Creativity

Julie H · July 2, 2014

They (WassinkLundgren) love to explode the idea of the "decisive moment." In another of their projects, Empty Bottles, they would place an empty plastic bottle on the street -- in China -- and shoot whomever picked it up (strangers keeping the streets clean). They stumbled into this project by accident; they were setting up their view camera and had put out a bit of shiny plastic to use for focusing. A passerby picked it up just as they were shooting, and the image on the resulting contact fascinated them.

They note that they made all of the Empty Bottles pictures in full view of the people they were shooting, as they were using a view camera on a tripod. In one instance, two pedestrians carefully positioned themselves in front of the camera to shield the one who was picking up the bottle -- these people did this without knowing that WassinkLundrgren were interested in.

They, WL, comment that the empty bottles "almost functioned as a cable release here, decided the moment the film was exposed, and the people in front of the camera decided their own scene on our stage."

*************

However, creative photography about photography itself (such as WL did), need not be satirical or even simply exploratory (see, for example, the work of Kenneth Josephson). It can be beautiful, respectful, reverential, and subtle in its permutations.

Lood, for example, at the Early American project of Sharon Core. She looks reverently backwards to painting -- and yet, in so doing, she makes a wonderful pretzel of success that is deliciously dependent on her own failure. And, further, that failure only works if it is infinitesimally small; the smaller it is the more powerful it is. But if she somehow were to succeed, she would fail totally. I love it!

Here's what she did: she made scrupulous recreations of the still life paintings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphaelle_Peale">Raphaelle Peale</a>, a well-respected early American painter. She not only matched his arrangements, she sourced heirloom fruit varieties and Ebayed to find the same kinds of dishes and silverware. The interest in this work is in where, in spite of every possible effort, her photographs -- which are gorgeous -- do not, cannot, match the paintings. Compare <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Blackberries'_by_Raphaelle_Peale,_c._1813.JPG">Peale's Blackberries</a> to <a href="http://www.yanceyrichardson.com/artists/sharon-core/index.html?page=7&work_id=2038">Core's Blackberries</a>.

AS Brian Sholis writes in an essay to her book (the essay is titled 'Cross Pollination'); "A proper diagram of the transitions behind each of the plates in this book would include Peale's rendering of objects on his canvas, much later, the capturing of an image of that canvas by a camera; the reproduction of that photograph on the page of a Peale exhibition catalogue; Core's attempt to approximate (the spirit of) that reproduction in the studio with her own fruits, flowers, and other objects; her camera's record of that scene; and finally, the reproduction of Core's photograph on a page of this book. [ ... ] Peale aspired to make the flat surfaces of his canvases reveal the dimensionality and objectness of his subjects. Core turns that effort on its head, attempting to make the three-dimensional objects in front of her lens look like the flat reproductions of his paintings."

At the back of the book, Core notes, in passing, "As of 2010 the number of analog papers has decreased dramatically, and the paper used for this series has been discontinued."

clive_murray_white · July 2, 2014

Two minor problems with contemporary (art) photography are highlighted by your last comments, there is what I call acquiescent amnesia practiced by many contemporary arts writers who seem to almost purposely forget, or maybe never knew in the first place, that there were genuine innovators that virtually established genres, Ed Ruscha http://www.manhattanrarebooks-art.com/ruscha.htm and John Hilliard

http://www.source.ie/archive/issue52/is52interview_Richard_West_13_18_43_03-04-12.php

Being 2 of the most deserving, I particularly like Hilliard's 1972 Across the Park and gave my copies of Ruscha's 24 gas stations and Every building on Sunsetstrip to my eldest son who, to my absolute surprise went "OMG you've got those" when he saw them in a draw. He's an IT Executive and has nothing to do with art!

We must remember in terms of Core's work that virtually all of the earliest photography emulated fine art painting but until the advent of convincing/usable colour "old master painting" look photography was behind the 8 ball.

The other area that quite often gets completely overlooked, in terms of genuine photographic creativity is in the advertising, commercial, journalism and all non-fine art spheres, I suspect that fine art feeds off these areas far more than any art historian or museum curator is ever prepared to admit publicly. There's a few PhDs in that area just sitting there waiting to be snapped up!

I personally think that overcoming the limitations of focus, so that pictures can be created that allow the viewer to choose what they want to look at in the order of their choice is one of the big creative challenges, it is hinted at by David Hockney but handicapped by obviously being collages rather than seamless images - http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/hockney/pearblsm.jpg.html

My last topic is hinted at by your mention of the discontinuing of high quality papers for printing - again from my perspective one of the most engaging elements of photography, particularly B&W, was the surface character of many printed works - digital just doesn't cut it yet, it just seems too homogeneous to me but I'm sure people will start developing ways that photographers can control the surface texture/s of each print.

Julie H · July 3, 2014

Hockney's work deserves much more attention than it got, IMO. He really worked the concept, and you can see that "working" in his pictures.

*********************

On the creative process of "establishing genres," I have to do one of my Devil's Advocate role reversal things that I like to do in this forum. It's easy to look back fifty, a hundred years and say, gosh, isn't it obvious that these photographers were wonderfully creative. Obviously Stieglitz and Minor White were great shakers and movers! Moving closer, obviously Eggleston and Sherman are fascinatingly wonderful! (here we get a percentage of dropouts from our applause). But try it with, say Rinko Kawauchi and/or Alec Soth. Are they "obviously" fascinating and wonderful? Without the historical stamp of approval, one is on one's own and this feels ... dangerous to many viewers, including myself. (I love Kawauchi; I think Soth sucks; history may make a fool of me ... )

A contemporary of Stieglitz and Minor White, Ralph Steiner (who was a pretty good, if not first rank photographer himself), who was personal friends with both wrote this about Stieglitz and White:

"I always thought they had a relation in that they both did what I call post-transcendentalizing of their work. When a bowler twists his body after the ball has left his hand in order to influence the direction it will take, that is called 'body English.' Quite a few photographers give their prints 'body English' after they are finished and mounted. They talk up their prints and add value and meaning with words. With photographers such as Stieglitz and Minor, 'body English' seems a vulgar term, so I call it post-transcendentalism."

From the distance of history, we can laugh at Steiner and say, Ralph who? Stieglitz and White, on the other hand ... But the fact is, that many photographers do do what Steiner described; they may have true creativity in their intent, which they may talk and write about convincingly, but it's not there in the print. So, while I snicker at Steiner, I know that I am doing the same kind of belief-or-disbelief process on contemporary photographers, two of whom I have mentioned above (there are many, many more, of course).

Note also, however that the talking and writing and pushing (Steiner's "body English") is, almost always (Atget and such excepted) necessary if good creative work is to be successfully grafted onto the history of the medium. Hockney didn't do enough, IMO, and his seems to have faded from view. Another recent example might be the work of Peter Hujar, who, sadly, died before he could really push his stuff to the prominence I think it deserves. Of his work, Fran Lebowitz said this in an interview:

FL: The main thing that angered me is how many famous photographers stole from him. That's the kind of injustice that makes me wild.

Don't you believe that a fine work of art -- a book, a play, a concerto -- leaves some indelible image on our memory that cannot be erased, and if we are artists, we might unconsciously incorporate some element of that memory into our own work, maybe even in homage?

FL: To me, homage is the French word for "stealing"; I think it's stealing. I hate it. I think it's the sign of not being an artist, unless you are a kid. Peter never did that.

</blockquote>

Much of Hujar's work is very (very!) explicit male nudes, so there was that holding him back (in his day). But it's explicitness is not what it's about (as compared to the utterly crummy work of George Platt Lyons, or the paper-thin obviousness of Mapplethorpe). But here I am Steiner-ing away about the work (making my own body English for Hujar)-- in this case believing. Because, before history sorts it for me, I'm on my own.

Creativity is about this kind of putting one's beliefs in danger.

didereaux · July 3, 2014

Julie said "Creativity is about this kind of putting one's beliefs in danger."

Hogwash, and blather. Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before. Any other other appellation such as you lay upon it is just that, an appellation.

Jargon and babble are not the exclusive domains of the social/psychology crowd.

Julie H · July 3, 2014

"Hogwash, and blather." Steiner was blunter than that. He called it "lying" (later in the same writing quoted from above). But who remembers Steiner? And the guys he called "liars," Stieglitz and White?

didereaux · July 3, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie H</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 03, 2014; 12:53 p.m.

"Hogwash, and blather." Steiner was blunter than that. He called it "lying" (later in the same writing quoted from above). But who remembers Steiner? And the guys he called "liars," Stieglitz and White?"

What the h e double L has Steiner got to do with anything I just wrote? My comment was directed at the portion of your comment that I quoted. Focus, girl, focus!

clive_murray_white · July 3, 2014

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8186013">Jake MacButters</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 12:34 p.m.

Julie said "Creativity is about this kind of putting one's beliefs in danger." Hogwash, and blather. Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before. Any other other appellation such as you lay upon it is just that, an appellation. Jargon and babble are not the exclusive domains of the social/psychology crowd

Jake, maybe Julie and I are both a little guilty of having a rather selfish conversation in a dialect that we're both obviously comfortable with, you may call it "Jargon and babble" but as with everything you said, it relies on a really weird logic. You seem to be saying something that everyone knows is an obvious truth i.e that every style of profession/trade has its own "language" from plumbers to Popes so to speak....... but then you present the truth as if it should be taken as some kind of insult. A bit strange I think or should we say "creative"?

Similarly you criticise Julie with a statement that completely agrees with hers, new is often dangerous - at least in the mind of the person about to try it.

lex_jenkins · July 3, 2014

"Focus, girl, focus!"

</blockquote>

Unless you're using diminutives in real life with close friends and family who are receptive to casual and familiar terms of endearment, it's generally impolite to refer to a woman as a "girl" or resort to any other diminishing, demeaning or marginalizing characterization or epithet.

clive_murray_white · July 3, 2014

Point taken, Julie, re: old artists as opposed to new, everyone takes their chances in their own time of becoming the creator of the images/art that are seen in retrospect as typifying a time.

I have often thought about that process of selection and tried to comprehend it in terms of finding out what drives it and in consequence drives each new wave of thinking. For some time the best I could do is believe that the concept of what ever was considered "cool" by artists (primarily) in a particular era floated into contention for historical significance. Not very a very scholarly view I must admit.

That has been modified in the last year or so to realising that there is a kind unspoken consensus view at any one time within the artworld and regardless of what gets thrown at it, it always prevails, only to be eclipsed by the "NEW CONSENSUS".

didereaux · July 3, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 03, 2014; 06:19 p.m.

"Focus, girl, focus!"

</blockquote>

Unless you're using diminutives in real life with close friends and family who are receptive to casual and familiar terms of endearment, it's generally impolite to refer to a woman as a "girl" or resort to any other diminishing, demeaning or marginalizing characterization or epithet."

------------

Apparently there are several in here not willing to address my original statement about what creativity is. Whether from lack of understanding, or oversight I cannot tell...though the former tends to hold the higher ground in my opinion.

It is a common tactic for those who disagree with something, or don't understand it and want to hide the fact, by tossing red herrings about in such profusion that the conversation becomes one about the stench of dead fish and never returns to the initial statement. So be it.

If someone cares to scroll back to my original statement and comment on it directly then I will gladly reply. Until such I will not be sucked into a nursery school brouhaha.

clive_murray_white · July 3, 2014

Jake - I'd say your that your personal definition of creativity is far too narrow, you may enjoy reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before - so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not.

Below are a couple pics I made that, maybe, are quite "creative"and inject a lighthearted tone into our discussion.

Julie H · July 4, 2014

[looking sternly at Clive] I am sure those pictures are not genuine. Rembrandt was left-handed, and the blue pigment apparent in the Van Gogh did not exist in his lifetime! [triumphantly]

Back to our discussion, on consensus, it's kind of mysterious how it sorts itself out. I think of so many classical composers whose work was laughed at or worse when first performed, but which today seems so obviously gorgeous as to make the idea of it being "new" seem almost impossible. Then there's Shostakovich whose Lady Macbeth opera made him a dead man walking after Stalin condemned it as "degenerate." Yet he still composed his fourth symphony -- which truly almost got him killed. Yet again, he still composed his fifth, but this time he lied about what it "meant." To the Western critics who mistook the fifth as bending to Stalin's will, he bitterly wrote, "Those who have ears will hear."

I'm interested in the role that curating plays in all of this; as gatekeepers, the curator is key, but in art, he/she is often not so much gatekeeper as ring-master or at least promoter of the new and strange. I have two books on curating that, you'll be happy to hear, I haven't read yet, so I won't be able to go off any further on this tangent.

Back to creative photography, and further back to photography about photography. In contrast with the already mentioned WassinkLundgren, Ruscha, and others (turning on ideas of art photography), or Core, whose ideas turn about photography/painting/history, consider this picture by Daniel Joseph Martinez titled <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/martinez_after01.jpg">George and Daniel. In an insane world it was the sanest choice of How one philosophizes with a hammer. After Harold Edgerton, 1964; Eddie Adams, 1969</a>.

In that picture, rather than exploring photography as art, Martinez explores the contrasting/conflicting modes of photography (documentary/scientific/photojournalism) and/into art. Compare the affectively hard, sharp edges of his work to, for example, Core's or even Ruscha's. Between the genres of photography itself, there is harsher, and in that sense, more immediately powerful, territory for exploration than can be done within photo-as-art (Ruscha et al) ... if "harsher" harder, sharper, is what you want to explore.

didereaux · July 4, 2014

"

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5581841">Clive Murray-White</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 10:50 p.m.

Jake - I'd say your that your personal definition of creativity is far too narrow, you may enjoy reading:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity</a>

Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before - so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not. "

I believe it is you who are restricting the definition. As you correctly noted I said "Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before". But your "so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not""Is extremely narrow, implying that only the knowledgeable can be creative. I thought the discussion was about creativity as a whole, and not just about creativity of select individuals.

I stand by my definition as being far more definitive of creativity as a whole than yours which applies to a select sub-group.

Julie H · July 4, 2014

How do you know you've been creative? After all, every single thing you do has "not been seen before" and can be done "in a manner you have not seen before." And why should I believe that you've been creative?

clive_murray_white · July 4, 2014

Are you still here Jake? I can't quite fathom why, so far you've insulted Julie, been reprimanded by Lex, and for reasons best known to yourself, misread virtually every word I've written, shown an inability to comprehend fairly straightforward English and have twisted all meaning into things that simply were not said.

I cannot understand why someone with such an overtly anti-intellectual attitude would want come and play in the Philosophy of Photography Forum. Your "my gun is bigger than yours" approach wont work on me; it has been my paid job to for so long to cut unreasonably opinionated university students down to size that I can do it with my eyes closed and one hand behind my back.

I think the best gesture you can make is to put up the most creative picture you think that you have done and explain to us why it is creative.

charleswood · July 4, 2014

Let's try to make an argument then from some foundations.

Broadly speaking, nature recreates itself through successive generations with variations over time whose causes we don't ascribe to conscious intent. Food and reproduction rule in the animal and plant kingdoms where outside of our species, we don't recognize in a tool anything other than utilitarian purposes. As a species we aren't unique in making tools.

We so far claim to be unique in our propensity to decorate tools without a strictly utilitarian purpose, without a direct and immediate relationship to either food or reproduction. Feathers on an arrow shaft are one thing, needlessly colorful feathers on an arrow shaft are another. Feathers on an arrow shaft aren't art, and poorly selected colorful feathers aren't Art. At some point tool decoration became decoration for decoration's sake where it wasn't even a tool being decorated any longer. We create when we make a tool, so does a crow. But a crow doesn't try and decorate a tool when s/he's done with it. A crow puts its tool to use right away.

So to create is to make something, whether it's imitative or not. You made it, nature didn't. To create art is to create something with no utility. To create Art is to have been really good at making a thing so useless it is appreciated just for itself. Otherwise you just throw it away or turn it into something useful around the house. If it's a printed photograph, then other than burning it for warmth I can thing of only one other use.

clive_murray_white · July 4, 2014

Charles - I think I'd have to go a lot broader than that, I'm not convinced that animals can't be creative or think creatively - my dog sings along with Pavarotti! and can sometime be heard wandering around the garden singing the same song (making the same hideous noise), birds make nests could that be architecture? and what about Old Tom the killer whale that helped whalers catch other whales by towing their boats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whales_of_Eden,_Australia

There are too many examples of humans using things that have been made entirely by nature and using or defining them as art for us to say creativity can be restricted to making things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_scholar's_rocks

I think you are completely right about humans being the only species that creates art - regardless of all the silly examples where humans have put paint brushes in elephant trunks etc and claimed that the animal was making art.

clive_murray_white · July 5, 2014

Stern look look or not Julie, you may have to define your notion of genuine - I think my pics are genuine reproductions of tiny web posts or genuine web "readymades" altered by me to create illustrations that demonstrate some of the fundamentals of creativity. By the way I'm left handed too and it irks me that all of my cameras force me to use my right hand - of course I've got so used to it that if there were left handed cameras I'd probably find it quite strange. The pictures were made for my blog - and started off like this,

"A friend on the Leica M9 forum (luf) sort of brought up the question of what makes Rembrandt great, the answer I posted follows......................

As for Rembrandt and what makes him great, easy answer - he invented the M9 of his day and used his Noctilux wide open - his was better than ours because it could focus on both near things and far things simultaneously and could infinitely vary the bokeh. Nice tool eh? He also had low light nailed! more on http://murray-white.blogspot.com.au/2010_11_01_archive.html

The pictures rely on one of the most trustworthy creative tools that in essence replicate the structure of jokes - you put 2 bits of well known/recognisable/comprehensible information together to create something entirely new in terms of either meaning or aesthetics. No I would not claim that these little pics are or could be great art! Sadly I think you got me on the Van Gogh blue.

It has always interested me how each successive generations of artists, curators and historian/theorists not only re-evaluate arts practitioners from the past but also reorganise the "pecking order". I suspect that the main reason for this is that we tend to look at the past through the eyes and values of the present, so in effect History can never be a static set of facts.

I have also noticed that there is a possible pattern to what gets revived in art, it seams to run parallel to fashion, interior design, maybe popular music - art students have an uncanny knack of sniffing out great old stuff that nobody else thinks is great.

charleswood · July 5, 2014

Dictionary.com create: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.

So, and not in order, a scholar's rock is a new interpretation of a rock and an interpretation is a thing, an interpretation is thing that is made, but apparently an interpretation is only a creative one if it is new. An interpretation has to be made before we can decide if it is new. I could interpret a rock as a pet, but that wouldn't be new, I couldn't patent it or claim to have been creative. Only if it's new is it creative.

A bird species can be identified by its nest, nests then are invariable as to form, and therefore can't be an example of bird creativity.

Your dog imitated a song, sang a song but didn't make the song up, so your dog's singing can't be an example of dog creativity unless s/he had a new interpretation of the song Pavarotti taught him, which we probably agree is unlikely? My dog can solve problems, but there's nothing new in his solutions. His solutions come from his ability to think through a problem to arrive at an answer that, sadly, some other dog has already arrived at. Just like birds make the same old tool that birds have made for countless generations.

Cooperation between species is nothing new, symbiotic relationships, e.g. a falconer's hawk will hunt cooperatively with a hunting dog, coyotes and badgers team up to get rodents, all traditional solutions to problems, by definition, not creative. I think rather those are examples of plasticity in animal behavior, not of creativity where I've come to accept that creative requires something new.

When I see domestic dog behavior, I see a disconnect between the behavior and it's proper function (survival function), behavior misplaced, not in a direct relationship to the only two things that my dogs are capable of doing: getting food and reproducing. Coyotes and wolves in situ exhibit similar behaviors yet exhibit those behaviors working in concert with each other towards obtaining food and reproducing. These separate patterns of behavior in domestic dogs don't all necessarily relate to each other in concert, and in their fluidity and plasticity we may think we see signs of creativity, but creativity just isn't there, only misplacement is there. Lack of necessity, our feeding our dogs, is the mother of their only apparent creativity. Domestic dog behaviors are traditional and we can and have influenced those behaviors with our ability to create. Animals don't do anything different, and have been doing the same things over and over for a long long time. They are conservative traditionalists quintessentially. As a species we claim to have the ability to change, to conceive of something new, to imagine it and make it. A cow can't claim to be that unpredictable.

That said, I'm not convinced that elephants can't create. From the videos I've seen, they interpret their subjects in ways I find astonishing.

charleswood · July 5, 2014

Julie - "And why should I believe that you've been creative?"

Because its origin wasn't imitative. Some discoveries are often more or less simultaneous and it's hard to tell who was the first. For example, I invented peanut butter on saltine crackers, a first for me. So if you get there without having been taught, isn't it the same creative process used by the first person to put peanut butter on a saltine cracker? This definition that requires of creative something entirely new is starting to bother me.

clive_murray_white · July 5, 2014

Charles re:- your previous comments, this why this topic can rattle along for 90+ comments. I have to use a word now that could be considered inflammatory, it is not intended that way but I can't think of a better one, so sorry in advance. The simplest way of talking about your gastronomic invention is that you would be deluded if you thought you had been creative - and you probably know that too, but the idea that we can reduce "creativity" down to "in the mind of the creator" is, as we all really know, just a little inadequate.

Personally - I think the best way forward is to accept that there are levels of creativity and at the very bottom are gestures like your peanut butter creation, say 1-100 on the score sheet, so insignificant that most people wouldn't consider it creative at all. Best to think of it as a creative starting point.

Julie H · July 5, 2014

There's a big difference between creating an end (a result, a conclusion) that you can point to triumphantly, or happily and say, 'well, there it is! look what I just created' and everybody will agree; 'that's it. There it is.'

... and creating a beginning (what Clive mentioned earlier, a new or changed question); an opening, a passage, a fissure, the interstices, window, door; ... whatever stimulation or or provocation or kick in the ass that shifts you off balance, into some place or condition that you haven't been able to get to before. In this case you can never point to anything and say triumphantly or happily, 'there it is!' because what you've been given is access. Serious voodoo. Or not. It's up to you.

charleswood · July 5, 2014

Yes I was deluded when I thought that I had made a new snack treat, as was Newton deluded until he found out about Leibniz. Of those two, which wasn't the creative one? The answer is that, accepting they worked independently, both were creative even though one produced something before the other did. Julie asks why we should believe, say in my snack treat, that I was creative. If creative means the making of something new, then either Leibniz or Newton fails the creativity test. Reinventing also, and I can't imagine that any would disagree, can be as 'creative' an act as invention. Perhaps the starting point should be in agreeing on definitions that are adequate to describe the phenomenon under discussion which may be the only phenomenon that differentiates us from plants and other animals.

charleswood · July 5, 2014

Interesting that the latin root of create is to make, produce, and is related to the latin word for to grow.

charleswood · July 5, 2014

Julie "There's a big difference between creating an end (a result, a conclusion) that you can point to triumphantly, or happily and say, 'well, there it is! look what I just created' and everybody will agree; 'that's it. There it is.'"

vs. the new.

There is and yet what I feel what might be missed is that it's the same creative phenomenon that reinvented my snack treat. Yes disappointment came when I 'published' my finding, all my little friends said they had invented peanut butter on saltine crackers too. I also soon realized it was pointless to discuss with them who among us did it first. We all had done it, and it became apparent that so could have any other kid.

Sign In

Creativity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in