Creativity, Intimate Publics and the Proxemics of Pop Up Poetry Performance

  • Anne HarrisEmail author
  • Stacy Holman Jones
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 2)


While developing and nurturing creativity is increasingly a centerpiece of economic, cultural and arts policies, notions of what creativity is in an educational sense remain problematic to both policymakers and to the educators who seek to define, measure, and nurture it in their environments. In this chapter we use current research on creativity in education to highlight the ways performance and drama education currently approach the teaching and learning of creativity. We consider a recent relational ‘pop up poetry’ performance that embodies a kind of ‘one-to-one’ applied theatre that draws everyday audience members into relationship with the public poet, and in so doing creates a ‘politics of encounter’ which offers creative, pedagogical and political opportunities for social change. Such methods ask us to reconsider our ideas about the role of creativity in education contexts by claiming public space as a classroom and using performance encounters as creative rehearsal for social change. The ‘intimate publics’ created in such performances engage participants in a person-to-person encounter marked by collaborative learning and creative activism and citizenship.


Creativity Pedagogy One-to-one applied theatre Proxemics Intimate performance Poetry Pop up poetry 


  1. Aggelakos, C. (2007). The cross-thematic approach and the ‘new’ curricula of Greek compulsory education: Review of an incompatible relationship. Policy Futures in Education, 5(4), 460–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, A. (2017, April 21). American poets, refusing to go gentle, rage against the right. New York Times. Retrieved from
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1982, November). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bean, R. (1992). Individuality, self-expression & other keys to creativity: Using the 4 conditions of self-esteem in elementary and middle schools. Santa Cruz: ETR Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2013). The creative university. In T. Besley & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-imagining the creative university for the 21st century, creative education book series (pp. 1–7). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumenfeld-Jones, D. S. (2016). Teacher education for the 21st century: Creativity, aesthetics and ethics in preparing teachers for our future. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Burnard, P. (2011). Creativity, pedagogic partnerships, and the improvisatory space of teaching. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 51–72). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cachia, R., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in Europe. Seville: European Commission – Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Cannatella, H. (2004). Embedding creativity in teaching and learning. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 38(4), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, C. C. (2014). An IPA-embedded model for evaluating creativity curricula. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Council of the European Union. (2009). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020), Official Journal of the European Union, C 119 of 28.5.2009, 2009. Retrieved from EN:NOT.
  15. Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and early years education: A lifewide foundation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Craft, A. (2015). Possibility thinking: From what it is to what it might be. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 153–167). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., Dragovic, T., & Chappell, K. (2013). Possibility thinking: Culminative studies of an evidence-based concept driving creativity? Education 3–13, 41(5), 538–556. Scholar
  18. Creative Partnerships UK. (2012). Creative culture & education. Accessed:
  19. Creative Scotland. (2013). What is creativity? Scotland’s creative learning plan 2013. Resource document.
  20. Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  21. Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 83–114). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers’ beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2010). Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries (Green Paper). European Commission: Brussels. Resource document. Accessed 30 Mar 2017.
  24. European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/962/EC. Resource document. Retrieved from
  25. Ewing, R., & Gibson, R. (2015). Creative teaching or teaching creatively? Using creative arts strategies in preservice teacher education. Waikato Journal of Education, 20, 77–91. Scholar
  26. Gallace, R., & Spence, C. (2014). In touch with the future. Oxford: Berg Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallagher, K. (2007). Theatre of urban: Youth and schooling in dangerous times. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallagher, K., Starkman, R., & Rhoades, R. (2017). Performing counter-narratives and mining creative resilience: Using applied theatre to theorize notions of youth resilience. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(2), 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garber, M. (2016, Nov 10). Still, poetry will rise. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
  30. Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garner, R. (2007, October 31). Schools ‘must do more for creativity’. The Independent. Retrieved from
  32. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  34. Hallam, E., & Ingold, T. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Harris, A. (2014). The creative turn: Toward a new aesthetic imaginary. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harris, A. (2015a). Twice upon a place. Applied Theatre Researcher, 3(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harris, A. (2015b, August 19). Art, activism and our creative future. The conversation. Retrieved from
  38. Harris, A. (2016a). Creativity and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris, A. (2016b). Why creativity sucks so bad. NJ: The Journal of Drama Australia, 39(2), 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harris, A. (2016c). Creativity, religion and youth cultures. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harris, A. (2017). Creative ecologies: Fostering creativity in secondary schools final report. Resource document. Creative Research Hub.
  42. Harris, A., & Ammerman, M. (2016). The changing face of creativity in Australian education. Teaching Education, 27(1), 103–113. Scholar
  43. Harris, A., & Holman Jones, S. (2014). The ethics, aesthetics, and politics of creativity in research. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 3(3), 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harris, A., & Holman Jones, S. (2016). Writing for performance. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harris, A., & Sinclair, C. (2014). Critical plays: Embodied research for social change. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1994). Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of the expert approach to education. Dimensions of drama series. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  47. Heilmann, G., & Korte, W. B. (2010). The role of creativity and innovation in school curricula in the EU27: A content analysis of curricula documents. Resource document. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  48. Hickey-Moody, A. (2014). Little public spheres. In J. Burdick, J. Sandlin, & M. P. O’Malley (Eds.), Problematizing public pedagogy (pp. 117–129). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Hill, L., & Paris, H. (2014). Performing proximity: Curious intimacies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hunter, M. A. (2016). Drama education and its necessary disruptions. NJ: Drama Australia Journal, 40(2), 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leong, S. (2010). Creativity and assessment in Chinese arts education: Perspectives of Hong Kong students. Research Studies in Music Education, 32(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Machon, J. (2009). (Syn)aesthetics: Redefining visceral performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MCEECDYA (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs). (2008). Resource document. Education council secretariat. In The Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Scholar
  54. Nicholson, H. (2009). Theatre and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicholson, H. (2015). Applied drama: The gift of theatre (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Paris, H. (Forthcoming). Performing encounters. In S. Holman Jones (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of performance studies. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Sinclair, C., & Harris, A. (2016). Critical plays: An exploration in truth and verisimilitude. In G. Belliveau & G. Lea (Eds.), Research-based theatre: An artistic methodology (pp. 59–74). Chicago: Intellect.Google Scholar
  58. Torrance, E. P. (1975). Creativity research in education: Still alive. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 278–296). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  59. Torrance, E. P. (1992). A national climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 15(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Von Eschenbach, J. F., & Noland, R. G. (1981). Changes in student teachers’ perceptions of the creative pupil. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 6(3), 169–177.Google Scholar
  61. Walsh, C., Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2017). A co-creativity theoretical framework to foster and evaluate the presence of wise humanising creativity in virtual learning environments (VLEs). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
  63. Wang, A. Y. (2011). Contexts of creative thinking: A comparison on creative performance of student teachers in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of International and Cross-Cultural Studies, 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Theatre and PerformanceMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations