The Nature of Creativity — Part 3

Art Is Not Synonymous With Creativity

This is the third instalment in my series on the Nature of Creativity. In this post, I will be exploring my second basic premise about creativity. Art is not synonymous with creativity.

Here is that basic premise, quoted from my first article in this series.

Creativity is not synonymous with art. (When I say ‘art’, I include all genres, forms, styles, and expressions of art, whether visual, physical, auditory, or any other.) How many people think they are not creative because, as children, some adult negatively criticised their nascent artistic endeavours? To continue my running metaphor: Art exists within creativity like waves exist within the ocean. To define the ocean solely by means of waves is ridiculously inaccurate and incorrect. Waves are an important expression of ocean — but they are not the only expression, or recognisable feature of ocean. Waves definitely do not define, or equate to ocean. While art is unquestionably an important expression of creativity, it does not define creativity, or equate with creativity. Creativity is much more than art.

In last week’s post, about universal creativity, I mentioned some reasons why people think they are not creative. Most of those reasons, stem directly from the confused, and widespread belief that art = creativity. This leads directly to the false belief that a perceived lack of artistic ability = lack of creativity.

This means that children (or adults) who battle with singing, drawing, painting, etc., are told, and believe that they are not creative. This is as ridiculous as saying that the sea is not the sea because we can’t see any waves right now.

The study of creativity is only a few decades old. So, it’s hardly surprising that there is confusion regarding the relationship between art and creativity. When one factors in historical views of creativity, this becomes even less surprising.

Historically, creativity was most often seen as the sole purview of deity. It was commonly believed that true creativity required beginning with nothing, which meant that only a god could create. Within this definition of creativity, humans could only craft what already existed.

Leonardo da Vinci, the original “Renaissance Man”, whose creativity and artistic genius still amazes us to this day, never spoke of himself as creative, or even artistic. Rather, he called himself a craftsman, philosopher, scientist, or painter, which was his primary training. This was common to the era in which he lived.

Historically, even those who believed in the possibility of human creativity, limited it severely. The ancient Greeks, and many after them, believed that only by means of poetry, could a human create something that had never previously existed, and thus, partake in true creativity. All other art forms, such as painting and sculpture, were seen as mere representations — copies of the existing god-created reality. This belief persisted well into the 20th century.

During the musical heyday of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, et al, some people began to accept music as creative. However, in spite of the massive fame and influence of these musicians, this was still not a widely held belief.

Since the early 19th-century, the rise of humanist thought has slowly begun to change some views on the nature of art and creativity. However, it wasn’t until the 1920s that the term “creativity” was coined, and consistent, serious research and study of creativity is only a very few decades old.

The concept of all art being creative is so new that it is hardly surprising that most of us equate creativity with art. Most people, even many artists, gauge personal creativity solely by means of artistic ability. Many people who live creatively in “non-artistic” ways, do not recognise themselves as creative.

With this in mind, how do I, and many other students of creativity, define, and differentiate creativity and art?

A basic, metaphorical explanation places creativity as the universe, and art (all forms) as a single galaxy within it. Imagination, and creative expression in all other areas of life would be the other galaxies within this universe of creativity. In other words, art is just one, among many, possible expressions of creativity.

Creativity can and should be expressed in every aspect of life. We should be seeing creative expression in business, relationships, technological innovation, food production, etc.

At this point, however, it is vital remember that creativity must always create — something must be made. I can hear some of you going, “Well, duh!”. Please bear with me. This is vital.

Creativity and destruction exist as polar opposites on a continuum. This means that pure creativity, or pure destructiveness are rare within the fields of human endeavour.

However, all human actions, endeavours, and accomplishments gravitate toward either the creative or destructive pole, and are therefore, either mainly creative, or mainly destructive.

The primary definition of creativity is therefore, actions with a creative, rather than destructive genesis, purpose/intent, and function/effect. It could be said that creativity and destruction are the light & dark expressions of human endeavour. The light and dark sides of “The Force”, for those of you with a sci-fi bent.

I will further explore this vital aspect of human creativity in a later post. I mention it now, only to further my thesis, that art is not synonymous with creativity.

If all human endeavour is either creative or destructive, then art, like any other human expression, is not necessarily creative. Art can be destructive. It is therefore vital that we not equate art and creativity.

Creativity, by definition must always make and build, in a positive sense.

The lives and work of many artists has sadly, been destructive to both themselves, and to others. Some art even destroys it’s media, or is destructive to an environment. In some instances, his art may even be adjudged “great art” by critics and cognoscenti.

Can art, born in destruction, be creative?

Can art that is destructive of materials or environment be called creative?

If art breaks down, or does not actively build up its audience in some way, can it be called creative?

These are actually quite tough questions, and as such, I’ll leave you to ponder them. I hope they will prompt some interesting discussion in the comments.

Creativity is much more than just art, imagination, or any other human action, thought, or endeavour. Creativity, by definition, must positively, actively make and/or build.

Creativity always seeks, and makes/accomplishes the best with what is at hand. This is true for all human endeavour. That best, positive making and building can be wonderfully expressed through art, relationships, crafts, business, and every human action.

When any human endeavour is expressed in a way that positively makes and builds, then it is creative.

I know that I’ve covered quite a lot of ground here. Much of this can, and will be dealt with in greater depth at a later date. It’s been tough, but I hope that I’ve managed to stick to the explanation of my premise without too many side-tracks.

In summary:

• All humans are potentially creative.
• Creativity is the polar opposite of destruction, and all human endeavours are either creative or destructive to one degree or another.
• Art, as a human endeavour, can be destructive, and can therefore not be equated to, or definitive of creativity.
• Creativity can be, should be, and is expressed in every human action, endeavour, and interaction. Destructive expression is the alternative.
• Just because you are not artistic does not mean that you are not creative.

Once again, I challenge you, as I challenge myself, to embrace creativity in all that you do. Build yourself up, make interesting things, think of better ways to do things, and relate positively to those around you.

Create! Don’t destroy.