Defining Creativity
“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking what no one else ever thought”
- Albert Einstein
It's a funny thing to define “creativity.” It almost feels like putting a cloud in a box, drawing a hard boundary around some inherently intangible trait. In “Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation,” Keith Sawyer lists many reasons why it's important to study and explain creativity, and summarizes them to say “…it will lead to a more creative society, and will enhance the creative potential of our families, our workplaces, and our institutions.” I think I agree.
The “standard definition” that many creativity researchers hold is that for something to be creative it needs to be both original and effective (with effectiveness sometimes interchanged with useful or appropriate). There seems to be little debate about originality, however, there is a healthy amount of debate on how to further define effectiveness. This is primarily driven by the value judgment that comes with any qualifiers beyond originality. It is no longer only up to the creator to say something is creative. Others make that judgment. And others, sometimes, have no idea what they’re talking about.
I’ve asked pretty much everyone I’ve talked to in my research for a personal definition of creativity. The responses often surprised me (in a good way) and widened my personal views. I’m probably leaving some out here, but the responses essentially boiled down to three main definitions of creativity:
“It's simply problem solving”
Many of the “most creative” people I talked to (i.e., people in highly creative professions) had this simple definition with some variation, but generally held true to the core principle. Creativity took place and was applied to everything from problems like, “what do I wear today?” to “how do I take the next step on this project, goal or aspiration?” This was maybe the most surprising definition, (partially because of the sources) and maybe its lack of romance. It also makes so much sense. When creative, original thinking is combined with craft, the expression of that creativity presents problems that had never really been thought of and definitely not solved before. Perpetual problem creation and solving machines.
“Turning an idea into a tangible thing”
Before starting this research, I would say this was the box I would put creativity in. Having an idea and making it real were the only conditions I would have put on “being creative”. A commonality of this group, that I put myself in, is that they/we saw creativity as a condition for making things that requires a lot of skill. But now I feel like this definition is limiting, that you have to be making things to be creative, because sometimes to just exist you need to come up with creative solutions, and put creativity on a weird pedestal.
“A mindset of curiosity towards the world”
These conversations took me by surprise because of how consistent this type of thinking was in my creative friends and colleagues, while also being the most challenging definition for me personally. What I heard was that believing that having an open mind about our shared external reality and an ability to imagine other possibilities was enough to “be creative.” It was most challenging to me because I generally like this idea as a personality trait, but I initially felt like it was missing something as a formal definition of “creativity.” However, with more research, this mindset isn’t just a necessary condition for creativity, it feels like this general curiosity is indeed the engine driving creativity, providing the motivation to learn a craft, or explore an idea deeply.
There are other definitions, some that are more specific — such as Sawyer, who splits the definition into Individualist and Sociocultural definitions of creativity — and others that more broad. However, after both my primary and secondary research, I like the balance of originality and effectiveness. Sure, it may be a little reductive and simple, but it weirdly resonates with me.
To me, it says that yes, something has to be new, but it also has to be in service of something else to be considered “creative”. Which to me includes pulling together a new outfit combination, painting of a painting by an amateur, taking a mindful walk, learning the violin, displaying data in new ways at work, or creating the Mona Lisa. In all of those there is an intention to not only create, but create with purpose. Thinking back to why people study creativity, the intention and purpose of creativity, I think it is how we do the work that will ultimately “enhance the creative potential of our families, our workplaces, and our institutions.”
If you have any questions, would like to chat more about creativity or any of the other topics discussed here, I’d love to hear it. Send an email or a note on LinkedIn and let’s start a conversation. Also, a few folks I’ve spoken with missed the first post, so I’ve also added a section below to follow along in your email inbox.
