CREATIVITY IN THE DAILY LIVES OF YOUNG PEOPLE: THE PLACE OF SCHOOL AND EXPERIENCE

Abstract

Creativity and school mark the daily lives of an expressive youth segment. We analyze the extent to which school experience and everyday creative manifestations are related. We conducted qualitative, socio-historical research, using semi-structured interviews with seven young students, analyzed from the established meaning nuclei. The social experience, of heterogeneous principles, was understood as a way of designating the behaviors, produced from the combination of different logics action. The young people surveyed considered themselves creative. The school experience was linked to creativity in everyday life insofar as they were connected in the networks of spaces that were established in the youth experience of each one. The school, and what it represented to them, was not interpreted as a significant locus for the actors’ experience.

CREATIVITY; SCHOOL; YOUTH; SOCIAL EXPERIENCE

Resumo

Analisamos em que medida a experiência escolar e as manifestações criativas cotidianas se relacionam. Realizamos pesquisa qualitativa, sócio-histórica, utilizando entrevistas semiestruturadas com sete jovens estudantes, analisadas a partir dos núcleos de significação estabelecidos. A experiência social, de princípios heterogêneos, foi compreendida como forma de designar as condutas, produzidas a partir da combinação de distintas lógicas de ação. Os jovens pesquisados se consideraram criativos. A experiência escolar se vinculava à criatividade na vida cotidiana na medida em que se conectavam nas redes de espaços que se estabeleciam na experiência juvenil de cada um. A escola, e o que ela representava para eles, não era interpretada como locus significativo para a experiência dos atores.

CRIATIVIDADE; ESCOLA; JUVENTUDE; EXPERIÊNCIA SOCIAL

Resumen

Analizamos el grado en que la experiencia escolar y las manifestaciones creativas cotidianas están relacionadas. Se realizó una investigación cualitativa, socio histórica, utilizando entrevistas semiestructuradas con siete jóvenes estudiantes, analizados a partir de los núcleos de significado establecidos. La experiencia social, de principios heterogéneos, fue entendida como una forma de designar las conductas, producidas a partir de la combinación de diferentes lógicas de acción. Los jóvenes encuestados se consideraban creativos. La experiencia escolar estuvo ligada a la creatividad en la vida cotidiana ya que se conectaron en las redes de espacios que se establecieron en la experiencia juvenil de cada uno. La escuela, y lo que representaba para ellos, no era interpretada como locus significativo para la experiencia de los actores.

CREATIVIDAD; ESCUELA; JUVENTUD; EXPERIENCIA SOCIAL

Résumé

Ce travail analyse dans quelle mesure l’expérience scolaire et les manifestations créatives du quotidien sont liées. Une recherche qualitative et socio-historique a été réalisée à l’aide d’entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès de sept jeunes élèves. Les résultats ont été analysés à partir des noyaux de sens qui s’en sont dégagés. L’expérience sociale, aux principes hétérogènes, a été saisie comme une manière de désigner des comportements, produits à partir de la combinaison de différentes logiques d’action. Les jeunes interrogés se sont tous considérés comme créatifs. L’expérience scolaire est apparue liée à la créativité dans la vie quotidienne dans la mesure où les élèves y ont reconnu les réseaux d’espaces déjà présents dans leur propre expérience juvénile. L’école, et ce qu’elle représentait pour eux, n’a pas été interprétée comme un locus significatif pour l’expérience des acteurs.

CRÉATIVITÉ; ÉCOLE; JEUNESSE; EXPÉRIENCE SOCIALE

This article analyzes the relationship between creativity, developed and expressed in everyday life, and school experience in the young student’s lives in the last year of high school, aiming to characterize the disconnections/ connections formed by them.

Youth and creativity attract the attention of common sense and academia. On the one hand, there is recurrence in the speeches regarding the almost tacit contemporary demand for creativity, especially of youth, in particular as a requirement for dispute and insertion in the work world (Veloso, 2010). Creativity as an event, which transforms into a product, it is an effort to integrate subjects into the status quo of a predominantly capitalist society. Such a perspective of creativity is opposite to that advocated in this article. Mitjáns Martínez (1997, p. 53), whom we support, conceives the attraction exerted by the theme in the different fields - this demand and spectacular perspective of creativity - as something historically conditioned by the impositions “of modern society, the growing advance of science and technique and the interest for the development of human potential”. In one way or another, the subjects are challenged to create, mobilized from their processes of appropriation or motivated - as a resistance form or not - by the normalizing pressures in the different socialization spaces.

Also, the demands of youth, their development as creative subjects, their choices, their present, and their future are effervescent subjects. In part, because it is understood that the cultural changes of the present times may be perceived with greater visibility in youth than in other social groups, working as a synthesis of society. The distinctive aspect of the contemporary valorization of the present time converts it into a cultural model. As Leão and Carmo (2014, p. 20) write, “in this world, the present has great power, and youth has a special place, at least from the point of view of cultural, aesthetic and media icons. Everyone wants to dress, behave and have a youthful body”, perhaps because they see in it, while in perspective, the vigor, the operative and intellectual capacity to produce, explore and experience senses.

But what is the relationship between youth and creativity? Direct, to the extent that creativity is understood here as always present in our relationship with the world. We create, as Ostrower (2001) writes, not for taste, pleasure, but a necessity, as a proposition or response to the world, not as something natural or spontaneous, but originated in work, human activity that transforms reality and man himself. Also, because we understand human development as a socio-historical process: as it develops, and the structures of the personality are being formed, the person increases his creative capacity in movement concomitant with the accumulation of experiences and the development of rationality, in a direct relationship with the ability and exercise of the imagination, which, in the development process, passes from an almost exclusive bond with fantasy, in childhood, to a relationship, also fruitful, with rationality, having its peak in youth (Vigotski, 2009).

This action - living, being in the world daily, having a relationship with it - for most young Brazilians,¹ to some extent, is also related to being at school. At least two factors have historically contributed to this. The current Federal Constitution (1988) in its article 208, by intending the progressive universalization of access to public schools until high school, triggers movement in the different federative entities of massification of Basic Education. Also, Law 12.852/2013 that institutes the Youth Statute in Brazil, when considering young people between 15 and 29 years of age, reinforces, even in theory, the relationship of young people with school: as young they will attend for at least studying high school and graduation.

This practice, disseminated and protected by the law, helps the environment, culture, and school experience to sustain significant importance in today’s society by helping to form young people and an opinion about them and the youth phenomenon.

It does not mean, however, the defense here that in Brazil, the universalization of secondary education among young people occurs in a linear, planned way, without any problems, or setbacks, or contradictions. In 2019, for example, according to data from the National Household Sampling Survey (Pnad), around 9.8 million people aged 14 to 29 were out of school, abandoned without completing high school, with approximately 5,04 million of these left school between 16 and 18 years of age (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, n.d.), which allows to characterize the current reality of access to education and stay in school more as an expansion than universalization “due to the high percentages of young people still out of school and the persistence of high dropout and failure rates” (Dayrell & Jesus, 2016, p. 412).

But it means understanding contemporary society as schooled, with the school at the center of its identifying references, as approached by Dalabrida (2004) and Sposito (2003), perceiving it under the hegemonic cultural orientation that going to school is more than desirable, is a legal obligation under penalty of sanction. The massification in progress, as stated by Leão (2018), is not accompanied by an equivalent improvement, expansion, adequacy school structure, nor teachers' working conditions, which, in theory, would support the success of this new reality.

In this way, therefore, the school takes on a meaningful role in the new generations education process, placing itself in the list of main secondary socialization spaces through which the subjects pass: “in modern societies, the school is the institution whose specific function is to form new generations for social life” (Leão & Carmo, 2014, p. 37). It does not occupy a central role in the youth condition construction since multiple factors are present in this complex exposure process in heterogeneous and competitor spaces (Dayrell, 2007) but, it has a relevant place in this construction because it is space-time around which specific and articulated experiences are organized.

Even young people who are out of school, removed for any reason or who have never enrolled, have been the target of concerns and plans, sometimes materialized in public policies, for their insertion or mitigation effects of this exclusion, considered as negative.

The daily lives of youths, therefore, are marked by creativity as a possibility and by the school, either because they are in it as students, or because it is the school and what fluctuates in its surroundings (success rate, permanence, illiteracy, work training, etc.) component of the different indicators that assess the youth conditionWe do not seek in this text to reflect on issues related to school subject or the school as a complex institution (Ezpeleta & Rockwell, 1989), but, having the school as an environment from which young people build a specific social experience, think about the effects of this experience in your daily creative action. We also do not question the school about its structure for creativity or the production of creative spaces (Biarnès, 2007), but young people and their speeches about the relationships made between their daily creative actions and the school experience.

Creativity, school and everyday experience: analytical categories

In addition to the concept of youth, seen as a social category, defined from the relationships established socially and historically, and, as it appears in Brazil, crossed by schooling as a reality and parameter for analyzing their situation, the discourse of young people was analyzed based on three other categories put into perspective: school experience, creativity and everyday life.

We discuss school experience based on the broader epistemological scope of social experience, which includes thinking of socialization as “the double movement by which a society endows itself with actors capable of ensuring its integration and individuals, subjects susceptible to producing an autonomous action” (Dubet & Martuccelli, 1997, p. 241) configuring a creative tension. Such social experience is understood as a way of designating people’s social behaviors, organized by heterogeneous principles and produced from the combination of different logics of action. The school experience, seen as how an individual or collective actors combine different action logics that structure the school world, is integrated into the framework of possible experiences. It takes place amid everything the school world means: school activities inside and outside the school, the distinct mobilizations for studying and being in school, relationships with teachers, colleagues, family, friendships, and the impact this in the choices made, affections, etc. This occurs, in part, through the appropriation process of what the school proposes, its contents, and its dimensions as part of a system, permeated by the logic of action - integration, strategy, and subjectivities.

In a succinct approach, integration represents the bond to a group of peers, a philia, a group of equals, with whom friendships, confidences and loves are shared. In this logic, liking the school means to like “the world of elective affinities that develop in the school organization's cracks, breaks, recess, cafes, walks, everything that, from their point of view, is part of a formation of your personality ” (Dubet, 1994, p. 210). The strategic action is linked with treating the school as a market, with a specific product - the diploma - that may meet some future needs related to the job market. In the classroom, the class almost always makes it an environment where alliances and conflicts are produced. The subjects and the school itself are evaluated and classified in terms of prestige, degree of difficulty they impose on students, percentage of students who gain access to the university, building a hierarchy (Dubet & Martuccelli, 1998).

Finally, the logic of subjectivation plays the role of arbiter between the two other logics. Experience is understood as a continuous process of constituting itself, in a dialectical becoming: at the same time that it is transformed, it affirms a way of being. Subjectivation is configured as a kind of articulation synthesis of different experiences built in the distinct spaces where young people circulate, including the school, running through the actions that involve the other assumptions mobilized in the ways of acting.

Creativity is understood as something typical of human activity, immersed in the socio- -historical context, part of the mechanism that involves learning and developing, processing, adapting, and overcoming what appears in human existence (Vigotski, 2009). It is not seen as something individualized, a compartmentalized characteristic that manifests itself in some spheres of life, something almost apart from the subject who takes it or leaves it circumstantially. We reflected on the creativity expressed in everyday life, integrated with living, present in actions that represent novelty and value for a given context (Mitjáns Martínez, 1997), but also in the tactics that make up the network of an anti-discipline (Certeau, 1998), a subversive resistance, counterparts to any kind of domination or regulation of life that presents itself heteronomously.

Creativity, therefore, is present in our relationship with the world, from an early age, always socially mediated (Ostrower, 2001). When it directly linked to the execution of an activity, it may be understood as a human prerogative, not in the sense of being an exclusivity in terms of strict production of something, adaptation to the environment or organization of a certain collectivity, but to the fact that the human being makes the double movement of creating in the mind, imagining, mentally conceiving what want before to do. It is engendered in a dialectical movement between replication and creation: replication is intimately linked to memory, to reproduce previously created and elaborated means of conduct or to resuscitate previous impressions marks; creation - combinatory or creative activities - occurs from the imagination and necessarily results in the production of new images and actions (Vigotski, 2009).

Finally, daily lives are conceived as the social spaces where young people live, move, and express their creativity amid various logics of action. Spaces that help to create, affecting them and being affected, where the exercise of creativity interests us: the daily practices of so-called common people, permeated by creative actions, occurring in an indiscriminate and, often, unassuming manner, justifying the idea of creativity beyond the event, manifested in the integral production space of life, from which no one can escape, as reflected by Agnes Heller (1994) and Michel de Certeau (1998).

These authors, starting from different philosophical bases - Karl Marx translated by Georg Lukács and Ludwig Wittgenstein respectively - propose an approach to everyday life - its structuring and its invention - focusing on the possibility of its transformation, highlighting the differences between the instituted and what is learned or subjectified. 'The life of all men and man as a whole’ is a paraphrase of what Heller (1994) wrote about daily life, but it also fits for Certeau’s (1998) perceptions. For Heller, it has to do with the idea that, at birth, there is a ready daily life and, regardless individual’s stage of historical consciousness, he is and remains inserted in this daily life at first strange, but that later becomes part of him. Certeau already makes his analyzes considering this integration to everyday life as factual, not representing it in a blind relationship of cultural consumption, but of producing a way of life based on tactics, ways that are invented to use the norms, tools and behaviors, subverting the order to a greater or lesser degree. Through action, a transformative role may be played, either through practices (the arts of making) or through the assimilation of a way of life and its transformation through the development of non-daily actions, but which are born in it and it is reflected transforming it.

The general perspectives set out above regarding daily lives are not in themselves generators or deterrent to creativity. It, as the subject's prerogative, occurs from it and wherever it is, regardless of whether it is officially and formally fostered, whether or not it is strategies of more controlled spaces, such as the school.

Method

In order to deal with the proposed question, we carried out qualitative research² with a socio-historical approach. By this approach, it is understood that human development occurs, not by inherent properties, but from and within social relationships. Relationships that appropriate, built, affect, and are affected by being in a constant dialogical process (Molon, 2008).

The object of the study required some procedural definitions. First, thelocus. We chose, for operational convenience, to work with young people from a single school: being in one place would facilitate the approach and collection of narratives. The specific place was defined by the approaching that we had already defined: a public school in the state of Alagoas, in the city of Maceió, Brazil, where we had already been building work and affective bonds with teachers and the school administration for the previous conduct of other researches and for already having been attended by family members of one researcher.

In this school, we looked for young volunteers, last year students of high school in the morning shift, on the assumption that, for the longest time at school, they would have a greater volume of experience and better conditions to express it. After insertions disseminating the research proposal at the beginning of 2016 and 2017 school years, twenty-six young people volunteered initially. Thirteen dropped out. The others volunteers who did not drop out, we could meet to talk at least twice with only seven (four women and three men; three from 2016 and four from 2017), which provided a greater narrative density for the analysis and inferences regarding the relationships between school experience, daily life and, creation. The other six young people's narratives, the result of only the first interview, were not used for this analysis due to the incompleteness content produced.

The analytical corpus was made of semi-structured interviews, deepening and recurring, guided by different and complementary scripts. In the first interview, besides the presentations and conversation about research objectives, were discussed topics related to daily life (actions usually developed in daily life, the things that they thought most important) and the school (description and comments about the everyday school, the mobilization for the school and the family-school relationship).

In the second and the other interviews, which always happened after the transcription and preliminary analysis of the previous one, the research process was reminded, and the questions related to previous conversations were clarified and deepened. Also, we addressed topics related to the daily lives of young people as in the first conversation. In the sequence, we talked about creativity, its relationship with everyday things, and school, addressing the actions that took place in the routine described, considered creative or not by young people.

There were also informal conversations with young people during breaks between classes, addressing subjects from the interviews, and the school routine of that moment, recorded in a field notebook. Four young people also elaborated inventories uses of time and creativity, a kind of diary where they described creative actions developed on a specific day. The inventory and the way to use it were presented to everyone at the end of the first interview. The matter of these informal conversations and inventories were also the subject of discussions on creativity from the second interview. The routine of visits to the school for meetings with young people was equivalent to approximately 120 hours of conversation, for 76 days of interactions, informal dialogues, interviews, and participation in activities at the school.

The chart below shows the codename assigned to each young person, their age, and the procedures for narratives collecting that each one participated.

QUADRO 1
JOVENS PARTICIPANTES³ EM RELAÇÃO AOS PROCEDIMENTOS DE RECOLHA DAS NARRATIVAS

Youth identification	Collection activities that participated in the survey
	Duration of interviews (minutes and seconds)	Conversations	Inventory
1. Azaleia - 19 years old	1ª - 30’ 38’’ 2ª - 36’ 19’’	Yes	Yes
2. Bell Marques - 17 years old	1ª - 29’ 20’’ 2ª - 25’ 44’’ 3ª - 42’ 42’’	Yes	Yes
3. Cravo - 20 years old	1ª - 28’ 08’’ 2ª - 16’ 23’’ 3ª - 35’ 16’’	Yes	No
4. Emanuel Sicômoro - 18 years old	1ª - 20’ 48’’ 2ª - 16’ 52’’ 3ª - 09’ 03’’ 4ª - 37’ 14’’	Yes	Yes
5. Margarida - 17 years old	1ª - 51’ 19’’ 2ª - 31’ 54’’	Yes	No
6. Rosa - 18 years old	1ª - 37’ 29’’ 2ª - 35’ 53’’	Yes	No
7. Violeta - 18 years old	1ª - 37’ 51’’ 2ª - 28’ 15’’	Yes	Yes

• Source: Authors’s elaboration.

The narratives constituted a channel of senses and an interpretation source dimensions of each young person's own experience in daily life. Were analyzed based on the proposal by Aguiar and Ozella (2013), which consists of the establishment of meaning cores from an analytical effort in three stages: 1) pre-indicators identification : transcribed interviews readings, field notes, and inventories, aiming “articulated words that [composed] a meaning, [carrying and expressing] the subject totality and, therefore, [constituting] a unity of thought and language” (Aguiar & Ozella, 2013, p. 309), to be transformed into pre-indicators; 2) development of indicators and thematic content, through the “agglutination of the pre-indicators, whether due to similarity, complementarity or counterposition” (Aguiar & Ozella, 2013, p. 309), reducing diversity in relation to the previous list and safeguarding the articulation and insertion of these indicators in all the thematic content present in the subject's expressions. 3) the nomination of meaning cores: for this, in the condition of socio-historical assumptions for discourse analysis, we return to the transcriptions, the pre-indicators, indicators, and field notes, taking care that the constituent aspects of these nuclei and the context aspects were present, so as not to be transformed into appendages, something with a life of its own separate from the subject's signification processes, present specifically in the transcribed material. The words are not loose in the narrative but integrated into the set of meanings that the subject is demonstrating. The analysis was, therefore, a cyclical movement, seeking an increasing degree of deepening and abstraction.

Creation and creativity: notes from the narratives

The elements present in the narratives made it possible to form a panorama related to the mobilization for creativity and the place of school experience in this scenario. This place is pointed out below through three aspects that are integrated: elements concept of creativity that point to the importance of school experience in the general process of its development, but not directly from what the school proposes to teach; the figures and images that young people formed, from school experience, of how the school corresponded to their expectations regarding creativity; and networks of spaces for creation, formed with the school participation, but with protagonism of other spaces and other interests.

Creativity: concepts and development in the school experience

The seven young men considered themselves creative. This conception is not related to the fact that they are young or can accomplish some specific things, linked to art or an eventual product, but also to solve most different problems - personal, work, school, etc. - and to requalify the existing one.

Three principles marked this creativity conception. One referred to acting boldly, in a sense more like an act with ease and courage. Something like perceiving a situation outside what you think is right and taking action. In the youth's experience, this creativity seemed to be hindered by issues related to some emotional states that caused fear of making mistakes and criticism from others, laziness, and delay in making decisions. The excerpt below from young Bell Marques presents this movement towards action thus creativity:

. . . I like to do a lot of things. I don't like standing still doing anything, because being still is very bad. I do love to watch a tv show, or to help my mom with something, to play guitar, anything I'm doing, but standing still is not enough. . . . Standing still is being bored sitting there, looking at the wall and seeing it like that, there's nothing to do, there's no tv show, there's no new song. . . . that's 'the nothing' for me. I'm going to read a book or read the bible, something, watch some videos on the internet. (Bell Marques, interview 1).

Such empirical situations should not be seen as evidence to foster hypotheses of creativity restricted to certain areas, people, or pre-defined emotional states, positive or negative. However, should be seen as a reaffirmation that being an integral part of the subject, of its development process, and involvement with the world, the participant subjective characteristics “of the subject creative expression are constituted and developed throughout his life history in the function of the relationships that he establishes in his different social contexts of actions and relationships” (Mitjáns Martínez, 2002, p. 191).

Another striking principle was the notion of novelty: presenting something new, even if it is based on what already exists, often seen in everyday life. It was linked to taking advantage, not wasting, recycling, transforming what was bad - or already used - into something special. This concept aspect contained the notion that something might not be creative, but become evidence of the dynamism of the signification processes. Emanuel Sicômoro expressed his perception of creativity as follows:

. . . I perceive imagination and creativity in people, in the simplest things of everyday life: when the teacher does something out of the ordinary and interacts more with the students, . . . the school cleaners, even with little material, manage to keep the environment organized; when someone surprises me by making something simple and known, new to my eyes. (Emanuel Sicômoro, interview 1).

The third principle regarding creativity perceived in the reports was the need for an effort to create, as opposed to the conception that creativity would be a gift or the result of innate characteristics, restricted to some people. It emerged as something that is learned and developed, intensifies or diminishes, a human prerogative (Vigotski, 2009) in direct relation with the socio-historical dynamics of development, linking itself to work, to reflexivity. Azaleia reports his journey towards creativity as a journey of great effort:

. . . it is not something that you are born with, I think we learn creativity because I am not creative, but I can acquire a little bit thanks to RPG, which is a game that I play that forces me to be creative, can you understand? So I think not initially, I didn't work, I didn't have that, it was difficult, I was waiting for something to happen, like, ah! I have to solve this situation, but I was waiting to fall from the sky . . . I had no creativity for anything, . . . after I started working on it, I may already solve some problems. (Azalea, interview 1).

Even Violeta, for whom creativity was understood as innate and latent - “in my case, I think it came with me, but I think it is something you can learn, you can improve, train” - the idea of ​​learning and training it appeared in his conception: asleep, she could be awakened again by this effort. The intellectual effort to question and produce ideas and physical effort to perform the defined tasks. That could represent an opinion in something from a new perspective, the artistic expression that synthesizes moments experienced in school day-to-day life and in general. Also, the awareness changing posture upon some reality, the abstraction of a given condition that has already been absorbed and automated by daily life enabling criticism, the appropriation of examples and models from third parties, placing and removing ideas from them in addition to concrete challenges for everyday life.

Such principles can be related to what Mitjáns Martínez writes (1997, p. 54, author’s italics, own translation), proposing the definition for creativity assumed here: “the process of producing something new (at least for those who produce it) that satisfies the demands of a certain social situation ” since it is part of the subject and develops with him. In the young people experience, creativity did not appear at the edge of it but appeared in a course in which the cognitive and the affective participated, that is, what they knew and was being dominated in terms of know-how to do, it was linked to a strong involvement and motivation, love and enthusiasm related to the activity performed (Mitjáns Martínez, 1997). Elements that, being constitutive of the subject, cannot be considered as things that would be there in advance, but something to be mobilized.

Young people talked about different examples indicating a concerning attitude towards living (Ostrower, 2001). In this list, everyone mentioned organization and time management, which became a challenge, especially for those who worked; the ability to ask questions to analyze a determined reality combined with the proposition of action plans (Emanuel Sicômoro, Rosa, Azaleia); explicit resistance to certain social determinants present in the way the school relates to students (Emanuel Sicômoro, Azaleia); everyday events, on the street and at school, abstracted and transformed into poetry and chronicles (Margarida, Emanuel Sicômoro, Violeta); and the search for something positive in adverse situations to overcome them (Rosa, Azaleia, Cravo, Emanuel Sicômoro, Violeta).

Apathy, signaled by Ostrower (2001) as the opposite of boldness and effort for creative action, was not seen in the narratives. Otherwise, the plot drawn up through the activity was of their creative propositions to the world. World restricted to reality of each one, within its environment, however, troubled it may seem, in a daily life that could be classified as being continuously creative as it challenged them. Living and becoming subjects in the spaces established by others, these young people demonstrated they proposed ways of adapting, even if minimal, these spaces to their purposes, resembling the tactical dexterity alluded by Certeau (1998), subverting every day, redoing even the field of misfortune.

These three striking principles of the creativity conception are linked to the idea of overcoming everyday life (Heller, 1994) and to the combinatorial activities group (Vigotski, 2009). What breaks routine can instituting unexpected situations, confirming the empirical possibility of creativity in the midst of doing diaries, helping to continue life, resist, and transform. When Vigotski (2009) concludes that there is a dynamic, dialectical relationship between imagination and creation, breaks any barrier that might establish an a priori for the manifestation of creativity. Although mortified and saddened by exile, imprisonment, laziness, and procrastination, as young Bell Marques said, there would be no way to stop the imagination from working, whether through intervention in concrete reality or some fantasy accessed through stories told, read, or watched on television programs or videos broadcast on channels available on the internet.

. . . sometimes I write, in a piece of something, that I know what will fit to make a poem or a chronicle, or I write something that happened on the street, that I know I can make, like, a text, I only write these things, these nonsense . . . there was another day that I wrote, ah! . . . the woman went over the turnstile on the bus. That is a normal thing, right?! She jumped the turnstile, and her hairpin fell off on the floor. I was sitting in front of it, and I saw it. I took it and went to give it to her. The people were at the back of the bus saw me giving it to her, and they thought it was absurd because she was dirty and had jumped the bus turnstile. Then I said: girl, it fell, it fell. I saw in their eyes that they thought it was disgusting. And I saw that there was a lot of prejudice on their part. Then I got home and started writing what I thought about it. I wrote that I thought it was a prejudice factor. (Margarida, interview 1).

. . . I'm a Christian, so when I go to church, I think to myself: why did I come to church? Then I wonder: what if I didn't come today? Then I can't imagine not going to church that day, and I can't imagine not coming to school on a regular weekday. (Bell Marques, interview 1).

What motivates me to come to school is the future. It's not to think that happiness is in the future, we have to be well now because we do not know tomorrow, but I want to get better. I'm not saying it's rough now, but why not get better? . . . I think it is worth studying until late at night, and suffering a little from sleep, waking up early. Everything that I am doing is worth it because, in the future, I will have peace of mind, look back and say, wow! Everything was worth it. (Rosa, Interview 2).

The above excerpts point to art and philosophical reflection operating this disruption of everyday life, of course, didactically understood, translating the complex processes of appropriation and creativity active and imbricated in everyday life. Disruption experienced in the most distinct spaces, on which in the house, school, and work were the spaces that most intensely marked their trajectories. They crossed paths, exerting multiple interferences among themselves, producing knowledge and cultural repertoires useful to digest and creatively overcome different situations. Such an implication didn't depend exclusively on coordinated action by any of these spaces but was done by the young man himself in his processes of normalizing everyday life (Heller, 1994). Spaces acquired importance as they also identified themselves with the choices made about the present and the future, but which could fade depending on the direction taken. Spaces were re-signified and repositioned as the experience was gradually increasing the cultural repertoires of these young people and formed their network for creation.

Such expansion of repertoires associated with schooling itself; systematic teaching and learning process to offer knowledge, something new, not necessarily for humanity, but for a particular; it is capable of triggering awareness and problematizing processes.

However, in the young people's narrative about the school where they studied, the routine and occasional creativity manifestations did not appear integrated with the content, activities, or class dynamics. The demand and mobilization moments for creation fell on some events developed annually, isolated from the rest, not integrated into the labor, but in the annual school calendar: talent show, pedagogical projects culmination, and internal sports games. Such episodes had value and aroused the young people's interest to participate in them and in the school itself. But from the point of view of strengthening the student's relationship with creation linked to pedagogical practice, they functioned as an escape, paradoxically reinforcing the young people's perception that the school lacked elements that would make them see the creativity integrated into its routine and pedagogical action. When they mentioned that they were creative in their life trajectory, they were thinking about games, house, church, and work. The school did not appear as this provocative space but integrated with the others from its different uses defined by young people. Constellation spaces composing, as distinct realities in the school experience of each, the creation networks.

School’s figures and images: expectations in relation to creativity

The school space appeared as an adjunct in the network where young people mobilized for creativity. Even so, it was an important place to live youth, prepare projects imagined for the future, enjoy friendships in the present. Described or perceived in different ways, both among young people and for the same young person, reinforced both the idea of school complexity and the fact that the attribution of meanings isn't a one-way street, but, a dynamic process from the social-individual relationship, product of or revealing contradictions not yet signified, but which indicate ways of being (Aguiar & Ozella, 2013).

It relates to the discussion proposed by Dubet (1994, p. 130) regarding deinstitutionalization: personality thinks before the role. A way of saying that institutional roles are subsumed by what people are doing with the institution, by appropriating processes, knowledge, expanding their cultural repertoires, establishing “a cultural logic by which the actor distinguishes himself from other logics”, a subjectivation that does not harmonize, but puts it in constant tension with the instrumental rationality of strategic action and also with that which represents the action of integration with the values that were institutionalized through roles. It is in this context that Pais (2016), reinforces the idea of deinstitutionalization as a constant and indicative process of social change from the institutions themselves: we live, for a long time, a permanent re-institutionalization.

Each school thus takes on one or more faces, masks given to it by the social actors involved: students, teachers, management, parents or guardians, governments, neighbors, etc. In this investigation, there were no conversations about the object of research with actors other than young people. Even so, it was possible to build a preliminary picture of this institution based on the images that the students demonstrated to have of it in their narratives.

Such perceptions of young people in relation to school are transformed into figures, images that sometimes crystallize into meanings that accompany their trajectory, and may undergo changes based on events and experiences, within the idea of transience and meanings relativity they give to from subjectivity and usage tactics (Certeau, 1998; Dubet, 1994; Pais, 2016).

In the last year of a long journey this schooling stage - basic education (elementary until hight school) - after at least twelve years of daily attendance, these young people brought in their narratives school's images related to this journey. Non-loose or watertight images, which functioned as a photograph obtained, as if it were possible, from the freezing of the most recent scene in the film of this school trajectory that came to an end.

Perhaps the best analogy is, in fact, that of “clipped photographs in newspapers whith leaves” as in music.⁴ Images that do not form by themselves, needing a look that connects their pieces. From what outside view, therefore, three school’s images present in these narratives are more intensely perceived and classified as: the monotonous school, the school to the use, always at hand, and the school to the knowledge, due to desire, curiosity of want to know. Such images coexisted with each other in collective and individual discourses, and are therefore not mutually excluding or exclusive, since other looks could put the pieces of these photographs together in other ways ... often.

The monotonous school's image concerned the perceptions of young people regarding the forms of that specific school unit to arrange their spaces, to apply the subjects content, as well as to relate to the young person regarding their future. This image was also meant by the expression: traditional school. Without, in their narratives, differentiating education, school content or teacher, young people defined as repetitive the way the subjects were taught. Considering they were in the last year of high school, they looked back and identified basically the same methods, the same didactics based on the book and the board, as well as useless or obsolete content. There was only something different once or twice a year and limited to the execution of an educational project that tried to integrate the disciplines across the board, but focused more on the content of one or two, as shown in the excerpts below.

We leave here without knowing much, without knowing our rights, our duties . . . you enter this room if you ask what the constitution is, half the students don't know, I swear to you . . . where am I will to use the bhaskara formula? They are now valuing mathematical intelligence. . . . We leave school and thinking we are stupid, or less than the other. (Azalea, interview 1).

The space they give us to innovate is the projects, and projects are done every six months, so the rest is all programmed, it's already on the school plan, activities, whithout space for you to use your creativity. [They no] stop you from being creative, I would say it's more of an ignorance, not an ignorance, a lack of opportunity or even motivation. (Emanuel Sicômoro, interview 4).

The link between the school - the institution with regard to its form, and the teachers with regard to methods in general - to the traditional was the image that also prevailed regarding the professions valuation, in the careers indication to be followed. Perception that, due to this tacit link between the future that the school projects for young people, encourages them, and the professions status, reveals a reverse mediation, from the ideal to the material, from the social as coercion on the individual.

You think about the professions that are emerging now: the school doesn't explain, doesn't help you understand these new professions. For example, if you want to be a designer, if you want to have any profession that is new to the market, the school doesn't prepare you for learning these new features. What it offers is all very traditional. If you think about courses, the school always uses as an example courses in Engineering, Medicine, Law, courses that are [rooted] in people's culture . . . I may not make an association between what I want and the school. (Emanuel Sicômoro, interview 1).

This scenario concerns the relationship with the school in the strategy perspective (Dubet, 1994), placing it in a highly competitive school market, where relationships of hierarchy and utility are established and reproduce social relations, to a certain extent.

As for school physical space, they saw it as multiple. Its varied environments were occupied for conversations, flirting, games and other diversions. Despite informing operational restrictions - the science laboratory was deactivated and the computer science lab underutilized - they also referred to the possibility of their reinvention on the part of teachers, as opposed to the strict classroom’s use: the patios, the sports court, the external areas, etc. could be used according to the content, justifying Violeta’s outburst in her first interview: “what do we only do? Book and board, book and board. We want to watch something different. Let’s study history, but watch a movie and study history”.

In relation to creativity, this significant school’s figure appears as something that doesn’t hinder, but also doesn’t pose challenges. The school, in this perspective, doesn’t make the most opportunity to form in students an increasingly solid basis for creation by presenting something that was unknown to them, the novelty. Young people, in their criticisms, valued school content, but questioned the process, the form, the absence of an intentional connection, mobilizing them to seek and understand the new, for creativity. In this image, the school experience seems to be orphaned by the strategic logic, becoming more linked to integration, the forced use of space and school time for the formal and expected. However, as subjects, subjectivity predominated in young people. They were able to distance themselves even from the positively affective relationships they developed with teachers, with the content in some cases, with the school space and with the studies usefulness in the face of some challenges identified in the present, and develop a critical activity, as mentioned by Dubet (1994).

Another figure formed from the images that young people provided in the narratives, is that of the school for use, always at hand, ready-to-wear, ready to meet the user’s need. For some young people, based on their own initiatives, the relationship with the school was being adapted to what they needed. In spite monotony perceived, they engaged in a relationship where learned to see and pragmatically remove from the school useful things for what wanted at that moment, reinforcing a strategic logic. They expressed nothing other than this participation aimed at objective consumption, reflected in the use of school content, its time and space. In view of this, the school was not the strongest guiding axis of their life at that time. Work, the church, family relationships were more inspiring and proposed demands to other spaces, including the school.

What happened . . . I think that, in part, of seeing many people who studied with me finishing and I did not, being left behind. . . . What motivates me to come to school today I think is more due to learning. Because there are things here, there are things that the teacher went through that I didn't think I would need, calculations for exemple, but as I took the building course, formulas and even calculations that I have seen here appeared. It helped me a lot. Even in the civil engineering course I want to do there will be a lot of calculus, so these formulas here that teachers are teaching, I realized now that it is not in vain. I know where I can put them, where I can use them. (Cravo, interview 1).

Even considering this school use perspective due to certain goals, dreams established by the young people, the future projects still passed through the school, either in a well integrated way, as occurred with Cravo, or in a more indirect, tacit way, as demonstrated by Bell Marques, for whom his ties to the church and his way of being - not enjoying being still - mobilized his creativity and directed him in terms of dreams and professional future.

As I like always to do something, create something, I like engineering, because engineering is about that . . . the school indirectly helps to be creative, because it keeps our mind busy, learning something new at school . . . new names, new places [but] I don't practice the things that I get at school so much . . . just to make an account . . . if anybody talk me about history I will already know . . . the portuguese teacher, teaches how to speak correctly, how to write correctly. (Bell Marques, interviews 1 and 3).

In the relation to creativity, this image may be seen as a manifestation of a creative approach. Young people potentially have creative experiences at school, with and / or in spite of it. In this figure, the striking fact is, as it were, the school passive role, represented by its governing group and teachers attitude. They subsisted and showed no signs of reflecting for change taking into account the issues demanded by these young people. And, In spite of this, the young men, mobilized by several issues present in the other spaces of his trajectories, clamped from institution what could be useful to them. The predominant action logic may be identified as strategic (Dubet & Martuccelli, 1998), resulting in a decision to want to “end well” (Bell Marques, interview 1) due to the next step they would take, whether to respond to some staus quo requirement - family, social group, etc. -, which represents an effort of integration, either to achieve greater objectives than they had imagined.

A third image formed, following the narrativas presented by the young people, was of the school as source of knowledge. It was present especially in the speeches related whith pleasure of learning. Some showed by their stories a real fascination for being at school, for the moment itself, for the experience of listening to the teacher, accessing new knowledge, something they did not know but accessed in those moments mediated by those who embodied it: the teacher. The importance of school content permeated all narratives, but for two young women the relationship with knowledge / learning, at a given moment, surpassed some barriers and was almost tautologically linked to the very desire to know / learn.

I like to learn . . . I think that other people they don't feel what I do. When a teacher is passing on new information it is so incredible: you are learning a thing you never knew! . . . wow! I like that feeling . . . learning to have subjects to talk to other people . . . to say things that you have learned, and it is amazing to have, to be able to share, and I like that, what my teacher can give me. (Azaleia, interview 2).

Coming to [this] school is something I do with pleasure [its] opened doors for me, many doors. Its learning has no equal. Despite being from the State, has no equal. And sometimes the teachers demand so much from us that we think it's bad, but when we look at it afterwards concluded: ah! this effort wasn't so bad. (Margarida, interview 1).

In the perspective of François Dubet, Margarida and Azaleia, despite having simple socioeconomic origins, not having strong school capital or perfectly mastering the student profession, demonstrated in their narratives that developed what this author calls “the art of converting cultural tastes into schoollar performances” (Dubet, 1994, p. 213). Margarida demonstrated this ability more from the choices of books, conversations, the intersection of school and non-school spaces reserved for poetry and chronicles. Azaleia made this demonstration through the transit made between his main sources of knowledge: the school and the books. She tried to enrich with readings the interesting things learned at school, also the opposite, tried, through school subjects, to go deeper into the interests aroused by the readings: the human mind.

Creativity here appears related to this very ability to move between strategy and integration, the affirmation of themselves as young people, something that also went through the relationship between the two with the teachers. In this respect, the strategic and integration logics appeared very close in the school experience of these young women.

The networks of spaces for creation and the non-protagonism of the school

Young people each produced a kind of network of spaces for creativity. Not as a result of a planned action, but as a tactic in the sense of Certeau (1998), in the way of using it, of positioning itself in places over which they had no authority. For this reason, as the author proposes, these places were used as spaces, conforming as escape routes, where they met the rules of each one, but always finding unauthorized, unforeseen or even unexpected ways of use.

As already stated, young people saw themselves as creative and involved in creative processes, managing to identify these bonds and the products of their creativity in own daily lives. This movement was mobilized by different spaces, including the school, providing them a direct and open contact with differentiated knowledge, starting to function as a support for creativity. Based on mediations and mechanisms that young people were providing or making use of, school and non-school content became integrated.

In some cases, mainly in the narratives of Emanuel Sicômoro and Margarida, the street gave ideas for poetry. In turn, they could see, in the portuguese class, resources for the text's structure and words. Of the books read and televised programs, other elements were obtained for these textual productions and, in a reverse movement, the challenge of finding solutions creative grammars for literary productions took them back to the portuguese class whose study became a privilege.

This poetry is also directly related to the school, a subject that we discussed in the history class: the demonstrations related to the impeachment of Dilma president. . . . What motivates me most to write poetry is the fact that I understand that it is a good way to exercise creativity by having to find solutions for each verse . . . innovative solutions to writing. (Emanuel Sicômoro, interview 4).

I think it's because every day we learn at school, and I think that one of the motivations I have for coming to school . . . is the portuguese class. [Study] portuguese has always been a privilege for me, always it was . . . because of the teacher and what I write . . . My creativity: writing, writing. (Margarida, interview 2).

In other cases, such as Cravo, the mathematical calculations required in the new environment of professional training and at work were the same as those contained in the content of that moment in the mathematics classes. This caused the respective spaces integration, which were mutually valued, and the new look at old content that had become new in your eyes.

Networks of spaces for creation were produced where different knowledge was mobilized and integrated with everyday needs, but not only from the school. Despite the multiplicity of figures by which the school appeared in the young people narratives, none of them placed it as a protagonist in these networks. They did not perceive any movement, either from the planning of the teachers or from the school administration, which would integrate knowledge and spaces that were transited and occupied by them in function of their specificity as a school. Only the events, as already mentioned, were inserted in the annual school calendar creating an interregnum, to then resume the course most often identified as monotonous.

Not even his intervention, his role more linked to providing important content for the student intellectual formation, an aspect valued by the young people interviewered, in that the school should be seen as having something specific for the students, which is part of his own raison d'être and schooling itself, was an image that overlapped with the others.

The networks of spaces for creation, therefore, were built and dynamized mainly from the mobilization of other spaces frequented by young people (church, paid work, home and the street). Also, for the things they liked and enjoyed doing, acting as proponents and expanders of the cultural repertoires and knowledge of these young people for the exercise of creativity, in the youthful expression of each one and in decision-making. In this dynamic, the school had its importance related to the multiplicity of what it could provide: the space for friendships and loves, the welcoming, learn for to move on to the next grade, to do university access test, as well as the pleasure of learning.

The integration of spaces in favor of creation had as a starting point the dialogue sought between their experiences as young people who were also students, with a certain socio-historical condition, and school knowledge strengthening the school’s own presence as part of the network. The action of young people, therefore, is what strengthened it, as the school was not perceived as having an active role in promoting creativity, something that went beyond the tacit importance: offering a knowledge base, part of what has been historically accumulated by humanity.

The networks indicated a capacity of these young people to organize the daily agenda, to deal with some pressures imposed by the condition of each one. They did not symbolize victory over the sometimes suffocating and sickening reality, or success or failure with respect to types of action, linked to creative expressions. But that these young people used creative actions in the tangle of routes formed. Sinalizing that did not want to lose the things sense they were doing and giving the school a sense of correspondence with the present time through the different connections that were being made in their trajectories.

Such networks still, seen as a subjectivation process result, established a tension, because, as soon as the subject adopts a critical and active posture in face of reality, he doesn't experience it more harmoniously and completely, but “as a tension with the other logics of action. The ethics of conviction, outside the heroic prophet figure, is defined first of all in its tension with instrumental rationality, or with community morality” (Dubet, 1994, p. 130). The subject, then, establishes a commitment to himself and builds his identity through tension with the world, represented by integration and strategy actions. Commitment, he continues, “lived as an unfinished, as an impossible and desired passion that allows you to discover yourself as the author of your own life, even if it is in the bitterness caused by the impossibility of fully carrying out this project” (Dubet, 1994, p. 131 ).

In contrast, analyzing the youth situation and the socializing processes in the institutions interstitial spaces, Machado Pais reflects about the system education isolation, which, apart from the reality that surrounds it, functions almost as something autonomous from the rest. For the author, this procedure seems to be legitimized by the idea of ​​such system refer to the future posed to young people as a goal for the formation of “future citizens, parents, professionals, leaders, leaders [like] beings in transit, with no present, potential adults in the future ” (Pais, 2016, p. 297), reinforcing the idea of ​​delayed reward, wrongly futurizing the present and focusing on the job market (Dayrell & Jesus, 2016). However, the networks of spaces for creation seemed to represent possibilities of better linking, at that moment, the school to the present of these young people.

Final considerations

Returning to the initial question, some considerations may be made about the relationship between youth, creativity in daily life, and school experience. Concerning the network of relationships built, the narratives point to young people crossed - attending, influencing, and being influenced - by multiple spaces and interests. The school was one space where being / becoming a student was one of the issues. It emerged from the narratives as something important, even though with varying intensity for each young person, but not a protagonist for the creative processes, nor in the movement of attributing meaning to other spaces. On the contrary, in the school experience, the relationship with the school was mediated by them.

For Dayrell (2007), young people live the different dimensions of their youth condition in spaces that they mean. The young people interviewed experience points to a paradoxical relationship between the meaning experienced and the pragmatic way in which the school is socially and hegemonically imposed in the trail of what is considered a schooled society. It signals a loss of the school's monopoly regarding the reference to the youth experience.

Their future’s dreams, in the short and medium term, for example, were intertwined in the established network. To a certain extent, they passed through the school whose role was more at the level of tactics (Certeau, 1998), revealing themselves mainly in the desire to enter higher education, providing structured knowledge by which they could overcome the access tests. In the present time of those young people, the school played this supporting role in providing useful, preparatory tools in the process of integration of spaces operated by young people.

Regarding creativity, it appeared as something possible in daily life, recognized by young people from multiple manifestations, both for the product resulting from the process, as well as for the ways of being and placing themselves in the development of these actions. The narrated reality presented creativity expressed in different places, moments, and by different people, in line with that recommended by Certeau (1998), Ostrower (2001), and Vigotski (2009), confirming, in this context, the practical impossibility of restricting the transit of acting creatively and creative production. The shared creative actions took place in situations of different emotions - sadness, joy, fear, frustrations, hope - and with other purposes - the family survival, the assimilation of school content, the subversion of spaces, the realization of recreations moments, artistic production, the mobilization of people, financial resources, rest, and reflection.

As said, these creative actions took place in an unrestricted transit between the spaces that made up the networks that formed, establishing themselves in daily life, becoming part of it. The day-a-day lives of these young people were very steeped in school, school assignments, the end of the school year, school success, the graduation party, preparation for tests to access higher education. The established network of spaces for creation, the creative actions, both the most occasional and the most hidden among the daily routine, were linked to the school experience. An experience built-in favor of themselves, seeking to use the school as necessary and useful for the plans established in a logic of more strategic action.

Although creativity cannot appear without the imagination exercise, it doesn't necessarily result in a creative product since barriers may be placed between imagination and its realization. For young people, therefore, besides the diversified environment, the proposal of activities that demand more imagination and more creativity to solve them, it is necessary to value the protagonism, to understand that besides biological development, the young person acquires power - be it through empowerment, be the result of a power division on the initiative of others - which unfolds, among other things, in the ability and/or opportunity to choose, to create and to deal directly and responsibly with the consequences.

Thus, time management has become something important as studying and doing activities related to work, fun and leisure required a great deal of effort in organizing the daily agenda. Perhaps it was in this - the relationship with time - what was the most creative among these young people: they did so many things and still so young managed practically alone, at their own risk, their times and assignments.

Referências

• Aguiar, W. M. J., & Ozella, S. (2013). Apreensão dos sentidos: Aprimorando a proposta dos núcleos de significação. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, 94(236), 299-322.
• Biarnès, J. (2007). Education, diversité et espaces de création à l’école. Revista Moçambrás, 1(2). https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/879/87910204.pdf
  » https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/879/87910204.pdf
• Certeau, M. de. (1998). A invenção do cotidiano: Artes de fazer. Vozes.
• Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 (1988). Brasília. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
• Dallabrida, N. (2004). Nascimento da escolarização moderna. Perspectiva, 22(1), 93-110.
• Dayrell, J. T. (2007). A escola “faz” as juventudes? Reflexões em torno da socialização juvenil. Educação e Sociedade, 28(100), 1105-1128. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-73302007000300022&lng=pt&nrm=iso
  » http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-73302007000300022&lng=pt&nrm=iso
• Dayrell, J. T., & Jesus, R. E. (2016). Juventude, ensino médio e os processos de exclusão escolar. Educação e Sociedade, 37(135), 407-423.
• Dubet, F. (1994). Sociologia da experiência. Instituto Piaget.
• Dubet, F., & Martuccelli, D. (1997). A socialização e a formação escolar. Lua Nova, 40-41, 241-266.
• Dubet, F., & Martuccelli, D. (1998). En el colégio. In F. Dubet, & D. Martuccelli, En la escuela: Sociologia de la experiencia escolar (pp. 185-312). Editorial Losada.
• Ezpeleta, J., & Rockwell, E. (1989). Pesquisa participante. Cortez; Autores Associados.
• Heller, A. (1994). Sociología de la vida cotidiana. Ediciones Península.
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (s.d.). Sistema IBGE de Recuperação Automática. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/7215#resultado.
  » https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/7215#resultado.
• Leão, G. (2018). O que os jovens podem esperar da reforma do ensino médio brasileiro? Educação em Revista, 34, 1-23.
• Leão, G., & Carmo, H. C. do. (2014). Os jovens e a escola. In L. M. Correa, M. Z. Alves, & C. L. Maia (Orgs.), Cadernos temáticos: Juventude brasileira e ensino médio (pp. 11-44). Editora UFMG.
• Lei n. 12.852, de 05 de agosto de 2013. (2013). Institui o Estatuto da Juventude e dispõe sobre os direitos dos jovens, os princípios e diretrizes das políticas públicas de juventude e o Sistema Nacional de Juventude - SINAJUVE. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/lei/l12852.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/lei/l12852.htm
• Mitjáns Martínez, A. (1997). Criatividade, personalidade e educação. Papirus.
• Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2002). A criatividade na escola: Três direções de trabalho. Linhas Críticas, 8(15), 189-206.
• Molon, S. I. (2008). Questões metodológicas de pesquisa na abordagem sócio-histórica. Informática na Educação: Teoria & Prática, 11(1), 56-68.
• Ostrower, F. (2001). Criatividade e processos de criação. Vozes.
• Pais, J. M. (2016). Ganchos, tachos e biscates: Jovens, trabalho e futuro. Edições Machado.
• Sposito, M. P. (2003). Uma perspectiva não escolar no estudo sociológico da escola. Revista USP, 57, 210-226.
• Veloso, A. de M. (2010). Um espaço criativo e seu impacto na subjetividade: Um estudo com alunos calouros [Mestrado em Educação]. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2009). Imaginação e criação na infância. Ática.

• 1
  According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the average number of years of study for the population aged 15 to 17 and 18 to 29 years of age in 2019, respectively, was 9.2 years and 11.4 years years and the schooling rate among people aged 15 to 17 in 2019 was 89.2% (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pnadca/tabelas).
• 2
  Doctoral research submitted to the Federal University of Alagoas Ethics Committee, approved at 01/06/2016 according to opinion number 1.568.563.
• 3
  Codinome atribuído.
• 4
  Chão de Giz”, by Zé Ramalho brazilian singer.

• Data availability statement

  The data underlying the research text are reported in the article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 Oct 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  14 Apr 2020
• Accepted
  14 Oct 2020