Response to Clay Shirky's TEDTalk

Clay Shirky's TEDTalk left me with the broad idea of cognitive surplus, which is comprised of human generosity and technology. The reason that these two concepts stuck with me is that they are polar opposites; technology does only what is demanded of itself while generosity goes above and beyond, using prior knowledge and emotion to dedeuce results. This combination could be viewed as a metaphor for right and left brained people; they are sometimes conflicting in definition and action, but when combined they create a unit that far surpasses the capabilities of the two separate halves. In his talk, Shirky differed from other speakers we have observed in class by speaking in a calm, measured tone instead of an excited or jumpy one. He still sounded interested and optimistic, but he wasn't about to come out of his skin like Daniel Pink! Shirky also used sly infusions of humor in his speech, which were not aimed at getting a laugh out of the audience but rather to keep them interested and listening. He also used gestures to accompany his words. In his powerpoint presentation, Shirky displays diagrams and charts in order for us right-brained people to be able to identify visually with the numbers he is presenting. As for the talk's connections to education, one sentence in particular stood out to me: "a stupid creative act is still a creative act." In school, I feel that students are encouraged to only partake in creative activities if they excel at them. Isn't that the idea of grades, to perform mental Social Darwinism and root out those who aren't committed or talented enough? Right now I am in Drawing I, and I can pick out the students who won't be signed up for Drawing II-- they work hard but receive B's and C's on their artwork because a teacher has decided that the standard isn't high enough. What teachers fail to take into account is that sometimes, students have talents in other creative areas that others don't know about. Maybe a person can't draw or paint, but they are amazing at photography, or they can play the piano like nobody's business. They should be allowed to pursue their passion instead of "broadening their horizons", because if they had other interests they would go after those instead. Furthermore, why do we discourage those with no artistic talent from doing art with bad grades? The fact that they stepped outside of their conmfort zone and worked to do something creative is a step towards what our society needs: imagination and innovation. I personally enjoy how my choir's grading is structured: points are given for attendance, behavior, and participation. "Singing talent" is not a grade. Even girls who know they aren't Christina Aguilera can sing their hearts out in choir without a fear of losing points, and they tend to be the most appreciative of the experience out of everyone. In my opinion, our fear of being failed by our lack of natural talent begins in first grade when we are told to color inside the lines. It is coloring outside the lines, and thinking  outside the box, that makes us humans, and makes us unique and beautiful individuals. -Grace M.