Samantha - thanks for your invitation to comment.
"What might you define as patently not creative, in terms of activity, participation, production, or otherwise?"
My point of view: creativity is an expression of the human spirit to improve the future. Accessing it may involve using knowledge, imagination and evaluation to generate new ideas and make new decisions that alter the status quo. To attribute activities as being creative or non-creative is besides the point because it is about the people involved in the activities, and the scope of options they access from which they make new decisions that matter in their context, and the processes, including production, used to actualize the desired future.
"And to expand on your quote: "What would be interesting to discuss is why creativity, a basic instinct has been held down for so long by those in power.""
Rather than having support and encouragement to engage one's natural energy, curiosity, tinkering, etc. many are dissuaded from accessing their creativity because it is perceived not to serve society. In my final undergraduate year, before entering the masters program in Creative Studies, I asked my anthropology professor to describe creativity from her perspective. Her response? Creativity is bad manners. Imagine doing something creative at the dinner table, she said, and what happens? You get your hand slapped. That's what creativity is.
Too many have been given the 'handslap' repeatedly throughout their lives. Rather than having their hands shaken with congratulations for experimenting with new ideas, notions, configurations, challenging the status quo even if the suggested change is incremental or revolutionary, the response is typically an automatic no. Wouldn't it be nice if instead, new suggestions were met with an Angel's advocate rather than a Devil's advocate approach as in, "What I like about the idea is..." followed by... "Here are some obstacles or challenges the idea presents..." followed by "How might we overcome those obstacles..." or "Here's another idea that springs from what you said..."
Today, creativity is being touted as a must-have skill or capacity. This notion flies in the face our enculturation as being good citizens who don't upset things. Many are confused as to when it's okay to 'be creative' and when it isn't. In organizations people want to advance new ideas and at the same time can fear putting those ideas forward lest they lose their job, lose face or become alienated from their peers.
So many believe that they (or their boss, local leader, etc) do not have a creative bone in their body. This is so untrue - we all do, and we express our creativity uniquely. We often say others aren't creative when they are not creative in our way, the way we would like.
There is very little general learning/knowledge/practice available to encourage engaging the energy, affirm its contribution, allow its expression that also provides structures, processes and avenues for refining raw ideas into value-laden worthwhile solutions that in turn become innovations.
Associating creativity with prosperity is a good beginning notion, and at the same time, it may be limiting. The purpose for getting new ideas, using imagination and making new decisions is to improve quality of life. Money is one aspect. There are others, depending for which need or needs an individual, group, team, business, organization, city, society, are seeking satisfaction. Improved communication, better relationships, peace at home, inspired leadership, beautiful environs, healthy food, air, water, etc provide examples. In today's recessionary times, we are all influenced to do more with less - and this requires creative thinking in many arenas.
"Has it been advanced that those who are regarded as creative might themselves actually have power -- perhaps more power than that which they may be aware? If no, then are creatives wholly powerless? If so, then is it possible that creatives have power over those who do not (whether those people are or are not creative)? If so, what pragmatic outcomes could be deduced from this power relationship?"
The relationship between creativity and power is a potent one, an new area that I have only begun to investigate. In short, yes, those who create are unleashing the power of their imagination. (I hesitate to affirm 'those who are regarded as creative' because in my worldview, everyone has the capacity and uses it to some extent.) Creativity belongs to us all, we share it, and when we use it, we do so to benefit the species, the planet, our collective quality of life.
Marci:
ReplyDeleteI think part of your answer begs the question: why is it that if people naturally desire to be creative, they end up slapping the hands of others who engage in creative behavior? Let's remember, the hand-slappers are also human. They also desire creativity (or at least are naturally predisposed to desire creativity).
I think the answer here is that people are complex. Yes, we are wired to be creative. To explore and understand our world. To experiment. To push the boundaries of our knowledge and mastery of our environment. But, we are also wired for risk-aversion. Certain conditions bring out the risk-aversion predisposition more so than the creativity predisposition. Psychological research is helping us better understand which conditions are likely to produce which behavior.
In the meantime, I think we all have to acknowledge that it is just as human to be risk averse. And sometimes, it is even smart to behave that way. But as individuals and as a society, we must ensure that we engage in sufficient creativity or we will no longer progress.
Thanks so much for all your efforts!