Defining creativity

At the web design think tank A List Apart, Andy Rutledge attempts to clarify the definition of creativity - what it is, and most distinctly what it is not. Though the topic here is approached from a design standpoint, the core of the argument seems - to me, anyway - to apply with particular poignancy to writing.

I yield the floor to Mr. Rutledge. Substitute “writers” for “designers” or “narrative” for “design” as you see fit.

Creativity has nothing at all to do with self-expression or flamboyancy. Aside from the simple ability to create things, the most important feature of creativity is a highly developed perception filter that is somewhat less common than we’re led to believe. Despite what we were taught in school, we don’t all possess significant creativity, and fewer of us still have any skill at employing it. True, anyone can make something, and anyone can make something up. In this mundane sense, everyone is creative. But this basic truth belies the design-relevant definition of creativity, and ignores the fact that each one of us has different creative abilities.

Creativity is technical and analytical, not expressive (as in self-expression). It is a filter through which perception and output pass, not a receptor or an infusion (as in the case of inspiration). Creativity may require or be enhanced by inspiration, but the two are distinct forces. (These facts are vital in discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate descriptions and applications of creativity.)

Creativity is an inborn capacity for thinking differently than most, seeing differently, and making connections and perceiving relationships others miss. But most importantly, it is the ability to then extrapolate contextually useful ways of employing that data: to create something that meets a specific challenge. By this definition, creativity is merely a tool; it does not convey skill. For a dedicated few, though, this inborn capacity is then further augmented by certain disciplines, including:

• ongoing curiosity,
• the desire and habit of looking more deeply into things than others care to,
• the habit of comparing stimulus with result, and
• a habit for qualitative discrimination.

It is primarily these disciplines that set top creative professionals apart from those who are merely gifted. It is also these disciplines that help shape a designer’s intuitive senses, which are vital to design craft, processes, and overall success. Being merely creatively gifted is no qualification for design expertise, and the idea that creativity is a magic bullet that anyone or any designer may employ to positive effect is a vacuous notion.

Some may view this declaration as having a rather anti-egalitarian flavor, and they’d be right. I remember reading somewhere, though, that art is not a democracy.

Anyway, the concept of applied creativity is something to mull over. I may have more to say on it later.

Similar posts:
Scrivener
The state of the page
Permission
Notes from the spiralbound
From Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Novel