The cult of creativity
July 18, 2012 11:01 AM Subscribe
"The amorphous concept of ‘creativity’ has become the unquestioned MacGuffin of our times, and anyone who doesn’t demonstrate it – or at least a willingness to cultivate it – is in danger of being labeled a conservative desk-monkey unfit for the creative rigours of our fecund social media world."
Molly Flatt on the cult of creativity.
Molly Flatt on the cult of creativity.
I prefer the cult of destructivity, myself.
*throws phone across room, jumps up and down on pieces*
posted by jonmc at 11:06 AM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
*throws phone across room, jumps up and down on pieces*
posted by jonmc at 11:06 AM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
The only things I can create are outsize pasta dishes, a state of vast inebriation in myself and varying degrees of irritation in other people. I have reached an acceptance of my lot. A man has to know his limitations.
posted by Decani at 11:13 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
posted by Decani at 11:13 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
Maybe it's because I am an urbanist, but I'm surprised that the piece didn't even bring up Richard Florida's one-man-industry of the "Creative Class."
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2012
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2012
>anyone who doesn’t demonstrate [creativity]... is in danger of being labeled... unfit... for... creative rigours
This is logical, no?
posted by darth_tedious at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
This is logical, no?
posted by darth_tedious at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
I prefer The Cult of Personality, myself.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:19 AM on July 18, 2012
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:19 AM on July 18, 2012
It is the latter group that is the proper object of sane education policy.
While that may be true, it'd be nice if education policy wasn't seemingly designed to drive the creativity right out of someone.
posted by scrowdid at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
While that may be true, it'd be nice if education policy wasn't seemingly designed to drive the creativity right out of someone.
posted by scrowdid at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
"Google ‘become more creative’ and you’ll get over 335 million results."
I hate it when people try to use the number of results from a given Google search to justify something. The number is virtually meaningless. Googling almost anything gives millions of results, and the results will vary depending on location, your Google profile, and just day to day depending on what algorithm Google is using. And how many of those millions of results do you actually think are relevant or useful? It just seems like such a lazy way to try to make a point.
posted by oulipian at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2012 [17 favorites]
I hate it when people try to use the number of results from a given Google search to justify something. The number is virtually meaningless. Googling almost anything gives millions of results, and the results will vary depending on location, your Google profile, and just day to day depending on what algorithm Google is using. And how many of those millions of results do you actually think are relevant or useful? It just seems like such a lazy way to try to make a point.
posted by oulipian at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2012 [17 favorites]
Googling almost anything gives millions of results
He speaks true.
posted by rahnefan at 11:30 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
He speaks true.
posted by rahnefan at 11:30 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
Richard Florida's one-man-industry of the "Creative Class."
I was surprised TFA didn't rely on it heavily.
posted by immlass at 11:37 AM on July 18, 2012
I was surprised TFA didn't rely on it heavily.
posted by immlass at 11:37 AM on July 18, 2012
Creativity can be applied toward literally any work, craft, or skill. Yes, even making outsize pasta dishes. That's why it's so important. It's a style of engaging or interrelating with your tools, your ideas, and your environment. Pretty much anyone can cultivate it or appreciate it in others.
The idea that people might feel stigmatized for not wanting to be creative is sort of ridiculous. Why do you care what other people think of you? By all means, do what works for you.
posted by hermitosis at 11:40 AM on July 18, 2012 [4 favorites]
The idea that people might feel stigmatized for not wanting to be creative is sort of ridiculous. Why do you care what other people think of you? By all means, do what works for you.
posted by hermitosis at 11:40 AM on July 18, 2012 [4 favorites]
Creativity can be applied toward literally any work, craft, or skill. Yes, even making outsize pasta dishes. That's why it's so important. It's a style of engaging or interrelating with your tools, your ideas, and your environment. Pretty much anyone can cultivate it or appreciate it in others.
I agree with this -- everyone is creative in some way. It seems like in daily life people have limited the idea of who's creative mostly to people who can draw well or create Mad Men but there's so many other ways the skill is applied.
posted by sweetkid at 11:44 AM on July 18, 2012
I agree with this -- everyone is creative in some way. It seems like in daily life people have limited the idea of who's creative mostly to people who can draw well or create Mad Men but there's so many other ways the skill is applied.
posted by sweetkid at 11:44 AM on July 18, 2012
Why do you care what other people think of you? By all means, do what works for you.
They may care because (1) their livelihood depends on them being perceived as creative and (2) the people crafting this perception have a poorer definition than you.
...also because managers/workers, in spite of the ubiquity of creative possibility, still fail at it regularly.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:52 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
They may care because (1) their livelihood depends on them being perceived as creative and (2) the people crafting this perception have a poorer definition than you.
...also because managers/workers, in spite of the ubiquity of creative possibility, still fail at it regularly.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:52 AM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
The fact is that abstinence, restraint and silence have become deeply unfashionable and even morally questionable in a society where positivity, productivity and freedom of expression have cult-like status.
Amen. Then again, I'm making this comment, so I guess I'm just adding to the pile...
On a related note, I would also like to see a moratorium on the word "passion," as in: "what's your passion?", usually tied to the expectation that you and everyone you know all have some wonderful creative hobby. Next time I hear that sentence I'm going to have to raise a Spock-like eyebrow and say, "I'm not sure what you mean."
posted by Currer Belfry at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2012 [8 favorites]
Amen. Then again, I'm making this comment, so I guess I'm just adding to the pile...
On a related note, I would also like to see a moratorium on the word "passion," as in: "what's your passion?", usually tied to the expectation that you and everyone you know all have some wonderful creative hobby. Next time I hear that sentence I'm going to have to raise a Spock-like eyebrow and say, "I'm not sure what you mean."
posted by Currer Belfry at 12:03 PM on July 18, 2012 [8 favorites]
How Creativity Connects with Immorality Are creative types more likely to cross moral boundaries?
I was thinking the other day about this. Corruption has always existed, but the wide scale systemic increase in the financial system surely must be a sign of something. Perhaps it is an entire generation who were raised to emphasize creativity. When everyone is a contrarian and rebel visionary, you end up with problems because creativity has two sides, innovation and more likely to be immoral.
posted by stbalbach at 12:06 PM on July 18, 2012
I was thinking the other day about this. Corruption has always existed, but the wide scale systemic increase in the financial system surely must be a sign of something. Perhaps it is an entire generation who were raised to emphasize creativity. When everyone is a contrarian and rebel visionary, you end up with problems because creativity has two sides, innovation and more likely to be immoral.
posted by stbalbach at 12:06 PM on July 18, 2012
As a working artist - something that has taken me most of my life to come around to - I've been thinking quite often about creativity.
Creativity to me means being able to come up with something to draw. I can draw for hours and not produce anything enjoyable or insightful to view. The lines might be nice, but there is no message. This thing that I call creativity seems to fade in and out like a distant radio signal - and it doesn't really matter if I'm drawing or not. The constant drawing just means that when I do finally get a clear signal, I can transcribe it with a bit of skill.
So I am a little put off by the author's reluctance to separate what I would call "artistic" creativity from, let's say "problem-solving" creativity.
Maybe I'm confusing creativity with inspiration.
posted by mmrtnt at 12:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Creativity to me means being able to come up with something to draw. I can draw for hours and not produce anything enjoyable or insightful to view. The lines might be nice, but there is no message. This thing that I call creativity seems to fade in and out like a distant radio signal - and it doesn't really matter if I'm drawing or not. The constant drawing just means that when I do finally get a clear signal, I can transcribe it with a bit of skill.
So I am a little put off by the author's reluctance to separate what I would call "artistic" creativity from, let's say "problem-solving" creativity.
Maybe I'm confusing creativity with inspiration.
posted by mmrtnt at 12:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
The number is virtually meaningless.
Try paging through the results. You'll get to around page 50 and it will end. Google hit counts is a scam. It's a made up number.
posted by stbalbach at 12:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Try paging through the results. You'll get to around page 50 and it will end. Google hit counts is a scam. It's a made up number.
posted by stbalbach at 12:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Ars Technica: Imagine: A Society That Fosters Creativity
If you get past the idea that creativity lies solely in the realm of divine inspiration, reserved for a precious few of us, then perhaps creativity can be studied, learned, and taught. That's the premise of Jonah Lehrer's book Imagine, subtitled "How Creativity Works": understanding it as a process means it can be nurtured.posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:15 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
As a twenty-something, I've already built up a thick, scaly armor that presently shelters me from authentic-yet-buzzwordy terms like creativity. Blame exposure to too many retweets about unleashing your inner creativity, or whatever, from my friends and classmates who took "social media" jobs out of college. Who really needs 14 Wacky Tips to Unlock Creative Secrets for Your Special Snowflake Social Brand and all that?
From the article:
So, I don't get why "creativity" is such a mystical buzzword in some online circles. Who cares? You shouldn't have to be some ~social media self-brand-improvement guru~ or be the next Beethoven or simply get paid for your designs to think of yourself as creative. Whistle the nonsense tune that pops into your head, take a different route home from work, try to tell a joke to a stranger, and then relax knowing that it's not on your shoulders to come up with the sequel to Mahler's 9th.
posted by King, in the hall of the mountain at 1:02 PM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
From the article:
And what about the thorny issue of value? In their latest work, Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity, Kaufman and co-author Ron Beghetto identify four different levels of creativity. These can be summarized as ‘mini-c’, the internal creativity involved whenever we learn something new; ‘little-c’, everyday creativity of the craft-fair type; ‘Pro-C’, the quality output of creative professionals which contributes to their wider milieu; and ‘Big-C’, the Mozart symphonies and Einstein theories – in Kaufman’s words, “the stuff that changes everything”.I guess there's nothing more meta-creative than inventing categories of creativity from thin air, but I think it's kind of a bummer. Branching out to learn new things and practicing a craft are construed as less valuable types of creativity, and then the only step between little Betsy's 4H Camp God's-Eyes and Einstein is paid "creative" work? Come on. Creativity is for everyone, and it's not some hierarchy where Grandma trying out a new quilt pattern is just shitty creativity compared to, you know, paintings of the great masters of the High Rennaissance (get it together, Granny! Read my series of tweets on how to AMP UP your creativity in 27 easy steps!)
It is an inclusive and encouraging model, and one that absolutely has a place for all our social media ‘content’, even if it is, largely, word (or visual) vomit. That’s people exercising their right to enjoy mini- and little- c activity, and good on them.
So, I don't get why "creativity" is such a mystical buzzword in some online circles. Who cares? You shouldn't have to be some ~social media self-brand-improvement guru~ or be the next Beethoven or simply get paid for your designs to think of yourself as creative. Whistle the nonsense tune that pops into your head, take a different route home from work, try to tell a joke to a stranger, and then relax knowing that it's not on your shoulders to come up with the sequel to Mahler's 9th.
posted by King, in the hall of the mountain at 1:02 PM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
Well, that was certainly a creative use of the term "MacGuffin". "The Unquestioned MacGuffin" would be a good name for daft-yet-respected elder in a period sitcom about highland clans, though.
posted by col_pogo at 1:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by col_pogo at 1:09 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
On a related note, I would also like to see a moratorium on the word "passion," as in: "what's your passion?", usually tied to the expectation that you and everyone you know all have some wonderful creative hobby.
Seconded. I view "passion" as a marketing-friendly and positive way of saying the word "obsession," and I simply treat the former as if it truly were the latter.
posted by stannate at 1:10 PM on July 18, 2012
Seconded. I view "passion" as a marketing-friendly and positive way of saying the word "obsession," and I simply treat the former as if it truly were the latter.
posted by stannate at 1:10 PM on July 18, 2012
I would also like to see a moratorium on the word "passion"
David Mitchell agrees with you.
posted by howfar at 1:11 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
David Mitchell agrees with you.
posted by howfar at 1:11 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
My newfound passion is perfecting the Spock-like eyebrow raise.
I practiced and practiced and practiced and learned the two-finger whistle recently, so the creative genius in me believes anything is possible
posted by ElGuapo at 1:16 PM on July 18, 2012
I practiced and practiced and practiced and learned the two-finger whistle recently, so the creative genius in me believes anything is possible
posted by ElGuapo at 1:16 PM on July 18, 2012
The fact is that everyone is creative, and that our newly found ability (via the Internet) to be "heard" and "seen" by millions all-too-often leads to a feeling of self-importance and self-satisfaction that was recently impossible to achieve, because there was no means (pre-Internet) to get that kind of immediate exposure, on-demand.
Another fact is that humans and their respective and collective societies are constantly evolving/changing. We're primarily a communicative species, with extraordinary powers of communication (compared to other species); this, we get sucked into anything that will help us to magnify personal communication - i.e. new communicative technologies are like a drug. And, in some strange new ways, we are beginning to find out that these "drugs" do in fact patterns of behavior, and maybe even our cognitive structures and perceptions. All this is just another variable in the evolutionary cycle of change.
So, what we see now is an explosion of communication, a lot of it commercialized - and along with that commercialization comes the marketing of "benefits" to our respective selves and social groups - both implied and obvious - about how "powerful" we are made by the new "creativities" unlocked by technology. Most people want to hear that message; it makes them feel good about their respective selves, and helps them to feel more worthwhile, because they can achieve massive communicative returns that were heretofore only available to a few.
I don't see anything wrong with this, but for a time we are definitely going to go through an accelerated phase of what is, and is not, worthwhile. We will probably not get to any shared point of agreement about what is worthwhile in this new soup of creativity and expression (relative to "Big C" creativity) until we reach a point where the technologies that we interface and mesh with result in evolutionary leaps that are so far beyond the norm that we collectively "take notice". Maybe this is part of the result of Ray Kurzweil's projected 'Singularity", who knows.
What I do know is that the means to new communication that we have in hand is a general blast, and "the toy of all toys". How can one not like it? Creativity continues to bloom - for better or worse - magnified by the Internet. Enjoy the ride.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:27 PM on July 18, 2012 [4 favorites]
Another fact is that humans and their respective and collective societies are constantly evolving/changing. We're primarily a communicative species, with extraordinary powers of communication (compared to other species); this, we get sucked into anything that will help us to magnify personal communication - i.e. new communicative technologies are like a drug. And, in some strange new ways, we are beginning to find out that these "drugs" do in fact patterns of behavior, and maybe even our cognitive structures and perceptions. All this is just another variable in the evolutionary cycle of change.
So, what we see now is an explosion of communication, a lot of it commercialized - and along with that commercialization comes the marketing of "benefits" to our respective selves and social groups - both implied and obvious - about how "powerful" we are made by the new "creativities" unlocked by technology. Most people want to hear that message; it makes them feel good about their respective selves, and helps them to feel more worthwhile, because they can achieve massive communicative returns that were heretofore only available to a few.
I don't see anything wrong with this, but for a time we are definitely going to go through an accelerated phase of what is, and is not, worthwhile. We will probably not get to any shared point of agreement about what is worthwhile in this new soup of creativity and expression (relative to "Big C" creativity) until we reach a point where the technologies that we interface and mesh with result in evolutionary leaps that are so far beyond the norm that we collectively "take notice". Maybe this is part of the result of Ray Kurzweil's projected 'Singularity", who knows.
What I do know is that the means to new communication that we have in hand is a general blast, and "the toy of all toys". How can one not like it? Creativity continues to bloom - for better or worse - magnified by the Internet. Enjoy the ride.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:27 PM on July 18, 2012 [4 favorites]
anyone who doesn’t demonstrate [creativity]... is in danger of being labeled... unfit... for... creative rigours
This is logical, no?
You left out "of our fecund social media world."
I would agree that "you need to be creative to do creative stuff" is fine, but how broad a catefory should "creative stuff" really be? Is effective use of social media really about creativity, or is it about good customer service, being personable, reliable, etc?
posted by RobotHero at 1:42 PM on July 18, 2012
This is logical, no?
You left out "of our fecund social media world."
I would agree that "you need to be creative to do creative stuff" is fine, but how broad a catefory should "creative stuff" really be? Is effective use of social media really about creativity, or is it about good customer service, being personable, reliable, etc?
posted by RobotHero at 1:42 PM on July 18, 2012
> You left out "of our fecund social media world."
I never use "fecund" in isolation. It always appears in the phrase "as fecund as the shad."
posted by jfuller at 1:56 PM on July 18, 2012
I never use "fecund" in isolation. It always appears in the phrase "as fecund as the shad."
posted by jfuller at 1:56 PM on July 18, 2012
As a twenty-something, I've already built up a thick, scaly armor that presently shelters me from authentic-yet-buzzwordy terms like creativity. Blame exposure to too many retweets about unleashing your inner creativity, or whatever, from my friends and classmates who took "social media" jobs out of college. Who really needs 14 Wacky Tips to Unlock Creative Secrets for Your Special Snowflake Social Brand and all that?I've been dealing with this a myself lately. Years ago, when I would sit down to write, I would have this nagging feeling that i needed to create something new. "No one has ever written this sentence before!" I would scream in my head. So I set about trying to create a totally form of writing from nothing.
And it sucked. It inevitably was terrible. And I couldn't justify why. I felt like a failure when I'd write a story or a poem and realize I was just parroting writers X Y and Z. My cleverness was threatened. I was revealed for a fraud.
But gradually I grew up and realized that parroting is what any activity is really all about. Writing, painting, drawing, and music are all just activities that we have given a label "creative" to differentiate them from purely utilitarian activities like cutting your lawn or brushing your teeth. Writing is just an activity. It's so simple, how could I have missed this basic fact? Writers write. Painters paint. Art is just a guy doing a thing.
Like all activities, writing was learned by looking at what someone else was doing and saying, hey, I can do that, and then doing that. Every now and then, somebody makes a big exciting connection and something new seems to show up. We call these people "geniuses" because they're so into the thing that we can't do what they're doing. But really, being a genius in an area is more about being knowledgable enough to have bew insights and having the experience to do something with your insights.
Which is really what every educational program should be built around. You don't need to be a unique snowflake. You just need to know the basics and develop the discipline and training to keep learning, to keep parroting your peers. Sometimes I complain about not feeling "creative" enough, but it's really more about not feeling useful than it is about wanting to be some kind of Nietzschian superman. Writers write, so I sit down and write. I write like writers that I like, whose ideas about style and voice I admire. And it turns out it's a lot more fun than trying to be spontaneously unique.
posted by deathpanels at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2012 [9 favorites]
Y'all who think you're countering the articles point when you insist that creativity is serious beef, and then don't define the term? You're actually supporting it.
posted by LogicalDash at 1:59 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by LogicalDash at 1:59 PM on July 18, 2012
This book really was an eye-opener for me. Until my early twenties I thought creativity overlapped with lonely and self-tortured and I was pleasantly surprised when Csikszentmihalyi's research group found the most creative people were very social, almost always surrounded by other creative people. This is one axis on which nurture may be more important than on any other.
posted by bukvich at 2:00 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by bukvich at 2:00 PM on July 18, 2012
Creativity in the short-term is inefficient. It results in a lot of exploring dead ends and backtracking and revision. Of course business hates it, they don't want their employees re-inventing the wheel every morning, they want them making money. So business adopted a proscribed, routine, repetitive way of doing things. Mass production for office work, basically.
Now the business (large corporate world) has noticed that just as machines are no substitute for humans, humans aren't great machines. And you can't just switch from machine "follow the steps to achieve the result" mode to "human decision making" mode, because that switch is a human decision. So businesses are trying to empower their employees to make the switch, and now everyone is confused, because humans are not machines, so can't be programmed like machines, but it's hard to get out of pseudo-machine mode when you get locked into it.
Business needs to make a choice: either their employees, from the maintenance staff to the CEO, are robots that provide their own fuel and repair at home and can be treated with minimal respect (hired and fired at will), or they are people, who need to be empowered to make decisions appropriate to their role.
People, with responsibility, are way more expensive, because who wants to be responsible with low pay? That's a huge risk. So, pay people more, respect them more, give them responsibility, or pay them less, respect them less, absolve them of responsibility, and spend your whole day letting four or five guys deal with the inevitable mess that results when your staff can't make the obvious exceptions.
All this "creativity" stuff is a management technique for trying to evade a payroll problem.
posted by newg at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2012 [3 favorites]
Now the business (large corporate world) has noticed that just as machines are no substitute for humans, humans aren't great machines. And you can't just switch from machine "follow the steps to achieve the result" mode to "human decision making" mode, because that switch is a human decision. So businesses are trying to empower their employees to make the switch, and now everyone is confused, because humans are not machines, so can't be programmed like machines, but it's hard to get out of pseudo-machine mode when you get locked into it.
Business needs to make a choice: either their employees, from the maintenance staff to the CEO, are robots that provide their own fuel and repair at home and can be treated with minimal respect (hired and fired at will), or they are people, who need to be empowered to make decisions appropriate to their role.
People, with responsibility, are way more expensive, because who wants to be responsible with low pay? That's a huge risk. So, pay people more, respect them more, give them responsibility, or pay them less, respect them less, absolve them of responsibility, and spend your whole day letting four or five guys deal with the inevitable mess that results when your staff can't make the obvious exceptions.
All this "creativity" stuff is a management technique for trying to evade a payroll problem.
posted by newg at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2012 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure I actually know what people mean by "being creative" anymore, especially when it's talked about as if it's a measurable quality.
"How creative are you?"
"5.3"
posted by dng at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2012
"How creative are you?"
"5.3"
posted by dng at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2012
I have this pet peeve about the use of creativity as if it can only be learned in the arts.
One of my favorite movies about creativity (after a fashion) is "A Beautiful Mind." Nash is a genius in part because he can think about math creatively.
Let's imagine you present a group of kids with an empty hot tub and a water hose. Asking them to figure out how long it would take to fill the tub requires them to work creatively with math (especially if you don't annoyingly provide them with all the formulas they'd need to solve that problem right off the bat). They would need to figure out how much water the tub could hold, the rate that the water flows from the hose, etc. etc.
This takes creativity. Problem solving, in general, takes a certain amount of creativity. When we talk about the importance of creativity, its not just the importance of pretty colors or figuring out a brand new way of making ketchup. We're talking about encountering an unexpected problem and figuring out a way around it.
To whit, creativity is the skill we use to make a new thing that has value. The value can be very, very low ('Hey guys, you know how the faucet in the bathroom is always dripping? If you twist it twice to the right before twisting it to the left it will stop dripping!" is a low value creative solution to a problem - though just call the plumber, dude). The new thing can be a "new to me" thing. Any time you've encountered a problem and come up with a new way of dealing with it (including when you synthesize other solutions into something different) you've been creative.
To me, that's not some sort of hippie dippie, ivory tower sort of skill, but an essential skill for life and in almost any job.
(The educational problem we have is that, in general, we tend to give kids all the steps they need to solve the problems without asking them to figure some of the steps out themselves)
Anyhow, there shouldn't be anything cult-like about this. Oh, there is, but the cultists don't understand what they're talking about. Not truly understanding something is the job of a cultist.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:08 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
One of my favorite movies about creativity (after a fashion) is "A Beautiful Mind." Nash is a genius in part because he can think about math creatively.
Let's imagine you present a group of kids with an empty hot tub and a water hose. Asking them to figure out how long it would take to fill the tub requires them to work creatively with math (especially if you don't annoyingly provide them with all the formulas they'd need to solve that problem right off the bat). They would need to figure out how much water the tub could hold, the rate that the water flows from the hose, etc. etc.
This takes creativity. Problem solving, in general, takes a certain amount of creativity. When we talk about the importance of creativity, its not just the importance of pretty colors or figuring out a brand new way of making ketchup. We're talking about encountering an unexpected problem and figuring out a way around it.
To whit, creativity is the skill we use to make a new thing that has value. The value can be very, very low ('Hey guys, you know how the faucet in the bathroom is always dripping? If you twist it twice to the right before twisting it to the left it will stop dripping!" is a low value creative solution to a problem - though just call the plumber, dude). The new thing can be a "new to me" thing. Any time you've encountered a problem and come up with a new way of dealing with it (including when you synthesize other solutions into something different) you've been creative.
To me, that's not some sort of hippie dippie, ivory tower sort of skill, but an essential skill for life and in almost any job.
(The educational problem we have is that, in general, we tend to give kids all the steps they need to solve the problems without asking them to figure some of the steps out themselves)
Anyhow, there shouldn't be anything cult-like about this. Oh, there is, but the cultists don't understand what they're talking about. Not truly understanding something is the job of a cultist.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:08 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
"Creative" is also used as a back-patting superlative. Workplaces send out emails congratulating some successful employee for their "creative problem solving" when all they did was perform competently. We send our kids to fancy preschools to "let them be creative" when what we mean is for them to have fun and play with finger paint. It's a hopelessly overloaded term.
posted by deathpanels at 2:20 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by deathpanels at 2:20 PM on July 18, 2012
> This book really was an eye-opener for me.
I will buy that book only after I am confident I can pronounce the author's name so I can recommend it to others, if necessary, and not sound like a complete maroon.
posted by mmrtnt at 2:23 PM on July 18, 2012
I will buy that book only after I am confident I can pronounce the author's name so I can recommend it to others, if necessary, and not sound like a complete maroon.
posted by mmrtnt at 2:23 PM on July 18, 2012
I never use "fecund" in isolation. It always appears in the phrase "as fecund as the shad."
I doubt I am fecund. (Previously.)
posted by infinitywaltz at 2:51 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
I doubt I am fecund. (Previously.)
posted by infinitywaltz at 2:51 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
"Creative" is also used as a back-patting superlative.
Yeah, I hate that. Saying "you're so creative" should be no more a compliment than "you're so good at using that screwdriver."
If I fixed something using my creativity and you need to acknowledge that for whatever bizarre reason, just say "Hey everyone! Joey fixed that dripping water problem! Good work!"
Unless I built a Rube Golderg-esque machine out of mustard jars, clown shoes and terrycloth to solve the dripping water problem - in that case, you can compliment me on my creativity, though (again) jeez just call the plumber.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2012
Yeah, I hate that. Saying "you're so creative" should be no more a compliment than "you're so good at using that screwdriver."
If I fixed something using my creativity and you need to acknowledge that for whatever bizarre reason, just say "Hey everyone! Joey fixed that dripping water problem! Good work!"
Unless I built a Rube Golderg-esque machine out of mustard jars, clown shoes and terrycloth to solve the dripping water problem - in that case, you can compliment me on my creativity, though (again) jeez just call the plumber.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2012
I'm not sure I care about creativity or the lack thereof or whether or not what people say is creative actually is creative. It all sounds like a way to make me buy something or take out more student loans or click on a link, or whatnot.
posted by yarly at 3:04 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by yarly at 3:04 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
Clown Shoes Rooter, that's the name, don't flush terrycloth towels down the drain. Clown Shoes Rooter! Clown Shoes Rooter, we'll go far, we'll bail you out with a mustard jar. Clown Shoes Rooter!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:12 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:12 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
If it's a myth, it's a useful one. Valuing “creativity” provides an alternative to the traditional arrangement of societies, which is to value obedience and conformity, even if 99.99% of the output of said “creativity” is going to be crap on Etsy, mediocre home-recorded songs and retreads of ideas which have been done to death.
posted by acb at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by acb at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2012
The creativity craze is part of our general cultural hyper-egalitarianism that says, "Hey, anybody is as great as Beethoven. Who does that guy think he is, anyway?"
posted by No Robots at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by No Robots at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2012
"Google ‘become more creative’ and you’ll get over 335 million results."
Agreed it's a lazy way to make a point, and fundamentally dishonest because she didn't even out the phrase in quotes. "become more creative" gives only 4.9m results.
Another quibble is that many similar articles trot out the idea that because of the internet, everyone is now a blogger/author/photographer/etc. Is that really true? I don't doubt there's been a rise in creative output due to new tools, but has the overall % of people who spend any significant time on creative projects risen that much?
posted by cell divide at 3:57 PM on July 18, 2012
Agreed it's a lazy way to make a point, and fundamentally dishonest because she didn't even out the phrase in quotes. "become more creative" gives only 4.9m results.
Another quibble is that many similar articles trot out the idea that because of the internet, everyone is now a blogger/author/photographer/etc. Is that really true? I don't doubt there's been a rise in creative output due to new tools, but has the overall % of people who spend any significant time on creative projects risen that much?
posted by cell divide at 3:57 PM on July 18, 2012
our general cultural hyper-egalitarianism
Is that really the case? Where do you see evidence of that?
posted by cell divide at 4:00 PM on July 18, 2012
Is that really the case? Where do you see evidence of that?
posted by cell divide at 4:00 PM on July 18, 2012
Let's imagine you present a group of kids with an empty hot tub and a water hose. Asking them to figure out how long it would take to fill the tub requires them to work creatively with math (especially if you don't annoyingly provide them with all the formulas they'd need to solve that problem right off the bat). They would need to figure out how much water the tub could hold, the rate that the water flows from the hose, etc. etc.
I was discussing almost this exact issue with my coworker today, as we sat there together, grading your children's Algebra exams and flunking 99.999% of them. I told him an apocryphal story about Thomas Edison that I heard, probably from my high school Physics teacher.
Edison hired a new lab worker and gave him a basic task, accurately measure the interior volume of a set of brand new hand-blown glass tubes that had not yet been assembled into light bulbs. The lab worker was well trained in math, and very creative. He looked at the first light bulb, thought of the formula for the volume of a sphere, 4/3 Pi*r^3, and then realized the bulbs weren't perfectly spherical, it was more of an prolate spheroid. It would be impossible to accurately measure the minor axis because it was inside the neck of the bulb. The neck had a complex rounded curve that would be difficult to estimate. But he was determined to impress Edison, so first he took a calipers, measured the thickness of the glass wall. He hoped the thickness was fairly even throughout the whole bulb, but it would be impossible to get a calipers in there to measure it. Then he measured the diameter of the bulb at regular intervals. Subtracting 2x the wall thickness from the exterior diameter would give the interior diameter. He plotted the diameters on graph paper, and soon had a fairly good estimation of the curve of the bulb. A little calculus will give an integral of the area under the curve. Rotate the curve around its axis will sweep out a good approximation of the bulb's interior shape. A little 3d transform...
At this point Edison came into the lab and was infuriated at the worker for taking so long, it had been over 30 minutes. The worker proudly showed Edison the papers with his creative solution, and said he was almost finished calculating the first of a dozen light bulbs. Edison just glared at him, then picked up a tube, went to the sink and filled it with water, then poured the water into a graduated cylinder to measure it. Edison set them down in front of the worker and silently stormed out of the lab.
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:30 PM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
I was discussing almost this exact issue with my coworker today, as we sat there together, grading your children's Algebra exams and flunking 99.999% of them. I told him an apocryphal story about Thomas Edison that I heard, probably from my high school Physics teacher.
Edison hired a new lab worker and gave him a basic task, accurately measure the interior volume of a set of brand new hand-blown glass tubes that had not yet been assembled into light bulbs. The lab worker was well trained in math, and very creative. He looked at the first light bulb, thought of the formula for the volume of a sphere, 4/3 Pi*r^3, and then realized the bulbs weren't perfectly spherical, it was more of an prolate spheroid. It would be impossible to accurately measure the minor axis because it was inside the neck of the bulb. The neck had a complex rounded curve that would be difficult to estimate. But he was determined to impress Edison, so first he took a calipers, measured the thickness of the glass wall. He hoped the thickness was fairly even throughout the whole bulb, but it would be impossible to get a calipers in there to measure it. Then he measured the diameter of the bulb at regular intervals. Subtracting 2x the wall thickness from the exterior diameter would give the interior diameter. He plotted the diameters on graph paper, and soon had a fairly good estimation of the curve of the bulb. A little calculus will give an integral of the area under the curve. Rotate the curve around its axis will sweep out a good approximation of the bulb's interior shape. A little 3d transform...
At this point Edison came into the lab and was infuriated at the worker for taking so long, it had been over 30 minutes. The worker proudly showed Edison the papers with his creative solution, and said he was almost finished calculating the first of a dozen light bulbs. Edison just glared at him, then picked up a tube, went to the sink and filled it with water, then poured the water into a graduated cylinder to measure it. Edison set them down in front of the worker and silently stormed out of the lab.
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:30 PM on July 18, 2012 [5 favorites]
The creativity craze is part of our general cultural hyper-egalitarianism that says, "Hey, anybody is as great as Beethoven. Who does that guy think he is, anyway?"
Assuming this is actually happening on a such a scale that it can be called a 'craze'...what's the actual problem? That this kind of hyperbolic encouragement will lead to something bad? Like more tenth-rate composers who think they are Beethoven or something? How is that a bad thing, exactly?
posted by Doleful Creature at 4:32 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Assuming this is actually happening on a such a scale that it can be called a 'craze'...what's the actual problem? That this kind of hyperbolic encouragement will lead to something bad? Like more tenth-rate composers who think they are Beethoven or something? How is that a bad thing, exactly?
posted by Doleful Creature at 4:32 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Perhaps our problem is not hyper-egalitarianism but poorly distributed egalitarianism. Extreme inequality of wealth and security is perfectly normal, but in consolation, everybody's view is just as good as anybody else's. The resulting tensions (between evolution and creationism, or whether global warming is a myth made up by libruls or Obama's birth certificate was forged) also serve to divert attention from what's really going on, and to paint those who point this out as elitists with contempt for the common people.
posted by acb at 4:35 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by acb at 4:35 PM on July 18, 2012
I RTFA & can't really tell what the point of it is.
My stab at a definition: Creativity is about making new connections & combinations, & best driven by both constraint and curiosity. Both of which push us forward as opposed to repetition.
posted by yoga at 4:38 PM on July 18, 2012
My stab at a definition: Creativity is about making new connections & combinations, & best driven by both constraint and curiosity. Both of which push us forward as opposed to repetition.
posted by yoga at 4:38 PM on July 18, 2012
Assuming this is actually happening on a such a scale that it can be called a 'craze'...what's the actual problem? That this kind of hyperbolic encouragement will lead to something bad? Like more tenth-rate composers who think they are Beethoven or something? How is that a bad thing, exactly?
People should not being doing things they enjoy they should be doing things that are really tedious and spirit-crushing instead. It's the only way we can be sure of avoiding sinful desires.
posted by dng at 4:39 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
People should not being doing things they enjoy they should be doing things that are really tedious and spirit-crushing instead. It's the only way we can be sure of avoiding sinful desires.
posted by dng at 4:39 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
Creativity is the exclusive domain of genius, and geniuses are far and few between.
I'm reading this report on arts and Australian education for work and that attitude has been shown to be highly destructive and fallacious, and has been a major stumbling block in arts education in schools.
There's a number of research articles examined in that report that show that giving students arts-based and arts-centric education brings major benefits to students from as young as 5 years old, across socio-economic backgrounds: their literacy and numeracy skills increase, they gain self-confidence and are able to take more risks, they develop strong interpersonal skills, and they gain a critical awareness of themselves and their place in the world, as well as the ability to critically evaluate and respond to other art, beyond people's expectations. There's also improvements in school attendance, student-teacher interaction, and general health.
What I find most interesting about the report so far (I'm halfway through) is the discussion about art and Aboriginal/Indigenous communities, where they are not as sharply delineated but rather form a core part of their social, cultural, and religious lives. The split between "art" and everything else has been harmful towards Aboriginal culture. In the report:
I'm reading this report on arts and Australian education for work and that attitude has been shown to be highly destructive and fallacious, and has been a major stumbling block in arts education in schools.
There's a number of research articles examined in that report that show that giving students arts-based and arts-centric education brings major benefits to students from as young as 5 years old, across socio-economic backgrounds: their literacy and numeracy skills increase, they gain self-confidence and are able to take more risks, they develop strong interpersonal skills, and they gain a critical awareness of themselves and their place in the world, as well as the ability to critically evaluate and respond to other art, beyond people's expectations. There's also improvements in school attendance, student-teacher interaction, and general health.
What I find most interesting about the report so far (I'm halfway through) is the discussion about art and Aboriginal/Indigenous communities, where they are not as sharply delineated but rather form a core part of their social, cultural, and religious lives. The split between "art" and everything else has been harmful towards Aboriginal culture. In the report:
In a keynote address in 2009, Robyn Archer suggested that white Australia is not good at valuing the ephemeral or the spiritual in this way. She explained that by the time Europeans arrived in Australia they brought:posted by divabat at 5:01 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]... a sense that art was something produced by individual genius, to be consumed by those with good taste enough to understand it. For the rest, folk art and popular entertainment would be good enough.The understanding that art needed to be at the centre of any society had thus been greatly diminished over two centuries ago. This devaluing continues to be reflected in the lack of a strong presence of government support for the Arts and of support for the role of the Arts in the formal and compulsory Australian curricula.
Creativity can be applied toward literally any work, craft, or skill. Yes, even making outsize pasta dishes.
posted by hermitosis at 7:40 PM on July 18
I have to tell you that my outsize pasta dishes are pretty shite. You need to be heavily drunk to appreciate them. Which is where my second skill comes in handy.
I don't know why so many of you nice American folk struggle so hard to accept the patent observable truth that many of us are just generally pretty shit at stuff, and don't get significantly better even if we practice a lot. That's life, mates. It really is. Most of us just learn to walk, read and muddle through and that's it.
posted by Decani at 5:42 PM on July 18, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by hermitosis at 7:40 PM on July 18
I have to tell you that my outsize pasta dishes are pretty shite. You need to be heavily drunk to appreciate them. Which is where my second skill comes in handy.
I don't know why so many of you nice American folk struggle so hard to accept the patent observable truth that many of us are just generally pretty shit at stuff, and don't get significantly better even if we practice a lot. That's life, mates. It really is. Most of us just learn to walk, read and muddle through and that's it.
posted by Decani at 5:42 PM on July 18, 2012 [3 favorites]
There's a difference between encouraging creativity and demanding perfection.
posted by divabat at 5:43 PM on July 18, 2012
posted by divabat at 5:43 PM on July 18, 2012
There's a difference between encouraging creativity and demanding perfection.
posted by divabat at 1:43 AM on July 19
I must admit, I can walk quite creatively. Especially after a few ales.
posted by Decani at 5:44 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by divabat at 1:43 AM on July 19
I must admit, I can walk quite creatively. Especially after a few ales.
posted by Decani at 5:44 PM on July 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
Yes, divabat, absolutely. If you haven't already, watch the Sir Ken video, it's spot on.
Creativity isn't just about making stuff up or having an imagination. Creativity is a necessary component for learning our first language. It's necessary for learning ANYTHING. Creativity is the means to react and adapt to a given environment. Ergo, it must be innate in all of us.
That said, for most of my life I've witnessed creativity being crushed out of kids, both through formal education and home-spun, perhaps based on survival, classism. "Yea, that's beautiful, Andy, but it ain't helpin' your grades any!" Grades that Andy will need to graduate from H.S. so he can get ANY effing job.
This is totally based on my own experience, but one thing that really breaks my heart these days is children's lack of exposure to the arts in general. When I was a kid we had field trips to the opera, the orchestra and art museums. Those experiences moved me deeply. They helped me create personal connections to the highest points of humanity.
posted by snsranch at 6:29 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
Creativity isn't just about making stuff up or having an imagination. Creativity is a necessary component for learning our first language. It's necessary for learning ANYTHING. Creativity is the means to react and adapt to a given environment. Ergo, it must be innate in all of us.
That said, for most of my life I've witnessed creativity being crushed out of kids, both through formal education and home-spun, perhaps based on survival, classism. "Yea, that's beautiful, Andy, but it ain't helpin' your grades any!" Grades that Andy will need to graduate from H.S. so he can get ANY effing job.
This is totally based on my own experience, but one thing that really breaks my heart these days is children's lack of exposure to the arts in general. When I was a kid we had field trips to the opera, the orchestra and art museums. Those experiences moved me deeply. They helped me create personal connections to the highest points of humanity.
posted by snsranch at 6:29 PM on July 18, 2012 [1 favorite]
The creativity craze is part of our general cultural hyper-egalitarianism that says, "Hey, anybody is as great as Beethoven. Who does that guy think he is, anyway?"
Well thank heavens you've come to parrot Nietzsche back at us! Breath of fresh air, that.
posted by invitapriore at 8:16 PM on July 18, 2012
Well thank heavens you've come to parrot Nietzsche back at us! Breath of fresh air, that.
posted by invitapriore at 8:16 PM on July 18, 2012
A domain is defined as, "a set of symbolic rules and procedures," such as mathematics. A field "includes all the individuals who act as gatekeepers to the domain." This can be summarized as, "Creativity occurs when a person, using the symbols of a given domain such as music, engineering, business, or mathematics, has a new idea or sees a new pattern, and when this novelty is selected by the appropriate field for inclusion into the relevant domain."
This is the summary from the top-rated Amazon review of Csikszentmihalyi's book. I was going to read it, but now I'm not so sure I'm ready to swallow that pill.
Can we really boil down every human activity into a flow-control model? Aren't there some creative activities that lie outside of the realm of these "gatekeepers" – say, in a subculture or among a small isolated group? Csikszentmihalyi's model seems awfully authoritarian in what it includes under the umbrella of "creativity". I find this idea of all human activity as a footnote on a footnote on a footnote repulsively reductive. That notion of creativity may work well for modeling workplace happiness, but it's missing the forest for the trees.
posted by deathpanels at 5:08 PM on July 19, 2012
« Older Comics Come Out | Ron Fucking Swanson Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by No Robots at 11:06 AM on July 18, 2012 [4 favorites]