The Nature of Creativity — Part 6
Something Must Be Made
Some of you may think this point too obvious to mention. If that’s you, and you have truly grasped this vital aspect of creativity, then I am overjoyed on your behalf. However, the truth of the matter is that what seems so obvious to some, is unimagined by most.
Before I go any further, as usual, here is the restatement of this foundational point, from the first article in this series:
Creativity must always result in the creation of something. The obverse of this is that it is not creativity if it results in, stems from, harnesses, or results in destruction. Due to the destructive-creative continuum, this becomes more and more true as destruction outweighs creation in any aspect of the endeavour. The clue is in the name, creativity — something must be made. In light of this, I love the hipster trend that has replaced the devalued, undefined label “creative” with the term “maker”. While this is, for the most part, only applied to physical making, crafts, and repurposing, I think it is definitely a step in the right direction toward a fuller understanding of creativity.
I know I say this every week, but it’s never-the-less true. You will get more out of this article, if you’ve read the others in the series.
As I mentioned in Part 3, creativity has historically been seen as inseparable from making. In fact, until quite recently, creativity was defined only as making something completely new out of nothing, and was therefore perceived, by most, as the sole domain of deity … and possibly, poets. (other art forms were seen as merely copying, or representing what already existed)
A mere fifty or so years ago, most people considered “making” to be a vital, even defining element of creativity. Any other viewpoint would have been aberrant to the thinking of the time.
However, ask that same question of people today, and you will almost definitely get a very different answer. The term “creative” is now, more often used to describe a type of person. “S/he is a creative.”, “ I am not creative.”, or “I wish I was creative, but I can’t draw.” Alternatively, “creative” is used to describe a way of thinking. “S/he is such a creative thinker.”, “Creative thinking has changed the world we live in.”
The first result of this change, is that creativity has gone from being well-defined, and quite easily recognisable, to being rather undefined, intangible and nebulous.
A hundred years ago, it was easy to know whether creativity had taken place or not. There was either something new to see, touch, experience, buy, or admire, or there wasn’t.
This new definition of creativity however, has made it much more mysterious and undefined. If thinking is creative, then how do we know if we, or they are creative or not? Creativity can be claimed or denied by anyone, by reason of a subjective assessment of thinking.
We humans, in general, hate uncertainty.
I believe that the widespread misconception that creativity=art, stems largely from recent uncertainty about the nature of creativity. That uncertainty, in turn, stems directly from disconnecting “making” from creativity.
Why, and how, has this dislocation occurred?
Why did so many of us, so suddenly and so recently decide, that making something (productivity) was no longer necessary to creativity?
The answer, if not the reasoning behind it, is actually quite simple. We changed our thinking about thinking.
Here are three key reasons/causes for our changed thinking, that have occurred during the recent past.
(I’ll explore each of these thinking tools more deeply in later articles)
Brainstorming: Back in 1948, Alex F Osborn published his book, Your Creative Power. In it, he outlined methods for “creative problem solving”, on which he’d been working on since the late 1930s. Osborn set down guidelines for working through, and finding creative solutions to problems, preferably in group situations. His methodology for finding “out of the box” solutions, that he labelled Brainstorming, focused on four things:
(1) Go for quantity, (2) Withhold criticism, (3) Welcome wild ideas, (4) Combine & improve ideas.
I’m sure most of you have participated in brainstorming sessions where these guidelines are still used.
Lateral Thinking: In 1967, Edward de Bono defined and popularised the term and methodology of Lateral Thinking. Lateral thinking trains the mind to find solutions that occur off the linear path of thought. Jokes are a prime example of lateral thinking. The build-up leads one down an obvious path. But, the punchline comes from an unexpected place — a lateral jump, if you will.
Here’s a very short example:
A priest walks into a bar. OUCH!!
A linear thought path equates to: A → B → C → D, or 1 → 2 → 3 → 4
A lateral thinking thought path looks more like: A → B → C → M, or even, 1 → 2 → 3 → banana.
Mind Mapping: In 1974, Tony Buzan began to publicise and popularise the phrase and methodology of Mind Mapping. Mind maps diagram ideas by means of structures related to the physical, neural network structures of the brain. The theory is that visual thought structures (diagrams) that are similar to physical brain structure provide a more intuitive aid to thought and memory .
I’ve found mind maps to be incredibly helpful.
In surprisingly few years, these thought tools have deeply changed our society. This means that even those who do not consciously use these tools, think differently than they would have fifty years ago.
For the most part, these changes are positive. Each of these thought tools, used either singly or in conjunction, can be a valuable and effective aid to creativity. However, they are also, at least partly responsible for the dislocation between making/production and creativity.
When thought tools such as brainstorming, mind mapping, and lateral thinking are used as part of a creative process that includes making, they are powerful tools within that process. The problem is that thinking can sometimes feel so satisfying on its own, that we fool ourselves into thinking that thinking alone is creative. (Yes, I did say it like that on purpose.)
This self-deception is a big enough problem all by itself, but these new thought tools also rocketed to widespread popularity during the advent of the digital age.
The digital age brought with it the concept of virtual reality — of powerful, but intangible software, of non-physical data storage & access, the Internet, and increasingly realistic games. These days, we have virtual storage, virtual friendships, and even virtual sex.
These powerful, potentially creative thought tools, allied with the glamour, and mystery of virtual reality have misled many. Modern society has been conned into thinking that creativity can exist and flourish without anything being made in the “real world”. We’ve been sold a virtual reality, at real-world cost.
Do you think I’m exaggerating? How many of you remember the Dot Com Bubble of the late 90s & early noughties? Investment bankers threw billions of dollars at Internet businesses, on the assumption that the rules had changed. Billions of dollars went down the tubes because otherwise intelligent people thought they could get real value from virtual reality.
In other words, the combination of interesting thinking, plus virtual reality fooled otherwise hard-headed financiers into throwing good money after bad — repeatedly.
The Dot Com Bubble is a perfect example of what happens when creativity is defined as merely “creative thinking” without anything actually being made.
Defining creative/interesting thinking as equal to creativity is disastrous, and destructive.
Don’t get me wrong. I love interesting thinking. I’ll always be first in line to defend and promote it as an indispensable component of creativity. But, thought alone, cannot equal creativity.
At best, thought alone, creates nothing, and so, cannot be labelled creative. But, more realistically, as was explored in last week’s post, the opposite, or absence of creativity is not nothing, but destruction. That means that what has become known as “creative thinking”, without action, without making, is in fact destructive.
I’m sure I can hear you wondering how “creative thinking” can be destructive, even within the realm of the creative-destructive continuum. I’m glad you asked.
Firstly, once again, look at the example of the Dot Com Bubble. Nothing was made, but the international economy was almost destroyed.
Secondly, one of the most effective, if not the fastest way to destroy something, is to do nothing to it, for it, or with it.
If a husband’s mind is full of marvellous ideas of how to love his wife, but he does nothing with them, the relationship will erode until it is finally destroyed.
How long would your car last if, in spite intentions to maintain it, you did nothing?
Decades ago, I spent some time in the navy, crewing on steel ships. All the “creative thinking” in the world, without hours of chipping and painting, would not have stopped corrosion from eventually sinking those ships.
The more interesting the thinking, the more likely we are, in this age of virtual realities, to mistake the thought for the deed. We must be careful not to misidentify thought as action.
These powerful thinking tools all have active components. When we apply these tools to our interesting thinking, it can sometimes feel like we’ve already worked hard. In fact, using these thought tools can be so satisfying, that we delude ourselves into thinking that we’ve been creative.
My focus in this post has been to debunk the misconception of creativity without action/making/production. However, I will further explore thought and creativity in future articles.
As usual, I challenge you, as I challenge myself:
- Practice interesting thinking, but always remember that it does not become creative until you do something with it.
- Creativity requires both interesting thinking and action.
- Come up with great ideas, and better ways of doing things … and then, do them.
- Dream big dreams, and wallow in your artistic visions … and then paint, draw, dance, play music, write, and make your dreams reality.
