Good evening everybody welcome to “From
the Faculty Lounge”. I’m Linda Bell, Provost and Dean of the
Faculty and on behalf of Barnard College I am very pleased to welcome you to the
final event of this year’s series of cross-disciplinary conversations that
bring the liberal arts to life. Tonight we’ll discuss the theory and practice of
creativity with Professor Elliot Paul an Assistant Professor of philosophy and
Professor Joan Snitzer Co-Chair and Director of the Visual Arts program in
the Art History department. Professor Paul works mainly in early modern
philosophy and epistemology. He also has interests in philosophy of
the mind and in cognitive science with a particular focus on the philosophical
issues surrounding creativity. He’s co-editor of the “Philosophy of
Creativity: New Essays” which happens to be on the table in front of me, he’s
published articles on Descartes and on creativity, and he has completed recently
a new monograph entitled “Clarity First: Rethinking Descartes’s Epistemology” which
will be forthcoming by Oxford University Press. Joan Snitzer joined the Barnard
faculty in 1986 after working as a studio artist and exhibiting her
work in the US and widely abroad. Professor Snitzer’s work is focused on
painting as a method of visual communication and the democratization of
social and personal beliefs. In addition to her studio work professor Schnitzer
has worked in a number of organizations that provide support for women and for
underrepresented visual artists. She is affiliated with the AIR gallery which
stands for Artists-in-Residence. It is the oldest artists run women’s
exhibition space in the US. Although they work in different disciplines with
different approaches, both Professors Paul and Snitzer
think deeply and most of the time about creativity. Let me begin with the
philosophy of theory Professor Paul that grounds your work. Can you tell us
something about how philosophy connects with creativity? I think creativity
raises lots of interesting philosophical questions like maybe just give three
quick examples. Philosophers are often interested in questions of the
form “What is X?” like “What is knowledge?” “What is justice?” “What is morality?” and we
can likewise ask “What is creativity?” and here we’re looking not just for examples
of creativity but for a definition that identifies the conditions or features
that all creative things have in common that distinguishes them from things that
are not creative. And so two conditions that are uncontroversial for an idea or
product to be creative are that of course it has to be new or original, but as
can’t observe there can be original nonsense and we don’t call that creative
so it also has to have some kind of value and the relevant value depends on
the domain: scientific, artistic, or otherwise. Whether there are other
conditions that there’s room for debate a second example is philosophers have
always been interested in the nature of the mind and recently you know this
question sometimes interacts with artificial intelligence we can wonder
like what it takes to have a mind or what it takes to think. Could a computer think?
And the question is not just a technological one of whether computer
could you know function in a way that simulates thought, but whether literally
could think. And likewise we could ask whether a computer could be creative not
just simulate creativity but be creative and this question becomes
especially pressing nowadays because we’ve got computers producing like
symphonies that fool audiences into thinking that it’s like a work of Bach,
that’s a true story. We’ve got like you know computer art being displayed in
museums and so forth, and thirdly philosophers have often been intrigued
by the creative process itself. How do human beings create so for example just
take two quick examples like Plato kind of famously
describe the poet as someone who’s inspired literally breathed into by the
muses and is thus a kind of channel or a vessel for creativity rather than its
source. Schopenhauer has these stunning
descriptions of how great artists exhibit not just a technical mastery of
their craft but also this ability to lose themselves, that’s his words, in
something beautiful or sublime, and my own approach to questions the creative
process is interdisciplinary so it draws on interacts with findings in
cognitive science and there’s a lot of work in the psychology of creativity.
Surprisingly there’s less work in the philosophy of creativity in the
contemporary context. Professor Snitzer, can you describe your creative process? How it works in
your work in your art? It’s interesting because Elliot and I didn’t have a
chance to speak before this panel and a lot of things that he describes in
philosophy and in his scholarship are things that I and my students have also
experienced in the studio and the first is trying to master some kind of
technical information and being able to do it well enough so that it’s automatic
so that the mind can be free to think about other things. Then one has to
coordinate all of the personal information that one’s life has
experienced and that makes you who you are and also to consider just you know
those physical attributes your dexterity natural eye hand coordination are you
good with small motor skills is it large gestures and these all have to be
computed like he says and assimilated into your practice so that
when you actually then there’s research what you are going to be making how
does it fit into today’s society who’s gonna be interested maybe and then
you have to take this huge leap of faith and forget about it all and just jump
into the work and that’s the hardest thing I think that artists face is that
there’s so much pressure on all these other parts that have to be coordinated
and seamlessly absorbed and just say okay I can just I can do it I can do
something and then that space which we talked about being non-cognitive is
usually where the real creativity not you know technical but creativity
happens. Is creativity distinct from technical know-how? Absolutely. There’s a social
bias it starts like when you’re really small I meet people all the time that
know I’m an artist and a professor and they want to show me their
eight-year-olds drawing of the dog and and I say, ‘Yeah it’s beautiful,’
I get the horse there’s always a horse but a house it’s perfect I
recognize that it’s a house I can recognize that it’s your house but that
is not being creative that’s mastering some eye hand coordination and mastering
some real concentration you know that this child or my child in me can
concentrate and what I’m looking at and accurately describe it but that doesn’t
that is a learned skill and I think our social biases think that if you’ve
learned that skill then you are good but actually the people that learn those
skills too well tend not to be creative because they’re not freeing their mind
for that other space that’s the leap of faith I can do this or I want to do this.
So there’s I think you we talked about this. Yeah I think that’s really interesting. There’s so many elements in
the creative process as you describe it. So some psychologists like parse the
creative process into stages and according to one popular theory like
begins with preparation and there’s a long period of you know acquiring the
relevant knowledge and skills and internalizing the values of the domain
and so forth and then you’re focusing on some particular problem or project and
then you walk away from it and maybe you’re not thinking about it anymore but
your unconscious mind is still at work and that’s called incubation so and then
there’s like this moment of insight called illumination that’s the Eureka
the yah-ha you know that emerges from something unconscious so it surprises
you. Anders Ericsson has this finding that on average, is popularized by
Malcolm Gladwell so you may have heard of it, that on average people who make
significant memorable contributions to their domains take an average of 10,000
hours of deliberate practice to get to that point they’re prepared I think what
the preparation is doing is sort of fine-tuning your mind including your
unconscious mind to be more adept at producing ideas that are new and
valuable so that you that after all of this preparation even when you’re not
thinking about a problem your unconscious mind is doing this kind of
magical but still natural thing that sometimes culminates in this moment of
amazing Blakeian insight and it’s no wonder like with such great works that
were tempted to ascribe that to something supernatural or godly as
the ancient Greeks did as the romantics did but I myself am more inclined to a sort
of scientific explanation of what’s happening in the mind in those cases but
it absolutely has to do with preparation. And then you’re not done because you
still have to examine this idea and figure out whether it’s worth anything
and maybe you discard it maybe you further develop it refine it elaborate
on it and incorporate with other ideas into a form that’s presentable. Do you
think that description matches your experience? Um, Yeah I’ve had a lot of
yah-ha moments that when I wake up in the morning are horrible and that’s not
what the job that’s not the yah-ha I was hoping for. I also, you do feel this moment of
euphoria and you and then you do have to kind of you know cool off and then come
back and examine what you’ve done and that is a critical part it’s a critical
part in my practice and I think most people, and I see some creative
people in the audience, most people’s practices is the
judgment and I think that you need these educated judgments to come in especially
if you’re trying or you’ve just created something new because that’s the hardest
thing to recognize you can’t fall back on your historical knowledge that this
is good that this museum likes this kind of work that that critics written about
it because now you’re in the unknown. Is this any good? I mean everybody, is this
any good? So that’s when you need your own historical information and the
input of educated mentor to say yeah that’s actually cool because
creativity needs to be created to a an audience, it’s not
some isolated thing. Do you think creativity kind of withers if it isn’t
encouraged by a mentor by a network of a community of some kind? I know it
does I mean that I’ve seen historically and we’ve talked about this why there
aren’t a great women artists in history Linda Nochlan’s article without a mass support a larger support without people saying yes what you’ve created is
important and interesting without the financial backing yes we will mount your
exhibitions yes we will display your work you can only work like that if that
kind of intensity without any outside support before the
mine actually starts to get dull without that energy and so when
they say historically that women’s work is not as good as men in some senses
they’re right they weren’t supported they weren’t encouraged they weren’t
financed and they didn’t have the same energy available after years and years
of being ignored. The ability to create needs to be nurtured and so too does the
motivation to create so I could cite our colleague in psychology Patricia Stokes
who wrote this wonderful book called “Creativity from Constraints” and one
argument she makes is that whenever you acquire a skill you learn or you could
learn variable ways of applying it and that variability is the source of your
capacity to innovate and if that aspect of your learning isn’t reinforced early
it withers and you’ll maintain the skill but you’ll apply it only in sort of routine
familiar ways and there’s no creativity. So that’s on the side of ability
and then on the side of motivation I think you know just think of like Abraham
Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs he included a whole tier just for esteem
needs, right, we all this is part of our nature as social animals that we need to
be validated and recognized by others and I think if you’re if you have
creative ambitions you are especially vulnerable because by the nature of the
very task you’re trying to do something different and so you risk being
embarrassed and because of that risk as Matisse said, “Creativity takes
courage.” I think it’s hard to maintain courage if you never get encouraged. I’m
interested in this mix between the technical and the creative and for
both of you this is a question that I would pose in art I’m thinking about
different art forms and the evolution of those art forms. Take abstraction versus
realism, is it correct to argue for example that the technical versus
creative mix is somehow different in different kinds of art and what does
that tell us overall about the evolution of creativity in art? And then similarly in philosophy if we think of the rational versus the
creative is there some kind of parallel where certain kinds of individuals with
certain kinds of backgrounds have a different mix of those two things and
can they coexist in abundance in the same person? Abstraction evolved in
reaction to the pressure and political movements in this 20th century for
artists to participate in a very uncreative way as representatives of the
church or state and that realism represented the values and what they
were creating and the images they were creating was to serve those purposes
which of course welches any real innovation or creativity and not that
there weren’t people that did it but they almost had to sneak it in you know
their own silent messages it wasn’t over when America became the kingdom of
abstraction big bold abstraction it also suited the image of post-war America
becoming the brave the strong the free will the individual so that technique
followed a political climate. It didn’t sort of become, and then the politics, and
otherwise it probably wouldn’t have been recognized in the first place it needed
to be supported as Elliot says by this outside audience. Within that is there a
lot of creativity in developing some of those large techniques of the very
abstract paintings that you know your grandmother says, oh I could do that
you’re just splashing canvas, if anybody’s ever tried to make a fading on
that scale and organize those materials and think about whether or not the paint
was shiny or matte or absorbent or textured or how thick
the weave is of the canvas and how thick the canvas support is you would realize
that it does involve a very similar and detailed research and development of the
technique. I think you’re onto something here about it’s kind of like a
psychological complexity of the creative individual. They have to, my colleague
Scott Barry Kaufman says he likes to site Whitman, “Creative people
contain multitudes.” Let me frame this narrow scientifically so there’s different stages of the creative process
sort of toggle between different brain networks responsible for different
functions and so when you’re at the phase of having to kind of analytically
evaluate what you’ve come up with you’re employing your executive attention
Network seated in your lateral prefrontal cortex that you might think
of that as sort of the rational deliberate controlled reasoning part of
the brain but when you are generating the ideas to begin with before they’re
even there to be evaluated. The part of the brain that’s most active is what’s
called the default mode network. It’s called that because it’s what the brain
is sort of doing anyway by default automatically spontaneously it’s the
part of the brain that’s active when you’re dreaming and daydreaming and it
harnesses your store your associative Network your store of memories to
construct dynamic mental simulations of alternate possibilities and the two
networks kind of compete with each other so they can’t really be operating at
peak capacity at the same time and so you toggle between them at different
stages generation and evaluation and they do these awesome studies of like
rappers and jazz artists who are like in a state of flow like they’re in the zone
and creative improvisation and the executive tension network is just like
blanked out right on the EEG and the default mode network is just buzzing.
I think that’s you know speaks to what you were saying earlier about
the kind of like the automaticity that you have to cultivate but it takes
a lot of practice it’s not just like Right. So that’s the hard the
hard thing and that’s where the originality comes from but you actually
need both. Can we return to the splash on the canvas for a second? Sure. I should have brought mine. I’m going to ask Professor Paul, how do we arrive at the value judgment that something is
actually pleasing or good?Jeez yeah that’s a million-dollar question isn’t it? What
makes the question so difficult is because when we’re dealing with art and
more generally matters of taste it just seems so subjective people disagree but
just a sort of riff on one very influential theory due to David Hume the
18th century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher so um in his essay on
standards of taste he proposed that it’s not just like beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, it sort of matters who’s beholding and there are experts in the
arts just like there are experts in the sciences and the relevant group of
people to make the judgments are the one who’s once you’ve gone through the
process of like refining their tastes and cultivating their
sensibilities so they can make the relevant discriminations to observe
what’s good and what’s bad just like and so he thinks the standard taste is
agreement among those people now what’s interesting to me is that the same
process that gets you that expertise may also be one whereby you internalize the
biases and prejudices and preconceptions of a certain status quo and of course
that status quo may enshrine certain forms of privilege that we all know
follow along certain lines of race and gender and class and so you may end up
like actually limiting yourself from recognizing the value of art from other
traditions and other people, so that’s a danger. In a way Hume was onto this
because he does note he stipulates that his true critics as he calls them need
to be free of prejudice and he also says that the
community of true critics needs to include people from different
times and cultures. I wouldn’t quite say that like Hume was like woke though. He
doesn’t say anything about race or gender and I think what this observation
calls us to do is sort of be skeptical about our judgments maybe to suspend
them even and actually that opens the space for I think something more
interesting I think when it comes to art judgement is like overrated and I think
our most interesting ways of engaging with art or not about forming like a
static judgment, this is good, this is bad, period, but about a kind of open-ended
about suspending judgment really and engaging in a kind of open-ended inquiry
like what does this mean, what does it make me feel and why, what
significance does this piece have in its social and historical context and so
forth, and we engage in these kinds of reflections privately and also in
conversation with others maybe art critics help facilitate that
conversation but I think a way to check our biases in that process is to include
in the conversation people who have traditionally been shut out of it. Do you have anything to add to that? Yeah, we could go on forever. On the other side there’s this idea of you know mentorship or role models, but there’s
also something about one’s lived life. If a woman student has only seen and been
told these great works of art are made by men and witnessed it, the energy
that goes into that and the energy in reproducing that kind of work is not the
same energy of the life that she’s lived as a woman. So it’s not just judgment but
it’s actual honesty in authenticity in how can you create something good if
it’s outside of your own experience. So the light in Europe is different
than the light in New York, the color palettes are going to be
different than it is in the Caribbean you know when you go there you
suddenly are changing your clothes because this bright sunlight washes out
color so you want brighter colors it’s a natural thing that we do to you know
adapt to our environment. So if you’re always adapting to an environment that’s
outside of your own experience it’s very difficult to become truly creative.
You’re faking it basically to some extent. So that kind of brings us
back to in some ways the mentorship argument that we’ve been touching on and
circling around and you have been professor Schnitzer such such a role
model for nearly I don’t know four or five decades. Three, they keep making me older but thank you. I feel like one should count as two. So I
think I know some of the answers to this, but what are the things that
you’ve done that have enabled so many women to succeed in the art? First it’s
complex because it actually started in the classroom I started creating
environments in which the classroom was like a mini laboratory of the social
world and I intentionally assigned projects that were so abstract one
couldn’t call on known or good examples to you know solve the problem of the
assignment so that I tried to equalize the skill level within the class and I
have students at different ages and different backgrounds and different
cultures and in different skill levels then after a few weeks they become less
self-conscious and you start to see patterns of color of palette of subject
and technique emerge naturally because you may have a scientific
answer, it’s in the air. It’s in the air, and suddenly I look
around and I’ll see in one particular semester all these blue paintings with
the brown and gold you know and I just pointed out to the students who are
completely unaware that that has happened and they go, wow yeah, you know
so then we can talk about how this little experiment then is taken into you
know a bigger cultural movements and artistic movements and then we talk
about ways which they’re left out so after that it’s it’s a sense of you know
you can do it you can be yourself and authentic and let go and take that big
leap not worry about what your GPA is for these four hours and just try to be
authentic in the way that the group has supported it so the mentorship starts
among students and their own peers and then I have to keep feeding it for years.
This point about like don’t worry about your GPA this is so this is so
crucial so let me just give you this like there’s a classic study in 1973
takes a group of schoolchildren gives them magic markers to play with which
they love one group is told just go play go at it. The other group is set
told you you know make a drawing and we’ll give you some good player award.
Which of the two groups do you think produces more creative drawings? It turns
out it’s not the group that was given the reward it’s the other group that was
given no reward so counter intuitively it’s not just negative feedback that
crushes creativity, it’s positive feedback. So the explanation is that if
you don’t, if there’s something, these like children love to play with the
crayon, the markers, and they’ll be intrinsically motivated to do so focused
on like the enjoyment of it you know the exploration the creativity and so forth. And then they’re willing to explore and
experiment with different possibilities which is what creativity requires. If you
give them a reward and they focus on that you narrow their attention, and they
take just the most straightforward path to get to the solution to get to the
reward, right, and so that’s, and this study has been replicated like dozens of
times in the last 45 years across all age groups all different kinds of
creative domains and it sets up a kind of pedagogical puzzle for us because
after all as educators we do need to evaluate you as students we have to give
you grades and yet we don’t want to crush your creativity so what do we do
and I think what Professor Snitzer was describing was creative ways to kind of
work around this puzzle so that the you know the evaluation isn’t too
salient for you so there’s follow-up research about how what to do in the
educational context Teresa Amabile is the leader of this research. There’s
what’s called intrinsic motivation training where they get students to
focus on they watch videos of students describing like the joy of like
writing a story or making a painting or whatever talking about how like the
curiosity you know the narrative sort of the story that engages them and
so forth and then students attend to this and then when you set up the same
experiment the students who get the reward don’t do worse this time they
actually do better so what you’ve what’s happened they think is that you sort of
fortified the base of intrinsic motivation such that the external reward
can supplement it instead of replacing it. And so I think it’s this is a sort of
a lesson for us to think about how we can incorporate something like this
strategy in our classrooms and it seems like you’ve nailed that. It’s working because the students
start to work for each other creating an internal support group. They like seeing
everybody’s solution to the same problem they like hearing each other’s, oh that’s
cool, and that’s when they have license to be more creative so it has less to do
with me as one authority figure and more to do with the more natural social
consensus so it’s kind of gratifying to watch.
Some research also shows that it’s not so much the external reward itself that
crushes creativity it’s how its conceptualized so there’s a study of
like artists who are commissioned to make artworks and so there’s the
external set-up, right? They’re being paid and they have instructions. And it turns
out that the ones who perceive the commission as kind of like coercive or
oppressive somehow their creativity plummets. The one’s who see the Commission as
just a validation of their capacity, their creativity soars. I’d like to go
back to the gender question and ask you based on the theories that inform your
work, do men and women enact or experience creativity differently? Any thinking about that? There are some
gender differences and effective presenting an award especially in
competitive contexts so already you know by the age of like young school children
are already you can see the differences in the way they’re socialized to respond
to competition sometimes competition actually bolsters the male students to
try harder and produce something more creative and whereas with the female
students the competition feels more like a course of thing that takes away their
intrinsic motivation so that’s one place where that there are gender differences
that are reported in the studies. Joan, how has the evolution of the feminist
movement impacted your work either your practice of work or your teaching? It’s
funny because I was just reminiscing. An alumni from this college who was one of
the first feminist art photographers Sara Charlesworth the late Sarah
Charlesworth came to this very room and spoke to my students about ten years
ago and she described being a student here and going to the library and
pulling out these contemporary books on artists and she would you know go
through the pages and loved it and saw these great people
working now in her time, close the book leave this room, and get really sad.
She graduated in 1969 and she couldn’t understand why she got sad. Later in the
mid seventies she suddenly had the aha moment.
There wasn’t one man in the book, but she was we were so repressed about thinking
that art could be made by women that it didn’t even occur to her that that’s
what was missing, so that’s what’s changed. We now know we are here and we have a voice and we should be included in the books and to some
extent we are more included in the books and there is reason to be hopeful. I
think even in the last year there’s been a lot of strong female political voices
coming forward and making some more credible gender in some ways, but it’s not over. They’re still, women can be exhibited
women are, as prices are lower at the museum level where you become sort of
historicized, the percentage drops dramatically and there’s where that
support comes. A mid-career artist starts getting really frustrated that they are
not getting the support and the feedback and you become you know like a Sarah Charlesworth, sad, so the point that I tell my students is form the same
community that we did in class and keep each other going. Elliot do you see any
change in your creative work, I mean creative expression as a result of your
academic work? My creative expression I guess has two main outlets like one of
them is in philosophy itself, the other one’s in in music, so uh yeah so I
grew up singing. I sang gospel in church, that’s how my mom
raised me, I was like singing and playing the organ and then I sang I was in like
this I was in a boy band. So I don’t do it nearly as much as I used to
you but I sing like so like old soul and R&B and stuff like that.
Anyways so this finding that I was just discussing about intrinsic motivation
forms a lot of my philosophical work on creativity but it also has like personal
significance for me because both when I’m doing philosophy and when I’m doing
music I really try not to get caught up in the external judgments and what’s at
stake sort of you know in terms of the extrinsic factors. I try you know so when
I’m doing philosophy it’s like it’s very easy to get caught up in like how is
this going to be look to peer review and how was it for like tenure and I try
instead to just focus on like the intrinsic interest of these issues and
the questions and the different views that can be considered in the case
of music I mean I think when I was younger there’s a lot of times when I
would like get on the stage because because I knew that people would be nice
about it like clap and applaud or whatever but like and now I just really
try not to focus on the audience’s response and just remember that I sing
because it’s part of who I am and it reminds me of where I come from in it
takes me places emotionally that I cannot get to you any other way and on a
good day if I’m lucky it takes others with me. A boy band? Yeah. It’s good to
know. Yeah yeah. With this being Barnard, I have to ask one really
important question of both of you which is how have your experiences with
students and your experiences in the classroom informed you or grown you
as scholars impacted what you do and how you do it? Well I think the first thing
that comes to mind when you ask that question is this sort of educated
observer I have to stay constantly in touch with everything that’s going
on in the world so that I can recognize when a student does create something new
or creative it’s not as easy as oh that’s cool I a lot of times the student
will not recognize they’ll say that was an accident or I didn’t mean to do that
and those are the most you know incredible moments so it has hone my
critical abilities, I’m constantly working, and then I have to keep going
out to now a much more bigger and global contemporary art world to keep up with
what the conversations are that are relevant so that I can recognize it both
in my own work, and my students work, so it also keeps me very alert.
It brings you back into the studio charged up so it’s a it’s a bouncing
back and forth with what I need to create a good atmosphere in the
classroom I bring home and say you can do it for yourself. I get so much from my
students I think one thing that’s really useful for me is in certain you know
questions that I’ve been thinking about now for a year is like there’s a kind of
I can get sort of stuck in certain routines of thought, and when I share
those questions and they’re relevant literature with students and something
like an intro to a philosophy class like shouting out my students right yeah it’s
just like fresh eyes again and I see it from their perspective and that just
sort of recharges my outlook on what’s at stake here why it matters why
this was interesting in the first place and that’s so important for a
philosopher and not to get too lost in in the technical details and to remember
the big picture and students helped so much with that. I think another thing is
that, this kind of related to the point I was making earlier about how like
training and cultivating expertise in a field kind of
might solidify certain habits or assumptions that are sort of built into
a tradition and so that’s part of what it takes to become, you know, to acquire
expertise but at the same time it sort of limits you from thinking of things in
other ways and so the students come to it with no such assumptions right and
that puts them in a position better than some of my colleagues in some cases to
just challenge me on stuff I’ve been taking for granted and that’s extremely
useful as well. I’ll ask one final question what is the one thing you would
like people to take away from your work at this stage recognizing that you can
change your answer ten years from now? I just finished a final review with my students, and after they presented their projects, I asked
them, so if you had unlimited resources and you were exhibiting this in the
Museum of the Wonderful what would happen? What would you do differently? So
I think that I would take away from this that I am always dreaming for the Museum
of Wonderful and always hoping that there’ll be something more wonderful to
come, a kind of optimism. I’m going to pick up on the theme of wonderful well
so I could I think you know with the work on creativity in particular I
want to help people appreciate the varied and pervasive ways in which the
human experience is profoundly shaped by creativity. It’s not just like that it
creates new stuff right it’s part of what makes us who we are as human
beings. Creativity is the vehicle of self-expression it is what drives
progress not just in the arts but in science and medicine and business and
technology in, I would argue, in the moral and political sphere as well,
and it raises wonderful philosophical questions. So in one of Plato’s dialogues
that Theaetetus Socrates says that “Wonder is the feeling of the philosopher,
and philosophy begins in wonder.” So I guess what I’m trying to do with my work
is help people share a sense of that wonder. Thank you all again and have a
really wonderful evening.