The Genius And The Child (An Essay)

The Genius and the Child (An Essay)
'Genius is measured in moments.' Precious too few moments. But I believe everyone has, or has had those moments: some have them in abundance, while some...well, you wouldn't notice. But please don't misunderstand me... I believe 'all' children, born without handicap, are intelligent: they all manage to learn a very complex language – with all those intricate grammatical rules – often before they are even five years old. This task for many grown ups is not attainable. All children are also imaginative and creative. And all children have a love of narrative, dance, song, and general knowledge. And it is on very firm ground that we associate the genius – the proverbial dreamer – with the playfulness of the child. But do we see the genius in the child? I believe we do. And I wish here to, at least, raise some questions which have occurred to me over many years.
If 'we' are open to it, I think, we can see in all child's-play a kind of no-bounds-level of genius, full of dynamic fantasy. In the same way one must also be open to that, much rarer, adult reason-based-genius, to be able to recognise the childlike, inventive playfulness in art, philosophy, and science, etc. I agree with Picasso when he says: 'Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.'
The comparison between genius and child, if judged valid, raises questions such as: what happens to the intelligent, imaginative, creative child as it matures? What is happening in the child's developing mind, or even the physical brain? What is education? Or what should it be?
Or should we ask: Is it our failure to recognise and appreciate the ingenuity that is displayed in children's play? How little access – notwithstanding the vagueness of memories of our own childhood mental processes – we have to a child's inner-consciousness – their day-dreams!
Science might say: the child's mind is very plastic and flexible, which explains how a child can learn even more than one language at the same time... It absorbs like a sponge. But, later, as the child matures it becomes more fixed. But what does that say about adults (some in advanced age) who also find it seemly easy to learn multiple languages? Is it that they too, still have plastic, flexible brains? And if so, how is flexibility maintained only in the few?
Another view is that the child, naturally, as it gets older, expands its attention to new and larger areas of life, that require less imagination, and more functional thinking. That the learning is spread thinner. What some people would call becoming practical, and others, just growing up. Initially this seems an attractive explanation, but it also jumps to a conclusion. And when seen in more light, one can determine a process, rather than a natural development. It is self evident that the more experience, information, and knowledge a child can obtain and retain, the more sophisticated the play is likely to become. And one look at a list of past genius' tells us even if the attention does 'expand' with maturity, it must not lessen in imaginative, or creative intensity, at any age. In some, the biggest breakthroughs were made in their advanced years. The list also shows that creativity can be brought to many, and almost any field, as in The Renaissance Man.
Other striking facts about our list of genius' are how many of them were autodidact: think Van Goth. And many also came from the lower classes, and received none, or very little formal education: think Dickens. And how many of them were probably told to 'get a proper job'. In many ways we seem to fail to recognise and appreciation the creative intelligence even of a genius?
Education systems have traditionally initiated children into learning with an emphasis on play. Only later – a matter of four or five years – this emphasis is completely abandoned. One must wonder why.... If after such a successful beginning should play, on a child reaching a certain age, suddenly be axed, and a seeming barrier against it erected. And isn't it on reaching this barrier, that quite a high percentage of children – and for no other apparent reason – begin having trouble – begin losing interest, and begin falling behind in a variety of subjects? And it is also at this point, or a little later, that educators deem it advantageous to introduce streaming. Couldn't this streaming be avoided, if play wasn't removed? Is there any logical reason why play and fun should not continue to be used throughout the whole learning process, even in subjects such as maths? Wouldn't rather the introducing of these subjects into play, be more effective?
Imagine the dismay when a child, who loves to lose itself in drawings of incredibly expressive, and drama-filled narratives, is suddenly restricted to, and judged by, the results of its rendering of the physical world in the form of still lives, and such. Yes, it is important to learn hand to eye coordination in art, but couldn't that wait? Isn't this limiting of the imagination a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? We remove an absorbed child from its experimental, urgent play, to take a controlled fun-less lesson. This must also transmit a very strong subliminal message to the child: this is serious, the other is not! Envisage taking a genius away from his urgent mindful play... At your own risk, I should think!
Do we really appreciate the potential usefulness of play in teaching? Play is self-evidently autodidact. To take this out of the process of learning is also to destroy the autonomy of the individual's motivation, which again is exactly one of the things we should be seeking to preserve. When a child is learning its own language, or languages, it doesn't take structured lessons. He or she is not forced to sit at a desk for six hours a day. But learns naturally in play, and from those around it.
Traditionally there has been two main systems of education; both very different, yet, both taught by the same rigid method. There is the ancient, so called rounded education of the Aristocracy, bestowed as if it were a mandate of heaven -- complete with an appreciation of all the Arts and Classics – deemed to cater to the mind, body, and soul. Well, it did at least have the child in mind. Compare this to the large state-systems. which were created to deal with the lower classes: for a long time refused, then begrudgingly given – little by little – each stage just enough to be useful. But useful to who? First the church, then the master of a trade, and then later the factory owner; but never the child.
Education now, it seems, is a free-for-all; everyone for themselves – get what you can, get what you need, get what it takes. It has become information based, and almost solely an aid to a job, or purely for the accumulation of wealth and power.
Could it be that the 'elevated state of mind', we call genius, is in fact, the natural full involvement of mind with the whole of life; a free-play association of ideas, that left to itself has the ability to create flexible thought patterns, rather than inflexible mind sets. Could it be our method of education – in its drive to instil knowledge – is for a large percentage of children a turn off? How often we see children, who excel in one or two subjects, yet are left behind in the slow stream, because of an emphasis education places on mathematical based subjects.
Isn't the genius the one who has managed to learn, and yet keep the mind free, in spite of the rigid teaching practices? Which surprise, surprise, normally turns-out very few geniuses, many inflexible thinkers, and rather a lot of complete failures. And occasionally, and unwittingly – as a kind of by-product – contributes to the creating of a handful of autodidactic outsiders. Many of our geniuses were outsiders. The discussion on 'The Outsider' is still just that. We devote little time and space to this complex subject.
Throughout history, while the masses of people were getting on with the practical side of life, it was mostly the free thinkers who were expanding human thought and perception. There is it seems in the of human consciousness something that rebels against too much symmetry. It sees it as artificial, and not true to observation of life. And the mind does not just seek perfection; it is far more abstract than that... The mind has many attributes, and is capable of many possible perceptions, and kinds of thought. Perceiving is in the brain, not in the sense organs. This is best displayed in the history of art, which has, over the centuries, rightly identified and exhibited, via the so called 'Art Movements', many new ways of perceiving the world. The mind is as much attracted to broken symmetry, as to symmetry... One instantly notices, and is attracted to that single black stone on that beach of white ones.
We are beings well capable of flexible, free objectified perception. And this is also observed in all children. The child is never stopped – its play transcends all with ease. It needs little, or no props: a cardboard box is a ship, a house, a car, a spaceship – you name it! Perception is free.
Play and fun is the great motivator, it is liberating, and can also become the form. It has only the limits which we ourselves impose. It reminds me of Twain's Tom Sawyer; who when he was made to paint the garden-fence, cleverly persuaded his friends he is doing it just for fun. Soon they were all helping, and were, in fact, having fun... Doing something freely and for enjoyment does make a difference. How many grown-ups are afraid, or ashamed to dance? Yet they all danced freely as children, they thought nothing of it. But then, it wasn't solely for the viewer that they danced: they danced first for the joy of it.
If you sit and watch a couple of kids at play, you will soon be struck by the creativity. The play is complete with dialogues, discussions, amazing twists in plot, sound affects, and even a musical soundtrack. If all this cannot be put to better use, then it says far, far more about our lack of imagination. It seems to me we should allow children to be stimulated – full stop.

Berlin Feb. 2012