Letting Go to Create-Nurturing Freedom and Curiosity in Textiles
As an HPL on the BA Textiles course, my teaching is often structured due to time constraints and the required outcomes of the unit. The sessions I lead, particularly those taught by technicians, focus on the ‘correct way’ to achieve a specific result. However, I aimed to create a session that fostered curiosity and play, allowing students to gain a deeper understanding of the materials through hands-on experience. The atmosphere that emerged was remarkable, with one student commenting that “it quickly became meditative.” This feedback made me reflect on how the process itself, rather than the outcome, could encourage learning and creativity. The pieces created in a short time were impressive and revealed much about the students. It’s often hard to ‘let go’ as creatives, as there’s a tendency to pressure ourselves to create something that looks good or has an aesthetic purpose. One student remarked, “it was challenging to be so free,” which pointed to how difficult it can be to relinquish control and simply engage with the materials.
The feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with students noting that the session “encouraged thinking and concept development through doing.” Many appreciated the lack of pressure to follow a specific method. However, I did feel at times that I wasn’t giving enough input. One student suggested that I could have provided more ‘focus,’ but I felt that the purpose was to allow students to experiment freely. I believe that play and creative freedom are crucial to nurturing the individual creative voice. As Robinson (2009) notes, “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original,” which reflects the importance of embracing experimentation without fear of failure. The challenge, I’ve found, is that some students lack confidence in decision-making, often expecting the tutor to provide direction. This is where I see the importance of adopting a more facilitative role, guiding students to make their own choices and develop their own creative language.
I believe some tutors are too quick to offer opinions, whereas I prefer to nurture students’ independence in making choices. The role of the tutor, as Sawyer (2006) suggests, is not to provide the answers but to “help students think creatively for themselves.” This resonated with my approach and confirmed the value of creating an environment where students feel empowered to engage with the materials and trust their instincts.
Despite feeling that the unit structure limits how much freedom I can incorporate, I plan to suggest incorporating elements of this ‘playful’ approach, especially in the areas students find intimidating, such as using knitting machines. Many students begin these sessions feeling stressed, so creating a space for experimentation could alleviate their anxiety and enhance their creative confidence.
Participating in the micro teaching sessions was an eye-opening experience. Each participant brought unique approaches to teaching, and I found myself inspired by their thought processes and creativity. The session on ’empathy in objects’ particularly resonated with me, as it’s a concept I often engage with in my own practice. I took something valuable from each micro teaching session and feel fortunate to have been a part of it. Moving forward, I aim to implement more play-based, process-focused activities that allow students to explore without fear of failure, fostering a more supportive and creative environment.
References
– Robinson, K. (2009). ‘The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything’. New York: Viking.
– Sawyer, R. K. (2006). ‘Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation’. Oxford University Press.
– Vygotsky, L. (1978). ‘Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes’. Harvard University Press.