Returning to the topic of creativity I have decided to focus on why we define such concepts rather than how it manifests itself altogether (see my earlier blog post concerning it http://pheonixomega.blogspot.com/2010/01/something-from-nothing.html)
Definitions of creativity arose out of the human need to name, measure and quantify aspects of life. It is in our nature to think about the world. Technically, creativity occurs the moment you infer knowledge. With this definition it is difficult not to be creative. If I explain a phenomenon to you but regurgitate nothing more than learned information, I am not being creative. However, if explain the same phenomenon and go one step further and explain the implications combined with various aspects of my knowledge, that would be creative. This creates a ‘new’ piece of information or idea. I say new, but I don’t mean original. With more than 6 billion of us on the planet the chances of originality are extremely slim. However, is credit not due for ideas that form organically regardless of their originality? Creativity has still occurred in the brain.
I feel this is creativity broken down into its simplest form but it is clearly not a widespread opinion. To the average person, their understanding of creativity is built from the media and their peers around them. If we ask the layman what creativity is, they will probably respond with originality or innovation. Or maybe being good at something, or even just being good at a form of art.
Upon closer inspection creativity might appear to be the way you express yourself and utilise your mind in response to the world around you. This is a better description. But if the answer is so simple then why is there so much discourse regarding the true nature of creativity. I think the answer lies in why we define and obsess over it in the first place.
Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t define concepts - there is nothing wrong with attributing a name to a phenomenon. But the problem is similar to that of celebrity. It is desirable to be a celebrity, and consequently fame and the media are becoming an increasingly obscene mix of contrived ideals. Similarly, creativity is desirable. Due to the inherent complications involved in separating originality, innovation and creativity (not to mention 'talent') we have gotten to a point where creativity is quantified and valued. Instead of simply existing, it has value and comes under scrutiny.
Employers want creative talent. People are impressed by creativity. This has lead to the deconstruction of creativity in order to cultivate and exploit it. This narrow bottleneck has led many people to think they don’t have any creativity, hence the question ‘what is creativity.’ This is asked in order to distill it's essence so that it may be grasped at once more. It’s a vicious circle which takes us further and further away from the original simple premise. The idea has been diluted so much that we can’t see through the abstract and continue to re-evaluate what creativity really is.
In regards to the games industry, employers express the desire for talent but what they really mean is that they want skilled workers. Talent manifests itself as the result of hard work. From that then, we might say talent is skilled work (in this instance at least). This is why I am not compelled to question my own creativity and instead focus on honing my craft.
It’s interesting that my skills should be limited by technology, in terms of how they reveal themselves. As technology improves we can produce better art. As someone who is considered ‘creative’ I sometimes feel the need to 'perform' and life becomes a constant balancing act between my own bar and everyone's expectations.
I can guarantee my bar is higher though.
No comments:
Post a Comment