or how a performer approaches the music; probing to see how far a performer is willing to go’ (Roe-Canning, 2005: Meeting 1). Interpersonal challenges and connections can stimulate creative growth that would not be possible working individually. Moran and John-Steiner suggest that in collaborating we develop a ‘meaning-making system that is intersubjectively construed between collaborators’. In essence there are always at least three ‘players’: each collaborator and the relationship itself, developed from ‘true empathy’ where shared communication provokes associative creative thinking (Moran and John- Steiner, 2004: 14-15).

Working closely together on this project provided O’Leary with the opportunity to explore sonorities and in the process develop a new sound palette on which to base her compositional ideas. O’Leary also encouraged me to experiment

with imaginative ideas of sound production, with both of us developing new creative perspectives through joint working.

One of the major challenges of collaborative creativity is the issue of ownership of work. Moran and John-Steiner refer to identification with one’s work as being a powerful motivator in artistic work where ‘the desire for owning one’s efforts can become a source of conflict when apportioning credit’ (Moran and John-Steiner, 2004: 19). With this research issues of ownership were raised in discussion, but they were not of great significance in the context of these collaborations. However, if collaborative practice is to be developed to a more substantial level, it is likely that finding ways of apportioning creative effort would require negotiation. It is conceivable that contemporary music practice could be transformed if such integrative ways of working were found. New working processes could include joint composition, as happens in other disciplines. John-Steiner refers to the ‘co- construction of knowledge’ in the development of ‘integrative collaborations’, where the field of endeavour and the participants themselves are transformed. In classical music, however, the impermeability of traditional boundaries requires continued negotiation (John-Steiner, 2000: 74).