Definition of a genius.

Here is my thought on the matter.

Definition of a genius: a genius is someone who is only ever appreciated after their death.

Now, that is sad...for being too often true. What a society we humans have created.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Does originality exist?

I ask this question because I have noticed a curious phenomenon: some people make a point of claiming, online, that originality does not exist. I have seen this many times. Sometimes, they then go on to extol the virtues of finding ideas in the works of others. They seem to think that this is the only way to find ideas. Typically, they then generalize what they do – find ideas in others’ works – and state their strong belief, that that is what everyone does. Therefore, they conclude, originality does not exist. They even sometimes mock the idea of the concept, as if those who believe in originality are being naive or uninformed.

I find all this very odd. It is most obvious what is happening here. Those who do not believe in originality do not do so, precisely because they realize that they, themselves, are not original. They then, in a rather odd leap, conclude that since they are not original, and develop everything from borrowed ideas – that everyone else must do the same – hence their conclusion that originality does not exist. People see the world as they are themselves. Yet, the world is not like us. The world consists of billions of different people, each of whom is unlike us. It makes no sense to generalize across this mass of others, and believe – as they do – that everyone has the same process for creation.

I look at the world in a different way. I believe in originality because I have known the phenomenon personally, in my own life and in the lives of people known to me. I know original people. I see their thoughts and their works and know, for a fact, that they came from themselves. I know, too, however, that such people are a minority. Most people who “create” are actually DERIVING their works through imitation of others. So, some are original, but most are not.

It is a toxic belief, however, that people should think that originality does not exist. This prevents us from appreciating the original souls among us. Their works would tend to be dismissed as “plagiarized from sources unknown” – rather than actually created by an original spirit. That is a very sad and corrupting way to look at the world and work of creative people.

Luckily, it is fairly easy to recognize genuine creatives. They are driven from within, by ideas that bubble up in them; they have passion and drive – they speak in surprising ways and say things one has never heard before. So, too, is it easy to recognize the unoriginal derivers and imitators. They speak of their “influences”. They talk of the ideas they got from reading/listening/meeting/seeing others. Always are the ideas from without themselves...never do they appear within. They also tend to dismiss the originality of others, seemingly assuming them to be as they are: imitative. It doesn’t take long listening to and observing a “creative” person, to decide which of these two types they are from: those who create original works and those who echo, others.

The sad part about this is that true creators are vastly outnumbered by the imitators and derivers. This gives the incorrect impression to some, that to steal the thoughts of others, is the common procedure of all “creators”. It is not so. Genuine creators create, from their own thoughts and understandings of the world. However, those who talk loudest of their creations and are often the most famous for them, are, too often, of the thievish kind and simply echo the works of others, endlessly.

Originality does exist. It just doesn’t exist in those who claim it doesn’t exist. 

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

The secret of being good at Science.

Ainan is becoming pithy in his remarks, these days. He has a growing tendency to summarize his thought, in catchy sentences. I see this as an emergent writer, in him, expressing his customary thoughts, in more elegant ways.

A couple of weeks ago, he observed to me:

“In science, the answer is easy, it is the question that is hard.”

I thought this both truthful and well-expressed, for it embodied one of the secrets of being a good scientist: the truly rare ability is not to be able to answer questions put to you, but to be able to ask questions no-one else had thought of doing so. In short, Ainan was noting that the real genius of science, is in the question. Relatively few people understand this. In popular culture it is the kid who has all the answers, who is revered as a “genius”. What they don’t realize is that the real genius is the kid who asks questions no-one else had thought of.

I like the way Ainan is developing. In his early days it did seem that he might end up very focussed on one thing: Chemistry. I thought, at the time, that that would be rather limiting. Yet, now, it seems, he is developing more in the model of my own life: growing in many areas, at once and becoming distinctly multi-talented. This is much more healthy I feel. It will also give him many more options, in life, for what he might choose to do, professionally. I think this is likelier to lead to personal fulfilment, than only have one area to “choose” from.

Ainan’s remark calls to mind when he was between four and six. In this time, he was filled with questions – sometimes unanswerable ones. For me, this avalanche of insightful questions was an irrefutable indicator that a very special thinker was growing behind his curious eyes. As Ainan himself has now noted, it was his QUESTIONS, that I found most startling, not the fact that he was able to answer those put to him. Each question is a creative act, for it involves looking at the world and finding something missing: understanding of some aspect, or phenomenon. To ask the right questions, first one must be able to see the world as it is and note what cannot be immediately explained within common knowledge. In so doing, one finds questions that others had overlooked. Yet, the foundation of this is first to see the world truly as it is and not as it is supposed to be – and that is an art many never master. Perhaps some children are inherently good at it, not yet having been indoctrinated into a particular world view and so more able to see what is truly there and, therefore, to wonder about it, as it is and ask why it should be.

Perhaps to make a good scientist, one just has to preserve the child within and see all as it is, and not as common culture wishes it to be seen.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Who is significant in the modern world?

Today, by chance, I noticed something which gave me pause to reflect on what it means to be significant, as a person, in the modern world. I began to type a word on Google, that began with "LEO...". Immediately, Google guessed what I was going to type. I was appalled at its suggestions. Can you guess what I saw, without actually checking for yourself, first?

So, what do you think I saw?

Well, the first suggestion was Leonardo Dicaprio. The second was Leo Burnett. The third was Leonardo da Vinci. I found this ordering of choices unsettling, for many reasons.

What sort of world puts Leonardo da Vinci - perhaps the single most creative person ever to have lived - behind an actor and an advertising agency? Why are they ordered in such a way? Well, I assumed this must have something to do with their relative fame in the modern world. Perhaps, I thought, Leonardo Dicaprio gets more Internet searches than Leonardo da Vinci. Perhaps the world is not so aware of Leonardo da Vinci, as his modern namesake. So, I checked on Google Insights. Guess what I found?

Leonardo da Vinci is four times more famous than Leonardo Dicaprio when measured by Internet search density around the world - and infinitely more famous than Leo Burnett. The search bar for Leonardo da Vinci was four units long. The search bar for Leonardo Dicaprio was one unit long. The search bar for Leo Burnett was ZERO units long.

So, this presents a big puzzle. The world's Internet searchers are four times more interested in Leonardo da Vinci than in Leonardo Dicaprio - and vastly more interested in him, than in Leo Burnett, yet, still Google puts Leonardo da Vinci after the other two. There is something sad in this. One of the world's greatest geniuses overshadowed by a film star. It isn't right. I am left to wonder whether this ordering of search results is a function of a computer algorithm or hand ordering by a human. If it is a computer algorithm, is it biased towards more recent events? If it is a human is it overly impressed by fame and commerce? (Dicaprio and Burnett.)

Whether it is a human decision or a computer decision to place Leonardo da Vinci third in the list, the effect is the same: to judge genius as less significant than celebrity and commerce. So, our world seems to value (or those behind this ordering, anyway), familiarity and money, over intellectual and creative substance. Yet, this ignores the data found in Google insights - that the world's Internet searchers are four times more interested in Leonardo da Vinci, than in Leonardo Dicaprio.

My response to this is to propose a test, which I hope some distant readers, in future times, might be able to conduct. It is quite simple really. Leonardo da Vinci's time was about five hundred years ago. My question is this: will Leonardo Dicaprio and Leo Burnett be as famous in five hundred years time, as Leonardo da Vinci is, now? So, I invite my future readers in the twenty sixth century (if the Internet still exists and Blogger is still hosted), to Google (or the equivalent) "Leo..." and see what is suggested. Does it suggest Leonardo Dicaprio above Leo Burnett, above Leonardo da Vinci? Does it even suggest Leonardo Dicaprio at all? My guess is that Leonardo da Vinci will still be one of those suggested, but that the other two will have been replaced by new "Leos" of some kind. So, the present prominence of Leonardo Dicaprio over Leonardo da Vinci is likely to be a temporary phenomenon. Google is not measuring true worth by its search results. Were it doing so then Leonardo da Vinci would be the top result for Leos...and would be likely to stay that way, even in another five hundred years time.

Anyway, please conduct the test at the appropriate time. I may not be around to hear the results...but I can at least make the suggestion that you do so. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Genius and Obsession.

All genius is obsession, but not all obsession is genius.

It is typical that ordinary people, without any real distinguishing characteristics, like to criticize, even attack, those who seem “obsessed” for their very obsession. There is a perception, amongst ordinary people, that there is something wrong with being obsessed. I think this view comes from a complete failure to understand what obsession is, what it can do and how powerful it can be, for intellectual growth.

There has never been a genius, in history, without an element of obsession, in their character. Indeed, I am quite sure that it is impossible to be a genius, without also being obsessed. How else would a person spend years, sometimes decades, wrestling with a particular problem or set of problems, or writing a particular lengthy work, be it literary, musical, scientific or other academic area? Without the impetus of obsession with the subject matter, it is not possible to consider that the genius would ever do the work at all. Only obsession could propel the genius over every obstacle to overcome all that stood between them and The Answer.

Obsession, far from being something undesirable, or “mad” even, as many an ordinary person seems to consider it, is, in fact, key to all genius. Without obsession, there can be no genius, there would only ever be “talent” – and talent never changes the world, substantially.

Ainan is obsessed with science. It is something to which he returns, daily. This, to me, is a very good sign. It is a hint that he is likely to continue to develop his scientific interests, until he is fully equipped to create interesting scientific works. He has that inner spark of motivation towards his subject, which all geniuses need.

I, too, have a certain obsession towards the matters of my interest. Indeed, I could not, for instance, have maintained this blog for over five years, without a degree of it. So, obsession has proven a blessing for me too. In this case, I am focussed on understanding the childhood of my children, the nature of genius and what it means to be gifted in a world which is not. Without that inner focus, I would not have written so extensively, or at such length, about these interests. I would have been like most others are – I would have touched upon them, then moved on to other things. Yet, then I would have missed the deeper understandings I have come upon. I would have skated superficially over my subject matter and never really come to understand it. Obsession with the subject matter has propelled me to deeper insights and more complete expressions of those understandings.

Many years ago, when I was in my twenties, I spent five and a half years writing a book – in fact, one of the longest books written in any language, at any time. Now, without a degree of obsession with the act of writing, I could not possibly have written that book. Again, we see that to be truly creative, to produce any work that requires years of attention, that a degree of obsession is necessary to that work. Without the obsession, there would be no creative work. So, unlike the chicken and egg problem, it is very clear which comes first, in the genesis of all creative works. First there is the obsession; then there is the creation. Without that first, inner psychological step of taking a profound interest – that is an obsession in – the work to be done, the work would simply never get done.

I hope to see each of my children become obsessed by something, in their lives. I hope to see them take profound interests in their own special worlds, whatever they may be. For in that obsession will they find what no-one else has seen and do what no-one else has done. Obsession will lead them to greatness, if they are so lucky to have that characteristic in them. There is hope for them. It is part of my character to become profoundly interested in that which grabs my attention and intellect. I rather hope that they all have inherited some measure of that character element, for nothing, not even great intellect, is more likely to lead them to greatness, in whatever they choose to do, than that they should hold some degree of obsession for it.

Perhaps, indeed, it is true to say that the world’s greatest geniuses are also the world’s greatest obsessives. Those with the profoundest interests, are also those with the profoundest insights. Those who see deepest, are those most driven to see at all.

So, the next time you note an obsessive interest in someone, do not mark them as “strange” or even “mad”, but see in them the seed of greatness, that is there. Their profound interest, could lead them to see something no-one has seen before and so change the world, in an unexpected way.

In a world without obsession, there would have been no Lord of the Rings and no Mozart’s Requiem, no Guernica, no Hamlet and no Mona Lisa. We would not have a Theory of Relativity, or even a Heliocentric solar system, nor a Theory of Evolution. All these great works, were created by obsessive men, working obsessively, their whole lives long, driven by a demon no-one else could ever understand. Yet, we have all benefitted from their obsessions, even though, in their lifetimes, many of them would have been thought of as “odd” or even been persecuted for their obsessions.

In a very real sense, our world has been built by obsessives – built by people with unremittingly profound interests in their areas of work, people who could not do but what they did. So, be at ease, parents all, if you see hints of obsessiveness in your children – for that tendency to obsession can, if properly harnessed, lead to great things. It only needs a productive focus – some subject area, which if regarded intently, can give up productive fruit. Consider this, also, no child without a degree of obsession, in their hearts, is ever likely to create anything worthy of remembrance, or indeed, to climb to the top of any profession. Only those who are obsessed, are most driven to achieve something of merit in this world, if only to assuage the inner demon, who drives them on. Those who lack obsession are doomed, in a very real way, to be mediocrities, since it is most unlikely that a person can reach the heights of any human endeavour, without being propelled by a generous dose of obsession. So, do not worry if you see this characteristic in your children – be pleased – for it has much promise in it.

It should be noted that the tendency to obsession with interests, that I write of, must be distinguished from “obsessive compulsive disorder”. They are not the same. The latter might force the sufferer to wash their hands a thousand times a day, or check the locks on their house a score of times, before leaving. This is not a productive compulsion. I speak only of those with the profoundest interest in their chosen subject matters. This is a very different phenomenon.

It would be interesting to hear from any parents who have noted obsessive interests in their children. Are your children intently focussed on things that interest them? Do they turn to these subjects again and again? Are they constantly learning in these areas, and building their prowess? Comments below please.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Tilda Swinton, Cornelia Parker and The Maybe

“The Maybe” was a work of art, supposedly by a collaboration of Tilda Swinton, the actress and Cornelia Parker, the artist. I say, “supposedly” because the truth of the matter is that the origin of this work lay outside the heads of both of these ladies.

In the early 1990s, I conceived a performance art work called Lord Valentine the Misplaced. This was an 18^th Century dandy, living in the 20^th Century world. I was fully attired in 18^th Century clothes and had old world airs and mannerisms. I took this work of living art, to both London and New York and it was eventually covered on CNN in 1994, NBC News in February 1995 and Reuters on 14^th February 1995. There was also coverage in the Observer newspaper in October or November 1994, and Time Out magazine, of London, in November 1994. Basically, it was quite a well known work, by the mid 1990s.

Now, an odd thing happened one night, in London. I was attired as Lord Valentine the Misplaced and was to meet a journalist (one Andrew Mosby from Time Out magazine, if I recall correctly), at Beach Blanket Babylon, a rather trendy and ornately decorated bar, in Notting Hill, West London. This was in November of 1994, after an article had come out about me, in Time Out.

As I entered Beach Blanket Babylon, I saw a familiar figure, her head laying on the shoulder of another woman: Tilda Swinton, the actress. I had seen her in person, several times before, but never really spoken to her. She had been pointed out to me, at Cambridge University, when I was there, many years before – since we both attended it, though she was rather older than me (still is!).

This pair were very interested in me. They appraised me with eager eyes, thinking thoughts that would later become clear. I did wonder at their closeness, since Tilda Swinton’s head was on the other lady’s shoulder. I did wonder at what kind of relationship they had. Then again, girls are often much more touchy-feely than guys.

Both studied my 18^th Century attire carefully.

I believe that Tilda Swinton introduced her friend as Cornelia, because she became so labeled in my mind, thereafter.

“What are you doing?”, one asked – I can’t remember which, though I think it was Tilda Swinton – “Are you trying to get cast?”

“No.”, I said, for my purpose was deeper than that. I didn’t explain what I was actually doing though.

The conversation was very brief, but there was something guarded about Tilda Swinton, at the end. She suddenly tugged at her friend to come away, a thought seeming to have come to her. I passed on, seeking my contact within.

It was the following year that Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker, collaborated on The Maybe. This was a simple piece of performance art/live art, in which Tilda Swinton slept in a glass box, in everyday ordinary clothes. Now, what I found immediately interesting about this was that it was a piece of living art – which is precisely what Lord Valentine the Misplaced was. I also thought it very interesting to note, from the pictures released at the time, that Cornelia Parker had been the lady with Tilda Swinton that night, in Beach Blanket Babylon. It was immediately obvious where the “inspiration” for this work of art had come from. I had created a piece of living art. Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker met me whilst I was being Lord Valentine the Misplaced – and Tilda Swinton (it seemed) had the idea of copying my idea and embodying herself as a living work of art, too. Particularly telling was the use of unattractive everyday clothes for The Maybe. Brian Sewell, the art critic, wondered why Tilda Swinton hadn’t dressed up as some kind of Sleeping Beauty (though maybe not in those words). It is clear why not. Had Tilda Swinton dressed up in any kind of beautiful period clothes, she would have revealed the inspiration for her work. She had no choice but to be in ordinary clothes, so as to obscure the original inspiration for the work.

Later on, Cornelia Parker and Tilda Swinton fell out over who “thought” of the Maybe. Both claim to have conceived the idea – though Tilda Swinton makes the louder claim that the idea was hers. It is very, very clear why this argument has arisen: because BOTH ladies met me, at the moment they decided to imitate what I was doing. The reason they can’t agree on who was responsible for thinking of it, is that NEITHER was responsible for the original thought. All they decided to do was to create a “me too” art work, based on my own prior explorations of living art. It is very telling that neither can agree on who conceived it, which indicates that they have something in common, at the moment of conception: that common point was the meeting of me as Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Had only one of them met me at that time, then only one of them would be laying claim to the idea. Their very argument points to the moment of contention: the instant they both met me, and one of them (or both of them) decided to imitate my work, in their own way.

Of course, the fact that they recognized my work as living art (implicitly, since they imitated it), does go to show the success of my work.

Cornelia Parker has gone on to produce other pieces of work, though Tilda Swinton hasn’t. Evidence of the influence of my work on Cornelia Parker can be seen in another of her proposed works. My art work was called Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Interestingly, Cornelia Parker wanted to put a meteorite back into space and used the term “misplaced” to describe this action – so the meteorite would now become a misplaced object. This seems to be a clear adaptation of the idea of misplacement as art. Lord Valentine the Misplaced, was misplaced in time – Cornelia Parker’s meteorite would have been misplaced in space. It is an analogy of my prior work.

We can see here, how Cornelia Parker conceives some of her works. They are adaptations or analogies to other people’s work. She is translating other people’s ideas into a different setting. Tilda Swinton’s The Maybe is a sleeping piece of living art, dressed in everyday clothes. Lord Valentine the Misplaced was a waking piece of living art, dressed in 18^th Century clothes. Cornelia Parker’s proposed meteorite project was a rock misplaced in space. My Lord Valentine project, was a human misplaced in time. These are both analogous to each other, adaptations of the same idea in a different context.

It is important that the true origins of the work of artists and supposed artists, like Cornelia Parker and Tilda Swinton – because the art, in these cases, lies in the idea, for they are conceptual works. If the idea is not truly theirs – as it is not, in both cases, here – then the work of art is not truly theirs either. The history of art is being defrauded if we are led to believe that the origin of these works lay in either of these ladies minds. The history of art deserves better than that. The true background to each conceived work should be known – and the “inspiration” that gave rise to them, should be appreciated.

This blog is but one page in an internet Universe of trillions of pages, thus, very few people will read it. So, please help spread the word about the origin of The Maybe, as an adaptation of the ideas behind Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Tell the story of how Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker met me at Beach Blanket Babylon in November 1994 and recognized the artistry in Lord Valentine the Misplaced, enough to want to steal it for themselves. If you have a blog, or other website, please post a link to this article, to help people become aware of it. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.htmland here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Creative students need support, too.

I wrote a letter to the New Straits Times a couple of weeks ago, in response to their front page story about scholarships being given to students with perfect grades. My letter pointed out a problem with this system. Not surprisingly, perhaps, my letter has not been published, so far and, since delays in publishing are usually not so long, I am going to assume that it is not going to be published. Thus, I have reproduced it, below.

So, my readers, what do you think? Do you agree that conventional scholarship criteria overlook the most creative students? Are we rewarding the dull but diligent with such a system? Are the truly brilliant being overlooked? Let me know what you think, in the comments. Thanks.



Don’t forget that creative students need support, too.

I read the recent news, in the NST, that all top scoring SPM students were to be given PSD scholarships. Now, this is very good news, for such students, but I couldn’t help but feel that something is being overlooked: creative students.

Creative people are not, by definition, quite like other people. One of the ways in which they differ, is that creative students are liable to be less interested in achieving perfect scores in examinations, than non-creative students. This might have something to do with the obvious fact that, in most examinations, there is little room for creativity. It is not, therefore, an inherently attractive proposition for creative students. A scholarship system which only rewards students with perfect grades is likely to be sifting out those with the most interesting minds.

Might I suggest a modification to this system, to include an assessment of the creativity of student applicants? Perhaps those who can demonstrate creativity in their lives, could be excused the need for perfect grades and still receive a scholarship, to allow them to study what they wish to, in the areas of their creative interest – even if, society sees those subjects as less “useful”, than other more traditional choices. Such a system, would encourage just the kind of creative society that would help Malaysia achieve higher income and greater cultural significance on the global stage.

The best minds, are not necessarily the best students. This should be considered by those who decide upon whom to reward and support. The best students may, in fact, just be the most diligent ones – and not the most intelligent or creative. The best thinkers are likely to be overlooked by the current system, not only in education, but in society itself. If this can be understood and acted upon, Malaysia would most certainly have a better future.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html
and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here: http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks. You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Is creativity valued and rewarded?

Is creativity valued and rewarded in modern society? This might seem like a silly question to ask, when such exemplars of creativity as Einstein, Shakespeare and Da Vinci are held up to universal admiration, but I am led to ask this question for a very clear reason: I don’t believe it is.

It is altogether possible, to live a life being creative in all spheres of that life, but to be utterly unappreciated, unvalued and unrewarded for doing so. There are no automatic rewards for creativity, in modern society, though, indeed, there do appear to be a number of automatic punishments.

A creative person, for instance, will quickly discover that, the moment anything creative is shown to other people, it will be plagiarized. This is so frequent an occurrence that I am willing to propose that it is universal, in modern times: everything that is created, gets stolen – without exception. This has certainly been my experience of creativity. Every unique or interesting art work that I ever created, has been plagiarized, upon being shown to others – every single one of them. The ideas have gone on to being used by and credited to, others, who are nothing but plagiarists. My ideas have, among others, ended up in the works of Marc Quinn, Cornelia Parker/Tilda Swinton, and Peter Blake. You should note that the former was at my College at Cambridge, the middle pair I have met personally and the latter I do not know, in person. My ideas have also appeared in a Nike ad, an ad for the Museum of the Moving Image, a film poster, and the works “of” the far from original Ian Hislop. All of this, without a single shred of credit. By the way, I only make note of those ideas which were so distinctive and unlikely that an accidental replication is remote, indeed – I also emphasize those for which I can trace a line from my work, to the plagiarist, through known contact with it.

I am sure that my experience with being plagiarized is common to many artists, or creative people. I came across a recent article in which FIFTEEN artists complained that Damien Hirst had plagiarized them. Some of them had even known him, in the course of their lives. Isn’t it wonderful how he repaid their friendship? By the way, a set of images by Damien Hirst in the 1990s, that appeared in an American magazine, perhaps Esquire (I cannot recall for sure), are also highly likely to have been derived from the same work of mine that Cornelia Parker/Tilda Swinton, imitated.

Another aspect of this is that creative people often do not receive any financial reward for their ideas or works. Besides the frequent theft of these works, even if not stolen, the work may never produce any financial reward. Certainly that accords with my own experience. As an adult I have been creative in science, literature, art and acting…but I haven’t really seen what you would call a decent financial return on my efforts. Nor has there been enough of any other forms of return, to have made the efforts worth it, other than their intrinsic value of self-expression.

I would like to think that, one day, my life of creative effort will be rewarded, suitably – but I am also aware that that may never be so. Certainly, many of my ideas have been adopted by famous plagiarists, which may deprive me forever of being credited for them. Even if I do receive credit in the end, and am suitably rewarded, thereby, I am not sure that the painfully long wait, to such a day, will be sufficiently compensated for. It is possible that that which must be endured, before any reward, may make any reward seem inadequate.

In theory, the creative life is an ideal one. However, in practice, we live in such an ugly world, with such ugly people in it (see the plagiarists above), that it can be one of the worst ways to choose to live. A creative life is often filled with such injustice, such pain, such suffering, such loss and such disappointment, that any rewards that are ultimately achieved, are far too little compensation. Of course, in many creative lives, there are no rewards at all (see Van Gogh, for instance).

As yet, I do not know if my own life, is going to be one of the creative ones that is ultimately rewarded. Up until now, it has not been particularly beneficial to me. I would have been better off choosing almost any other way of life, than the one I chose, in all material ways, and many other ways, too. I would also have been a lot happier never to have created anything, only to have seen it stolen by opportunistic others, whose names are better known, than my own. It would be worth it, not to have created those works, just so that they would not have been stolen. In that sense, choosing to be UNCREATIVE, might be a happier life choice, if one was aware of the costs of being creative, in the first place.

This world needs to change. It needs to be kinder to creators, and crueler to plagiarists. I do believe, for instance, that plagiarism should be made a crime, punishable by long prison sentences and extremely heavy fines. Were the world to move strongly against plagiarism, creators would find it easier to be appropriately rewarded and appreciated for their creative works. Plagiarists should be so scared of the consequences of plagiarism, that they don’t dare to do it. It would also be very interesting if such a law could be enacted so that it has retrospective force. Many of today’s “brightest names” (see above), would then have to spend long periods – well deserved periods – in prison.

I know, however, that such a world will never be. This modern world does not value creators and positively eulogizes plagiarists (for some of its greatest “stars” are serial plagiarists). The modern world seems not to care whether its favourite of the day, is a plagiarist or a true creator. There seem to be no consequences for plagiarism. So many times, for instance, has Damien Hirst been denounced as a plagiarist, without an idea to call his own – yet his works still sell for millions, or even tens of millions. It is, in short, madness. No-one seems to care for the true creators. Until that changes, it is probably not a good choice of life, to become creative. It is likely that anyone choosing such a life will endure much suffering, much rejection, much disappointment and little reward of any kind. It is likely that such a person will see many of their works stolen and see little monetary return on their creative investments. If a person wishes for success, in the conventional sense, any of the many safer choices, would lead to a life more fulfilled in those respects: be a banker, a financier, a doctor or a lawyer. These choices lead to conventional success in a fairly predictable manner. If, however, you choose to be creative, be prepared to see the world’s true ugliness –and be prepared to fight it.

That being said, it is possible to succeed as a creator. You just have to be more patient, more resilient, more lucky, more tenacious and more insistent than you would have to be in ANY other line of work. A creator who succeeds, is one who has overcome a truly ugly world. Theirs is a kind of unheralded triumph that far surpasses that of any other achievement. Yet, the difficulties they would have had to overcome, are unrecognized by all but those who have led a creative life. That, too, is one of the dooms of the creative person: to be forever misunderstood. The non-creative person has no idea, NO IDEA AT ALL, of what the creative person has to go through, to win through, in life.

So, if you choose to live a creative life, I wish you luck. It won’t be an easy life and you may never reach your goals – but it is a life that is worth it, if you believe in one thing: that to express the self, is the meaning of life. If you choose a creative life, you could, indeed, succeed, in expressing your self, your views and your world – but you may never succeed, in being rewarded for it. I wish you all, therefore, luck in achieving both aims: self-expression and suitable rewards.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page. To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here: http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

On sensitivity and toughness

Which is more valuable: to be sensitive or to be tough? I know what Singapore's answer to that question is: I heard it today, many times.

This morning I attended a talk, at Ainan's school, for parents. The underlying purpose of the talk was to tell parents how to "toughen up" their children. Everything about the talk, was directed to this end, of achieving tough little children. The speaker, who was an "expert on raising children", had the view that toughness was to be valued. His view had one merit: that a tough child would be more resilient in the face of disappointment or setback. In that sense, he had reason for his position - yet, I worried, as I heard him extol his techniques for generating toughness in children. There seemed to be something missing: the appreciation of sensitivity.

Sensitivity was a word noted only by its absence from his two hour talk. Not once did he mention the concept of sensitivity. Not once did he evaluate its use, value or purpose in the personality structure of a child. I found this lack really perturbing. You see, what is a sensitive child, but one that responds to the environment? What is a sensitive child but one who feels, and thinks, subtly and with freedom? A sensitive child may become an artist, or an actor, a writer - or a leader who feels for his or her people. A sensitive person can make a great boss, for they will feel for their workers and respond to them more warmly. Sensitivity is not something to be dismissed - yet it was ignored entirely. This Singaporean "expert on raising children", clearly did not value the human side of children at all. What he valued seemed very much like a worker who would put up with anything, without complaint. What he valued seemed very much like someone who would take endless abuse and just carry on. Perhaps that is what is really needed in the Singaporean system. Perhaps people without feeling or responsiveness, who just carry on ploddingly, no matter what are what is sought from education, here. Yet, I can't help but feel that such people would be incomplete: without a decent measure of sensitivity they will wholly fail to grasp the essence, truth and beauty of life, at all. Without some sensitivity such people will never truly live.

Every beautiful person I have ever met - and I mean beautiful on the inside, not the outside - has been a sensitive person, to some degree. None of them have been so tough as to fulfil the criteria sought by this speaker.

Resilience is important if a child is to grow up into an adult able to cope with the vicissitudes of life. However, that resilience must not come at the price of losing one's essential sensitivity. It is the latter quality that leads to a beautiful life. Toughness does not afford one a beautiful life - it only allows one to endure the suffering of an ugly one.

There is, I feel, too little concern for the human side of humanity, here. The attention is directed too much to creating efficient little workers who will fit nicely into the system without creating any perturbation - and will endure all the discomforts that come with a system that doesn't actually value the individual human being for themselves.

I would rather a sensitive child than a tough child. A sensitive child could be a great poet, a wonderful actor, an inspiring leader, a perceptive thinker, a lyrical writer, a profound musician. A tough child is unlikely to be any of these - though they are likely to endure in the face of much suffering and "succeed" eventually, in a conventional sense. Perhaps that is all that is wanted here, by the educational system: that the children "succeed" in a conventional sense. No wonder, then, that there is such a dearth of creative geniuses here. Why, you wonder? Well, you see, most great geniuses are, dare I say it...rather SENSITIVE!

With all this effort to knock the sensitivity out of children - indeed with special talks for just that purpose - it is no wonder that so little genius survives to flourish here.

What we need more of is: gentleness, sensitivity, kindness and consideration. Unfortunately, no more alien concepts could be tabled, than those four words, when set against what the system here, would like the children to show - and grow into.

Personally, I would rather a nation with a measurable sprinkling of sensitive geniuses - than an abundance of tough little workers. To create such a place, of course, would necessitate a complete change in the way the children are raised - and that's definitely never going to happen.

So, tough Singaporeans it is to be.

Ah well.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)