How can I start to think or write about teaching?

The absurdity of the most comon perspectives on creativity as a professional activity, an academic arena or a necessary side product of certain mental deseases astonishes me for being so simplistic or folishly elaborate.
I’m not going to try to define creativity in here but I intend to point out what is inadequate to ofer as a model to explain the original production of concepts, ideas, feelings, texts or objects.
Some might argue that it is too defensive since it is much easier to destroy a system then it is to build one or give definitions of what something is. Let me argue non the less that we are talking about a very special area: we are dealing with the activity that leeds to exceptional results. However, I am going to try and propose directions which could be explored extensively in the persuit of artistic production and how to give that possibility to others.

First step

If knowledge in general has always been perceived as an historical production we can not say the same about art and creativity. Pre-historical periods provide us today with enough evidance for us to realize the primordial origin of original objects and images. We associate it with other kinds of languages. The written word wasn’t invented yet but the manipulation of conceps, ideas and speech was already pushing minds into the unavoidable power of making more or less useless things.
The reason why I need to mention this is because we can not talk about life without mentioning the miscelanious soup of organic molecules where life started to understand its properties. The same happens with art and creativity. There is, non-the less a big difference between these two words I’ve been using almost together. Creativity is frequently used for the resolution of practical products and usually produces useful solutions. Art for me is the “making” disreagarding function. Like a section of creativity with a bizare explanation for its existence and creation. To a certain extent one could say that only with categorization of functionality the word Art was necessary to the define everything creative that wasn’t useful. I don’t want to go deep is the linguistic origins of the word Duchamp mentioned superficially or argue for some antropological description of the religious funtion atributed to every prehistorical production we believe was artistic. It is irrelevant for this texts goal if all these massive problems are just mentioned of if they become the centre of these words I’m putting together as if I were working. The fact is that his is a persuit for the creation of a what is strong in the conception of what I’ve been doing and hopefully will always do.
I just commited the most stupid mistake: to start with the origin of life, dinossaurs, cave man and the transition to the Homo Sapiens sapiens. It is the same problem the teaching of history, portuguese, art, geography and any other area has. They start with what we believe is the beginning and cronologically bore to death the students that could be entusiastically enjoying a useful explanation of what is happening in from of them and slowly progress to the past in search for the justification or more information about recent past in even more distant events.
This aproach to what I believe about theory should start