Creativity is a false construct. And the notion that it is exclusive to certain people is silly and absurd.

One thought on “”

  1. =)

    well, there is a difference between the act of being “creative” and the capacity to be creative.

    and this also depends how we define and restrict creativity. let’s say someone being creative is imaginative and expressive. that’s our working definition for now. and generally we will associate this with things like painting, vivid colours (or “good” use of black and white), word play, stories, music, rhythm etc etc.

    so if i say something like: a rat with a hat holding a baseball bat. i’d imagine you get an image of a rat wearing a hat and holding a baseball bat (preferably in batting position, waiting for the pitcher to throw). is this creative? there’s a rhyming element there (rat, hat, bat). there can be word play, what if the bat is an actual bat (the animal, like in batman) but shaped as a baseball bat? (have we made this more “creative”?)

    but really what it’s doing is taking different concepts and putting them into one thing, or one image, basically putting different concepts together. rats don’t wear hats and play baseball with bats (or with bats). is that what makes it creative?

    the usage of the word “dry” is also interesting. it implies something, right? but even dry humour is creative.

    but anyway, use of imagination is not exclusive to “creative” people. we all have imaginations, even if we don’t express it. specially if we can’t communicate it in a way that is palatable to most people, within their context and demands.

    creativity can occur is different ways in different contexts, yes? (this seems obvious, i think). so if some dry manager figures, “why don’t we sell product X to market Y?” that manager is being creative in some capacity. the juxtaposition of two divergent concepts is a fairly powerful thing even if it is not expressed in the form of what is normally accepted as art (comedy, film, drawings, music, etc…).

    and it works both ways, as we label people as having or not having the capacity to be creative. and as we limit ourselves by thinking that we do not have a capacity to be creative. both are silly. =)

    so it may turn out that the difference between being and not being creative is simply will (or luck, or the will to be lucky) and not otherwise any limiting capacity within the person.

    i’m just rambling now. =)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.