Creativity as a Commodity

There are some people who say that creativity is starting to become a highly sought after commodity. With the economy and other changes to the way companies do business they need employees who can think on their feet, designers and marketing directors who can create a sticky campaign and website to entice more people to buy. So it's no wonder that these companies are drooling for people who are "creative".

But I think this is a very narrow view of what creativity is. Creativity isn't the end product. It's not the advertisement screaming at us to buy "it" before time runs out. It's not the graphic designer who regurgitates the style or layout of every other ad in the market because that's what is "trendy" or "hip" or "marketable". I hate that last word, "marketable". If you are always doing what's "marketable" how will anything new and meaningful be created?

Creativity is much deeper than that. Creativity is a process and not something that can just be pooped out or copied. Creativity sees what's not there, it solves problems, it combines two disconnected ideas to make a even better more meaningful idea. Words like "trendy", "hip" and "marketable" are the complete opposite of creativity.

It is so frustrating to me that companies don't see that if they just chill out, relax, take a deep breath and let their employees, all of them, not just the graphic designers, work within the process of creativity their company will be infinitely better off than if they spent a million on an ad campaign.

No, creativity is not a commodity, you cannot put a price on it. Creativity is both free and priceless at the same time. But creativity should be valued more than it is now by everyone in any industry. And those people who are creating within the Process should be valued as well. These Creatives are the people who are going to save the economy. They are going to cure cancer and fly us to Saturn, not those regurgitating graphic designers.

If Creativity falls but nobody hears it, does it still make a sound?

I'm reading a book called Creating Minds by Howard Gardner. The book focuses around 7 Creatives and tries to answer the question, "Where is creativity?"

Gardner says that their are 3 criteria for someone to be "creative".

1. The person must regularly solve problems or create product.
2. Their work must be done in a particular field and
3. The work and the Creative must be accepted by others in the field as being creative.

So, according to Gardner, Emily Dickinson wasn't creative until after her death when her poems were finally published and accepted by society. The hermit who paints masterpieces in his log cabin in the woods will never be creative if no one ever finds his paintings and shows them to the world. This is hard for me to accept. For me creativity is a highly personal thing. You don't need anyone else to justify the fact that what you are doing is creative. But even as I write these first 3 paragraphs I'm starting to change my opinion.

The logic that someone isn't creative until society accepts the person as such reminds me of the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound?" It does seem like an easy question to answer. Sound occurs from vibrations, from atoms and particles moving around and bumping into each other. So in that sense if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it the tree will still be moving atoms around in which case it will still produce vibrations. But if there are no ears around to pick up the vibrations, then the vibrations don't get turned into sound.

So, if the hermit works night and day for 40 years creating masterpiece after masterpiece but no one ever sees them how do we know and how does he know for that matter if he's being creative?

This leads me to think that there are two kinds of creativity. The Internal Creativity that soothes your soul and reminds you who you are. The creativity that doesn't need acceptance from anyone else to know that it's creative and special. And then there's the Creativity that Gardner is talking about: The External Creativity, the creativity that benefits society and that speaks to others and reminds them who they are and inspires them to make some of their own Internal Creativity.

Even though I now agree with Gardner more than I did when I started this post I get the feeling from what I've read so far in his book that he is disregarding the Internal Creativity completely. Anything created to benefit humanity is obviously more important then that which only benefits the individual, right?

Right?

If your true passions and Internal Creativity are trying to speak to you but you are too busy focused on benefiting others and aren't there to hear your Internal voice does it still make a sound?

Maybe that's why my country, America, is having such a rough time right now. Not a whole lot of people know who they are anymore or know where their passions lie. They don't know what gives them life or makes them feel at peace. Our politicians are too worried about getting the next round of votes. Our companies are so worried about what the masses want that they hardly innovate. Graphics designers are hired by companies not because they are creative and will push the box but because they will design what they are told to design. Market studies and surveys that try to answer the question, "Which graphic or color makes you want to buy this product" are dictating what is "creative" or "innovative". Government regulations are dictating what companies can and can't do even if those companies are actually trying to produce a more efficient product.

Gardner's theory that society dictates what is creative is good...in theory. But most of the time society isn't a very good judge.

Don't ignore your Internal Creativity. Nurture it and let your External Creativity grow out of the creativity deep inside you. Individuals who know who they are and are truthful to themselves are of more benefit to society then Philanthropists who can't tell you what their favorite color is.

Public Ownership of Creativity

The death of Michael Jackson, as well as 4 other celebrities this past week, has brought to the forefront, at least for me, the discussion of public ownership of creativity and/or Creatives. Fox News covered Michael Jackson for almost 24 hours straight, even with more pressing matters such as the disguised Cap and Trade bill that was being debated in Congress. (My husband covered the political side of that if you care to read, here and here.)

But why is it that whenever a celebrity is going through some drama the media feels we need to know and why do we sit in front of our TVs watching? Is it really our business what the autopsy reports say? Do we really need to know every detail as it unfolds? My husband was watching Huckabee the day after Jackson died and Huckabee criticized the mentality of "public ownership" of celebrities. And I have to say this is true of creativity as well.

I'm suddenly reminded of Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand, the author, creates a world where all the brilliant and creative minds of the day are looked upon more and more like servants to the people. While Creatives tend to be lovers of humanity and strive to help mankind in any way they can there is a fine line between a giver to the people and an servant of the people. It's fair to say there are far less Creatives in this world then their are "non-Creatives". Non-Creatives can and have enjoyed the bounty of the Creative's endeavors for years but when a Creative's passion is mutated into service to the masses they cease to be creative any longer.

This obviously applies to the person doing the creating as well. The minute musicians, actor, artists, scientists or politicians bend to the whims of the masses is the day that they stop being Creatives. The same goes for any other Creative who has an innovative idea but "waters it down" to appeal to the masses. It also pertains to any company who changes its ideals or products to be more "marketable".

I'm not sure how I feel about the "Creative Commons" movement and the notion that creative products should be given to the public after a certain amount of time. Are these things, after so many years, even creative any more? Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi believes that for something to be creative it has to meet certain criteria, one of which being what I'm going to call "the right place at the right time". No one will argue that Mickey Mouse was creative in 1928 when he appeared in his first cartoon. But is Mickey Mouse still creative in 2009? I'm inclined to say, "No". Is someone who wants to use Mickey Mouse in a work of art as a symbol being creative? This I'm not sure about.

In the end, I'm appalled at the idea of the public owning someone or something just because they are creative. I'm also skeptical of the notion that something creative 20+ years ago can add any creative value to something created today. I go to art museums and read old books to get a sense for what creativity was like during that time and to respect how far we have come. I appreciate paintings and inventions for what they are and what they were at the time: products of creativity. Works like the Mona Lisa or the rocket ship are able to stand on their own as testament to the human creative spirit. And so, too, should current Creatives and their creations. Respect them, learn from them, be inspired by them but let them stand.

Fight for your Creativity

I've wrote about Anti-Creativity and how it appears in the form of blame-throwing and self-righteousness. But it appears in another way through the act of de-valuing creativity.

When I first started to seriously focus on my home business my husband and I would argue about how I spent my time at home. He couldn't understand why the dishes weren't finished when I had been home all day. And I tried to explain that I had been working all day even though I wasn't in an "office". I got this reaction from many other people as well. I work part-time for my dad and it seems as though some of my friends and family only view my time in my dad's office as "real" work and my creative endeavors I do at home are just a hobby or something.

I'm sure I'm not the only Creative who has experienced this or has become exhausted from defending my creative projects. It is extremely difficult to have faith in or value your dreams when it seems as though everyone around you doesn't. I do agree there are times when some lofty goal needs to be put aside for something more "important" but my argument has always been this: If you have a dream or goal how do you ever expect it to become reality if you don't view it as being important and always put it aside? One of my husband's arguments is that if it's not making money then it should be put at the bottom of your list. Again, I understand the importance of surviving and sacrifice but if that's all you are ever going to do then you will never achieve your goals.

I wrote a few days ago in my post, Drained, about saying, "no" in order to have more time to yourself to relax or do something creative. I know what you are thinking: "If I say no someone will be upset with me." Or, "I have said no before but I just felt horrible afterward." These feelings also come from the fact that we as a society so often de-value creativity. We as a society have no problem with telling someone "no" if we have "real" work to do. And if we are told "no" by someone because they have work to do we feel as though we have no right to object. It's understandable in a society in which we are working harder and longer than we have ever worked before that most people wouldn't have time for anything other than work. We just don't have time for stupid little things like creativity. And this is something we just have to live with, right?

Or is it?

I hear time and again employees quiting their jobs to pursue something more creative. Parents are complaining that creative thinking isn't taught enough in school and teachers are complaining they don't know how to bring creativity in the classroom. Friends and family say they wish they had more time to learn how to knit, play the piano, paint. Every day I hear, "I can't draw, or dance" or "I'm just not that creative". But I also hear the pang of longing in their voice that wishes they could do those things.

On the news, I hear that people just want our problems solved in a sustainable way. They are bitter that politicians and other government agencies are simply putting band-aides on every cut. People want real solutions, not more political games. All these things I think are really a cry for more creativity in every aspect of our lives.

I think people are really crying for implementation of the creative process, they want creativity to be taken seriously and to be taught to our children. They want people to remember that if it wasn't for all the Forgotten Creatives over the years we would not be who and where we are today.

Fight for your Creativity. Stand up and let everyone know how important creativity is in all our lives and especially for our future.

Say "NO" to Anti-Creativity.

Twitter!!!

I am fast falling in love with Twitter. It has all the best parts of blogging and texting.

Follow me and receive creative tidbits, tips and inspiration.


By TwitterButtons.com