Thoughts on Creative Productivity

Several books that I’ve been reading recently have brought up the concept of creative productivity and creative work, which is harder to define sometimes with artistic endeavors that don’t have a market value in the way that some other, more standard forms of work have.

Amanda Palmer discusses the aspect of what creative work means at several points in The Art of Asking, particularly in reference to her working as a living statue and having people call out to her to get a real job. As an artist, she has struggled with not having a ‘real’ job in the sense of a scientist or teacher whose job is so much more clearly valued as real sometimes by society than her artistic endeavors. Even those with whom she works sometimes don’t understand that spending time connecting with fans on Twitter is a useful part of her time because it allows her to develop the relationships that allow her to survive as an artist. She is productive in ways and environments that many people only engage with as a way to waste time or entertain themselves, not in ways that are productive or work-related.

Is it the environment or the action that creates this gray line of what society sees as clearly productive or not?

Playing chess is often a form of entertainment, but it can be more than just a game. There is the association between chess and being very smart. There are individuals who make a living playing chess and devoting large amounts of time to the game. We don’t generally mock them, but what is so different about them from someone working as a living statue? Chapter 3 of How Children Succeed by Paul Tough discusses how many chess players consider what they do to be creative work. For them, playing a good game of chess can be a work of art not dissimilar to Palmer’s living statue performances. The art only exists in that moment unless it is being recorded; it is not like a painting that is more lasting after the act of creation. As Tough says on p. 131, “I could appreciate the appeal of mastering chess, just as I could appreciate the appeal of mastering any other skill I wasn’t good at — oil painting, playing jazz trumpet, pole-vaulting — but while I could easily be persuaded that chess was a worthy and challenging intellectual undertaking, productive was the last word I would choose to describe it.” As Tough observes the players over a period of time, though, he comes to understand player Jonathan Rowson’s perspective: “Chess is a creative and beautiful pursuit, which allows us to experience a wide range of uniquely human characteristics… The game is a celebration of existential freedom, in the sense that we are blessed with the opportunity to create ourselves through our actions. In choosing to play chess, we are celebrating freedom above utility.”

I understand why Palmer battles with doubt about having a ‘real job’ and what that means to her. I understand that professional chess players probably don’t encounter the same sorts of jabs about ‘getting a real job’ that she received while posing as a living statue. I don’t understand why these situations are so different to society or the individuals involved. At a certain level, they are both brief performances by individuals. Professional chess players can take years of work before they compete at that level, so is it the years involved that allow the doubt to be removed? Was there an issue with the audience? Anyone could walk by Palmer working in the public park, but few people intent on insults will bother to attend a chess tournament.

I think the difference may largely be cultural, but I’m unclear on all of the reasons why some creative works and acts are more easily seen as ‘productive’ and others are more ambiguous by those observing. It is fascinating, though, to try to step back and see what we as a society seem to treat or respond to so differently sometimes when the items in question seem to be so similar.

Creative tip: Think about love before solving a problem.

Clio Cresswell talks about this aspect from her research around 8 min 30 sec into the video. The video has several interesting points, but you probably don’t want to watch it with kids just because of the giggle factor.