The Marx Brothers :: Research Papers

The Marx BrothersIn his book entitled Creating Minds, Howard Gardner (1993) engaged in a thorough study of creativity. He did this by studying the lives of exceptional creators in seven different domains in search of trends that could be readily place and, perhaps, even help to paint a clearer picture of what the ingredients for creativity are. later examining these creators lives he came to some conclusions based on the trends he identified and form a gravel of creativity. In order to test both his model and his findings, it is necessary to extend the search (and study) beyond his initial seven commodious creators. In doing this it becomes possible to refute or add credence to his conclusions. This denotation also allows for further questions to be asked.During the reading of Creating Minds I happened upon an interesting opinion Could Gardners model for notional individuals be applied to the study of a imaginative collection? Furthermore, would a group show similar trends i n their fictive development? If I was going to attempt to answer this question I decided I would have to qualify what a creative group was. I defined a creative group as a group of individuals producing a single creative work. The creativity of this work mustiness be a result of the combination of the individuals strengths being pooled (as equally as possible) to produce an output that could not have been produced by any of the individuals on their own. The group would be analogous to Gardners individual creator, and the groups combination of mental talents would analogue the individual creators personal array of intellectual strengths. Having defined what a creative group was, it became necessary to ask perhaps an even more essential question Could such a group exist? If so, could an example be found? The answer to both questions, I decided, was yes. But who? My ponderings on this typeface invariably brought me to the Marx Brothers, kings of comedy. My MethodIn his study Gardne r had followed the lives of his chosen creators and examined the progression of their whole kit and caboodle as a function of the creator and his or her surroundings. It would be tricky to treat the progression of a group in precisely the equivalent manner. If I chose to treat the group as a single unit of measurement and reported on its progress and surroundings, the workings of its component creators could be lost.