I subscribe to this theory more than this one . I think creativity comes with being a part of Creation. All that is required is that one be open to it.
I don't see creativity as a manifestation of divinity, or any kind of mystical force. . but I do think it is innate to all fully functional human beings. It is a part of what defines the intellectual capacity that sets us apart from other animals. Creativity is nothing more than a means of processing information to generate something "new". Whatever we "create" is inevitably a combination of the familiar, but since there are seemingly infinite ways to combine our observations, it isn't really difficult to be original. This is why writer's block is a self-imposed state of mind. Try to imagine a new primary colour. You might think you've done it. . . but whatever strange colour you come up with is only a combination of the primary colours you know. It's easy to imagine something you've never seen before, playing around with what you have seen. This is both the power and limitation of creativity. We are all creative to varying degrees, because we'd be crippled vegetables if we weren't. . . But I think the brightest lights among us tend to be the least inhibited. Just as Molly suggested, as we grow older we learn to mute the awesome potential of creative thought, limiting ourselves to what we perceive to be the most practical applications. We learn to ignore the millions of distracting creative thoughts we constantly generate. . partly because we have to. It's too easy to get lost. I think some people get swept up in that current and never find their way back. (insanity ward) But there are other reasons, too--our indoctrination, beginning before we can even make decisions, into social rules and taboos, limiting schools of thought and limited cultural views, to name a few. Learning, whether through experience or study, gives you more material to be to creative with. . But to tap into creativity itself, you must lower your inhibitions, at least within the safety of your own mind. That's why so many people turn to drugs. The best solution is obviously to learn how to do without them. . but for some, drugs can effect a permanant change, by showing them what they are truly capable of. For others, (me) it can be as easy as making a firm decision: I will not be confined. The ways and methods are endless, but the goal is always the same--to break through your self imposed limits. I say self imposed, because nobody has the power to affect your mind without your consent. This is something you allowed to happen, a decision you made, subconsciously or otherwise. You did it, and you can undo it.
Every summer I go up to the Sierra with some friends, we rent a cabin, and we have fun. A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, cannot understand why I always bring my camera and take photos of the same exact mountains, the same trees, and the same buildings time and again. To him they are exactly what they appear to be. To me, for whatever reason, I see something else. Now, does that make me creative? No, it just means I have a vivid imagination or simply that I can appreciate beauty. Nevertheless, I know it is because I have a wild imagination and a bit of creativity on my side that I can keep myself entertained for hours without needing human contact. When I was a kid and my mom would drive through the downtown area of my city, I would always imagine the massive water tower we had exploding and, for whatever reason, an endless supply of water shooting out and covering the entire city, all the while our car was able to outrun it. Is that creative? Well, I think that has more to do with that whole imagination thing. That, however, is where it starts. Simply seeing things that are not there and taking enjoyment out of them is the catalyst for being able to create those sorts of things. That is why you CANNOT learn to be creative... because you already are, you just don't use it. People tend to see the world as either black or white, but those of us who are able to tune our creativity see honest colors. Creativity is born from your imagination and your imagination is fueled by asking questions constantly and, once you receive the answers, asking them again and again. Think of creativity as a muscle, questions are its exercise.
Allow yourself to be bored. Switch off the Mass Media Entertainment Monster that turns your mind into a content zombie, and then force your brain to entertain you without any use of stimuli. It's hard at first, especially in our time and age. People had no other choice in the old days, and they came up with amazing tales of the imagination. As a kid I lived quite remote from everyone else and had no choice. My childhood memories mostly consist of wonderous worlds of the imagination. Boredom is the source of all good.
Learning creativity...why good sir you learn it at bath time and at bedtime and especially inside cardboard boxes. You learn it watching clouds and stars and little wagons on Mulberry street. In other words you learn it to combat boredom.
Thanks, everyone. I should have described my situation fully. I know exactly what I want to write; I have already written the story up to a point where I have a character in a particular situation, but I can’t find the words to take it further forward. That’s what I deem a creativity problem. And I don't believe it's anything to do with self-imposed limits.
Well said. To the matter of "innate vs. learned," I think there's a specific combination of factors going on. A person supposedly "born" with innate creativity can certainly have that creativity suppressed by indoctrination, oppression and deprivation of creative stimulus and a person "born" with very little innate creativity can have that creativity fostered in an ideal environment until it blooms like a vast, wild and diverse garden. I believe there are limits to the amount of creativity that can be developed by an adult with limited creativity. Much of our creative nature, rather than being "born into us" innately or "learned" the way we learn to drive a car or operate a machine, is ingrained into our personalities which develop, largely, during our formative years as small children. This is not to say adults cannot learn to be more creative--they can! It's just much easier for a child whose creativity is fostered rather than suppressed. I believe the influence of the "inborn" or "innate" such as genetic predispositions is very little, but that it does exist. There may be some whose left-brain activity is, through genetic or birth reasons, limited. Just as some people will never be good basketball players because they grew only to be five feet tall, it's possible that some were born with a limited creative disposition, but I think that's rare--nor does being born six foot seven make one a great basketball player, nor does being six foot seven make one a better basketball player than someone else born six foot five. I think, more often, it's environment and exercise of our creative impulses, as well as old fashioned hard work and time spent working on the creative process, and not genetic predisposition, that drives a person to be considered a creative genius. Rembrandt and Mozart and the great artists and musicians and writers and thinkers and philosophers of the ages did not become so by genetic accident. They became so through dedication and perseverance, as well as having creative thinking fostered from an early age. Culture plays a lot to do with it, also. One who is taught from birth, "never question authority," is less likely to be creative than one who is taught, "question everything." The former will go through life thinking, "This is the way things must be," while the latter will go through life thinking,"How can things be made different?" One learns to "think outside the box" so to speak. Charlie PS. You may have heard this one before, if not, this is your creativity challenge: If you have a square with nine dots How do you connect all the dots with only four straight lines, without picking up your pen?
Or, could it be that it’s like a language? It’s easier to learn while we’re children. I believe anyone at any age can learn to be creative, even if they’re fifty. Our bones grow by way of DNA and nutrition. One can be born tall, short, ext. But the brain is not that way. It is ever changing, making new connections our whole lives. Unless you have damage, or a defect that restricts the brain, which is rare, the brain has no limit but what the person sets on it arbitrarily. Exactly. Plus, if it were inborn, we would have artistic dynasties. Certain families would dominate the art scene.
Then again, although I think we largely agree, just to play "devil's advocate", you could make the same argument for environment, since siblings often have similar environments being reared in the same household by the same parents...wouldn't environment lead to "artistic dynasties"?
John Steinbeck and John Steinbeck IV John Updike and David Updike Charles Dickens & Charles Dickens Jr. William F. Buckley and Christopher Buckley Mordecai Richler and his five author children H.G. Wells and Anthony West Alexandre Dumas, père and Alexandre Dumas, fils Stephen King and Joe Hill Kingsley Amis and Martin Amis The Waugh Family
One could argue that those are the exception rather than the rule. One could also use the existence of creative dynasties to argue either side of the "nature vs. nurture" argument, as ones family affects both ones inborn nature and ones environmental nurture. What I don't think you'll find is an example of someone who was born, and suddenly, magically, became creative, without hard work. Hard work, I think, is a requirement. Even so-called "child prodigies" are often so talented because they've had the opportunity or inclination (or parental pressure) to work at their talent for many hours every day, while other children were playing tag or Nintendo DS. For a great discussion of very successful people and what makes them sucessful (not necessarily only in creative fields, but I think it applies to that as well) I recommend the book "Outliers, the Story of Success." Ultimately, I think most success, including creative success, can be traced to culture, learning, hard work, and sometimes, being in the right place at the right time, as well as unexpected circumstances. In that book, you start out by learning why one of the most important factors of being a great Canadian hockey player is having your birthday in January. Charlie
I don’t think that all those people are dominating the work in their fields. As would go along with what I said, talent is learned, so it would not be surprising to find a few talented people in one family. But you don’t have five Steven Kings all pop up at the same time because they had the same mom and dad. In fact, I didn’t even know his son was writing.
Didn't Anthony West play Batman in the old t.v. series? Just kidding. Charlie Environment may be a prerequisite for hard work and dedication. It's hard to work hard and be dedicated to something creative, when your parents send you to work chopping wood twelve hours a day, for example. Conversely, parents, schools and even peers, can create an environment that encourages hard work and dedication. In a sense, hard work and dedication is, itself, an environment! Charlie PS. There's also the luck of the draw. In the book I mentioned, it outlines how Bill Gates became the Bill Gates we all know about, by a combination of environment, hard work and dedication, and by accident of birth by being born in the late 1950s, and, by the additional accident of being born in a place where he was able to get, at a young age, unlimited access to a computer at a time when virtually no one anywhere had unlimited access to computers. Without any one of those factors, he could never have become the success he became. If he had been born in the 1940s, or the 1960s, he would have been too early or too late to have hit just the right moment for his window of success in his specific area. Without the unlimited access, he would have never been able to put in the hard work and dedication. Without the hard work and dedication, he would have been just like the classmates that didn't care about having unlimited computer access, and I'm sure his hard work and dedication had something to do with his personality and rearing. He also had to have been born with a minimum IQ somewhere above average, which he was, although once he met the minimum, additional IQ points would have meant nothing to his success. It's the combination of many factors, I think, that creates the whole. Charlie
Unfortunately, when I think environment, I think of the United States right now because that where I live, and the environment is conducive to any pursuit. I could see someone living in Africa or China having a harder time. Luck I don’t think has anything to do with painters, writers, etc because the media are so available to anyone that wants to try.
Don't you think that, in the United States, there are about 60 billion people living in 60 billion different environments? Do you think the environment is the same in Princeton, in lower Harlem, and in suburban Alabama? Do you think the environment in my house is the same as in that of my neighbors? I don't know that the media are so available to every person in the United States who wants to try--and that luck does not have something to do with success. You'd be surprised how many things are "luck of the draw"--along with the other factors. (Luck, by the way, in this context, refers, not to a magical force, but random chance.) Educational systems, for example, have created a situation that can be statistically proven, by simple accident of birth month, that those born in certain months have more success than those born in other months. Why? Because of the cut-off dates in schools. At a very early age, certain children are deemed "more mature" than others, and their apparent over-achievement is encouraged and fostered, while others are deemed "less mature," and are seen as the "dummies" of the class, when in reality, the "more mature" students are often actually 11 months older than their "less mature" counterparts. Then, having the extra edge of encouragement and having their success fostered in the first year, they go into the next year already having an edge, and are further encouraged and fostered, like a growing snowball. Like the scripture, "to he who has, more will be given." It's been suggested that by simply changing the system: say, by separating kids in different classrooms by the month of their birth and not putting all born in the same 1-year period together in classrooms, you can level the playing field and create greater growth all around among children. Charlie
The problem I see with your argument is that it seems to say that any a little disadvantage one comes across limits that person. I know what you mean by Luck: its having a caring and educated family, good health, going to school and being able to absorb more information because of certain circumstances (age, attention span, etc) having things go right in life. Access to materials. The argument seems powerful. I’ve heard it used in other contexts as well. But it denies the fact that we live in the present. No matter how bad or good things have been to you, I, or anyone, we can learn whatever we want to. I think the myth that some people are born smarter, or are privileged, gives an excuse to some to build walls around themselves, limiting what they can accomplish. (I’m referring to people I’ve grown up with.) Another thing is this: what if luck really gave us advantages in art and literature. Why don’t all artists and writers come from rich families, or at least most of them. When I think of all the greats, most were poor “disadvantaged, luckless” And if an environment did have an impact that could restrain or release my creativity, I believe it would have to be a huge factor, like a totalitarian regime. Harlem, Alabama, Princeton would be miniscule.
Oh, no, not every disadvantage limits a person, but the specific example given has been shown in studies to have a long-term pervasive effect. It was shown statistically, for example, in studies of Canadian Hockey players. Virtually every professional Canadian Hockey player was born in the months January, February or March. Virtually none of them were born in the months October, November or December. Statistics don't lie. When you study the situation, the reason for the counter-intuitive statistics can be traced to the age cut-off date for children's hockey teams. By making changes to the policies and having like-aged youth hockey players play with other like-aged hockey players, we can dramatically increase the potential pool of great hockey players, because someone being born in December shouldn't logically make them a bad hockey player--but under the current system, it does. There's really no difference with art, music or literature, and hockey playing, in that they all require hard work and years of practice. If you become discouraged at an early age, you won't get those years of practice. If you are encouraged at an early age, you just might. No, it doesn't. It merely shows the fact that, in the present, our past effects us. There's nothing wrong with objectively analyzing data and determining the causes of these statistical anomalies in order to improve our systems. Actually, sometimes, a difficult life creates its own advantages, when coupled with opportunity. John Lennon and Paul McCartney had troubled home lives. They formed a little band and, in the late 1950s, they got a job where they were expected to play and play and play, for 8, 10 hour stretches, every day. The end result was that they had tens of thousands of hours playing, which made them quite expert at what they were doing. If they had never lucked into that specific job, if they had not been in the right place at the right time to get that job, they never would have had the tens of thousands of hours of playing, and the Beatles would never have been. That's the luck I'm talking about. They got that job, and that gave them the tens of thousands of hours of play time. If they didn't get hired in that gig, we probably would never have heard of them. Their bad luck was actually good luck, in that, if they didn't need the job, if they were well off, they might not have taken the job. When Bill Gates was a teenager (if he had been a teenager 10 years later, it would have been too late, luck) he had access to a school computer. Students were limited to the amount of time they could use on the computer, but he discovered a glitch (if the glitch hadn't existed, he would have been less lucky) that allowed him to trick the system and give him unlimited computer time. He then spent days and nights on the computer (hard work and dedication), against the rules, and as a result, became the Bill Gates we all have heard of. Some people are born smarter, but statistically, beyond a certain minimum level of intelligence, that doesn't determine success. There are people with much higher IQs than Bill Gates, who are much less successful. For the record: Building walls is a foolish thing to do, and I've never suggested "making excuses." Nothing in what I'm saying is a recommendation for building a wall. I'm merely looking at the facts as objectively as possible. Nor do I recommend limiting oneself. I recommend giving it your all, all the time. Please don't create a straw-man of what I'm saying. If some recommendation for laziness is construed from what I'm saying, then what I'm saying is being misconstrued. But the simple fact is that a combination of factors can drive one to success or failure. There are factors we can control and factors we cannot control. A factor that we can control is that we do our best and work to the best of our ability, giving it our all, no matter what. This is not the only factor in success however. Perhaps even more important than our personal success is the success of future generations. If there are factors that we (as individuals) can't control, but that we can help influence for future generations, we should do our best to promote future success. We can do this best by careful analysis of the data and determination of what we can and cannot influence, not with rhetoric about personal responsibility nor rhetoric about factors outside of our control. Denial that personal, hard work is a factor... or denial that outside factors also factor in... is a denial of the simple facts that success comes from a variety of sources. Because you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. What you're describing is a straw-man version of what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying rich people become successful and poor people are doomed to failure. Indeed, if Paul McCartney and John Lennon had come from rich, comfortable backgrounds, given everything they wanted, they never would have had the luck to get a demanding, heart-wrenching and difficult job that forced them to sweat and tears and tens of thousands of hours of playing instruments that ultimately launched them into iconic status. Further, it's the combination of factors, no one single factor, that is key. As I said, there are factors we can control and others we can't. It's not about "blame" either. It's a simple observation of the facts. One can have the right combination of hard work and dedication (things we can control), luck, environment and experiences (things we have limited control over) to be a success, whether rich or poor, whether from Harlem, Princeton, China, Iraq. What I'm talking about should not limit one's view of their inner life. Rather, a simple observation of the facts can empower us to change the world. Rather than blame outside facts (oh, my circumstances...) or blame the self (oh, I've been so lazy) or, when directed toward others (oh, their circumstances, how sad for them... or, oh, they've been lazy, shame on them!) if we forget blame and simply objectively look at the data, we can determine ways to reduce all the roots of the problems (specific changes in our educational system can help future children prosper, as the simple example I gave) we can be empowered by the data and help all people, not by blame or creating walls, but rather, by learning to control that which has previously been outside our control, and increase the overall success of the many. The purpose of all of this is empowerment. We can be empowered to increase success, both personally and for others. The purpose of the analysis of hockey players birth dates wasn't to say, people who wanted to play hockey but were disadvantaged because they were born in December should cry and pout. The purpose was to demonstrate that by a simple systematic change we can empower more people to become more successful. It's not about placing blame, which is ultimately useless. It's about enacting change that raises the bar and brings the levels of success up for everyone. Charlie
I see more clearly what you are saying. I don’t think you see what I’m saying. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that either of us used straw man arguments, but it was a misunderstanding. For one, your argument mirrored almost exactly the text books I’m reading right now on race and ethnicity, but they say all negative factors are harmful always, where you’re saying they can be beneficial. Anyway, I agree that environment can affect us. Can is the key term. It doesn’t have to limit our ability. But it does many because they believe it will. But it doesn’t have to. Many buy into the myth that their born with limited abilities. You might have a problem finding a statistic that will say anything one way or the other on that. An argument this broad in scope is more a matter of philosophy than sociology. Btw, IQ has nothing to do with anything, really. Much of it is learned. That can be proven statistically; socioeconomic levels have an effect on IQ. The brain is not static. Scientists are learning that more and more as they study gray matter.
The straw man was unintended, I'm sure. I believe most of the time, that's the case. I think that's what a straw man is, really: a misunderstanding of one's viewpoint, and the criticism of the misunderstood viewpoint. I meant it in an amiable way. Seriously. There is truth in them there textbooks, and often, the negative factors are harmful, that is true. People born in crack houses are far less likely to achieve success than people born in loving and educated homes, although hardship can certainly be overcome, and those born in better conditions can drag themselves down into the gutter. Can, and often, does in reality. Edit: Actually, it does, always. If, hypothetically, I had been switched at birth, and raised by a middle class family in Iraq, or a poor family in Ethiopia, or in the home of George Bush, or in the home of Queen Elizabeth, or in the home of Al Gore, or in the home of Oprah Winfrey, or in a crack house in Harlem, or on a farm in Oregon, or in a middle-class suburb, as a rice farmer in Japan, or in Australia, or in Alaska, or on Hawaii.... all those alternate "me"s would be different people than the person I am right now, and they would all be different from each other. Some of the alternate "me"s would be very successful, some would not, and some would have good and bad luck, whether poor or rich. It's entirely possible, even, that the "rich" me would die the soonest, because of simple random accident of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some alternate "me"s would be better at math than others. Some alternate "me"s would know how to hunt with a gun, and some would be protesting animal rights with Peta. Some alternate "mes" would be Muslim, devout Christian, Buddhist or Atheist. Some alternate "mes" would be readers and writers, and some would be mechanics working in garages. But all would be different alternate realities, completely dependent on random luck of circumstance. And all of that, of course, has nothing to do with the issue of how we can help ourselves and others achieve success. But the fact is that outside circumstances do shape us, almost defining who we are. We are born with limited abilities. That's not a myth. None would deny it. Without meaning to straw man you--I know you didn't mean it literally--but if taken literally, limitless abilities would make us some combination of Superman and Jesus Christ. We can't walk on water, turn water into wine, leap tall buildings in a single bound or bend steel in our bare hands. IQ does have something to do with it, just not in the way people think. For success in certain things (less for some things, more for others) a certain minimum IQ is required. Someone with an IQ of 70 cannot become a nuclear physicist, or a brain surgeon, and is unlikely to become a great author. But once one meets some minimum threshold, IQ no longer matters. A person with an IQ of 160 doesn't have a better chance at success in any particular area than a person with an IQ of 155. Beyond a certain level, the IQ score no longer matters. People with lower IQs, past the minimum required for a particular area of study, do just as well as others with higher IQs. Otherwise, one could calculate success on IQ, and this is not the case. The analogy is basketball players. You can't be a basketball player if you're 4' 9" tall. However, a person who is 6' 2" can be a better basketball player than another person who is 6' 5". Similarly, you can't be a great author if your IQ is so low you literally can't comprehend language, however, that doesn't mean that the higher your intelligence the greater an author you are. Charlie
Most of human creativity is simply reinterpreting existing things. Human brains are not particularly good at being "completely spontaneous" - rather our brains are very good at remembering things in reality. Most of "creativity" comes from relating things that we already know - just mixed up a bit. Think of Harry Potter for instance - there is nothing in it that is completely "unique". Wizards, trolls, boarding schools, flying broomsticks - none of it is original. Most of what you find in fiction has some sort of precedent in reality - be it actual history or twists on old legends.
I fail to understand why the USA should provide a more creative environment for writers, artists, or musicians than Africa or China (or even Turkey, where I come from--nobel prize winner, anyone?). The 'media' can be a great, stimulating force--or equally, it could be be argued that it cripples creativity and produces the kind of bland, homogeneous mindset that creative people should fight against. And let's always strive to overcome cultural bias, folks!
