Posts Tagged ‘creativity’
What is a writer?
Well, the simple answer is, a writer is someone who writes. Easy enough to explain something by citing its definition. Bricklayers lay brick, dancers dance, musicians make music, and writers write. Simple.
But why do writers write?
The answer to that question is a bit more complex. It is, as they say, a whole other ball o’ wax. The reasons people choose to write are as varied as the writers themselves. I could list all the reasons for writing by it would take up more time that I’m prepared to spend on this post. For those interested in exploring the topic, l suggest you pick up a copy of Margaret Atwood’s Negotiating With the Dead, A Writer on Writing. She offers an extensive, although by no means comprehensive, list of reasons why writers write; some of them surprising, others not so much. One reason that appears elsewhere in Ms. Atwood’s book, although not among the listed reasons for writing, is that it’s a comparatively easy thing to do. There are no prerequisites; no intellectual or educational background is required beyond a certain facility with one’s native language. That, and the determination to see the process through from beginning to end. After all, it is, as Neil Gaiman is supposed to have said, simply a matter of putting one word after another on the page until you’ve finished saying whatever it is you want to say. Simple, right? Not really.
There’s a small addendum to Mr. Gaiman’s description that’s worth noting if one aspires to be a published writer. (Not all of us aspire to that lofty goal, but I’ll get to that in a bit). The addendum is, that along with putting one word after another on the page, a should be able to put the right word in the right order after another on the page. Makes this ‘writing thing’ a bit trickier, don’t you think?
Ernest Hemingway once described the act of writing as, “You just sit down and open a vein.” Ironic, considering Hemingway did a lot of his writing standing up. I’ll confess that Hemingway’s description is a bit more strenuous the Mr. Gaiman’s, and anyway most writers – not all, but the majority – manage to confine their bloodletting to the page. Suffice it to say the actual process of writing lies somewhere between the two extremes. I, myself, picked writing because it was one of the few things I was suited to that didn’t require an inordinate amount of time trying to dislodge the dirt from under my fingernails.
So, what’s it like, being a writer?
For the most part writers live pretty much to way everyone else does. Most of us have ‘day jobs’. We get up, get the kids ready for school, go to work, attend PTA meetings, grocery shop, pick the kids up after school, get the car washed, the tires rotated, go to the barber or the hairdresser, maybe go on vacation when we can afford it. Pretty much the same thing everyone else does, except when all the other stuff is done, we write; usually late at night or early in the morning, and sometimes on the weekends if there are no soccer, baseball or football games, or piano or ballet recitals to attend. We’re just like everyone else. We’re kind of like witches in that respect; you can’t tell just by looking whether we are one or not.
Writers also tend to be avid readers, and we read across a wide variety of subjects and genres. I’ll give you an example. My own small library contains books on history, biography, memoirs, religion, business, art, writing, cooking, science and politics. I have thrillers, literary fiction, classics, philosophy, occultism, humor. books on photography and crafts, wine and winemaking, books and book collecting. And these, in one way or another, inform my own writing, as well as the way I tend to see the world around me. By reading how others viewed their world, I gain insights into my own world, and how it came to be the way it is. It’s also a handy how-to for using words, a turn-of-phrase that, with practice, helps me improve my writing.
Writers have always experienced a peculiar, Janus-like relationship with the non-writing public. Being among the ‘creatives’ in society, we are encouraged, even celebrated, in our ability to provide entertainment for the masses; to allow them to slip the bonds of their work-a-day lives and enter realms where good and evil battle endlessly for supremacy, and where good doesn’t always prevail, at least not until the next installment rolls off the presses. Then the god smiles on the writer, and the critics praise his efforts and lament the dearth of creativity in society, and presses roll out another spate of how-to books exclaiming, “You, too, can be (or become) more creative!”
Writers – and this applies especially to journalists, whether they write books or newspaper and magazine articles – have also always had the responsibility to “speak Truth to Power”, to expose, whenever possible, the misdeeds of governments and corporations, and provide the public the information necessary to combat the abuse of power. Then the god frowns on the writer, and governments and corporations berate him or her for the “misleading information”, “the lies”, “libels”, “unfounded accusations” and “unsubstantiated rumors”. These centers of power and influence have always viewed the writer as suspect, unreliable, and possibly subversive. Writers who continually joust with those in power have often been described in stereotypical terms; alcoholic, drug-addicted and mentally unbalanced, all to discredit those who question authority; and not only those who currently challenge authority, but those who would do so in the future.
That’s what it means to be a writer. It’s just like any other job or avocation. You have your good days and your bad. Like my mother used to say, “You pay your money, and you take your chance.”
In the end, I guess, it really doesn’t matter what type of writer you are (or become); whether you labor in the public eye like Stephen King, John LeCarré, or Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, or you labor in secret like Winston Smith, the reluctant hero of George Orwell’s 1984, or even if you write a single word. It doesn’t matter what you do, what matters is that you do it. But if you’re human, and I’m betting you are, sooner or later you’ll give in to cacoethia scribendi, “the itch to scribble”. Just be warned, if you scratch that itch once, you won’t be able to stop.
Sometimes I think I must be the absolute least creative person on the planet. I mean if you were to devise a ‘creativity scale’ from 1 to 10, where 1 was the absolute least creative (meaning at some point during the day, I get out of bed) and 10 was the absolute most creative (meaning I came up with a cure for cancer and a solution to the global warming crisis and ended up saving the planet and everyone on it) I would most likely be a solid 2. I do manage to get out of bed (most days). The truth is I spend the greater part of my day finding new and interesting ways not to be creative.
For example, today, after getting out of bed, I dressed, consumed coffee (something I do several times a day) and went to my spare room/library/office. Once seated at my workstation, I casually sipped coffee and stared at a blank sheet of paper for several minutes before deciding now would be an opportune time to put my research files in some sort of order. It was during this rearranging process I came upon a folder entitled, CREATIVITY.
This folder was, as you might expect, filled with pages (actual pages, not computer images) of material on creativity. I have no idea why I bother to print, collate and staple all these pages; probably for no other reason than it provides an excellent opportunity to not actually write anything while creating the illusion of doing something useful. In any case, since I had the folder open on the floor, I decided to peruse its contents, and I came across two interesting and well-known bits of information.
The first was Graham Wallas’ 5 stage model of the creative process. You’re probably familiar with these 5 stages: preparation, incubation, intimation, illumination and verification. They’re pretty much universally accepted as being representative of the creative process. That being said, I very much doubt any creative person spends any time ticking off these stages as they go about creating whatever it is they create. I know I don’t.
The other piece of notable information I gleaned from the folder’s contents was the “four-C” model of creativity. This model was developed by Kaufman and Beghetto (I have no idea who these guys are — probably psychologists) as a means of categorizing the various types of creativity. They are ‘mini-c’, ‘little-c’, ‘Pro-C’ and ‘Big-C’. I’m not going to detail which type of creativity fits which category; suffice it to say most of us fit into the ‘little-c’ category, some of us fit into ‘Pro-C’ and a few (very few) fit into the ‘Big-C’ category. I find these categories useful only to researchers. I can’t imagine anyone inclined to be creative sitting down to his or her desk and saying to themselves, “Today, I think I’ll do some ‘little-c’ work. Tomorrow maybe I’ll do some ‘Pro-C’, but for today, I think I’ll stick with ‘little-c’.”
Sitting there, with all those pages spread out in front of me on the floor, I got to thinking; there had to be a simpler way to describe creativity and the creative process. I mean, all these stages and categories were confusing and intimidating.
Given that I had only two options open to fill the remainder of my day; either get off the floor and face the blank page on my desk or devote more time to my files and, coincidentally, to the problem I had unwittingly presented to myself. I chose the latter (anything but a blank page!) and set about using my admittedly limited editorial skills to winnowing stages and categories. I started with the basic premise that everyone, regardless of who they were or what they did, was creative. You can’t help it, it’s in the genes.
Starting with this basic premise, I determined there were two types of creative individuals; those who were engaged in creative pursuits, and related fields, as a means of earning a living, and those who weren’t involved in creative pursuits but were, nonetheless, creative. The first group I labelled, ‘overt creative‘, the second, ‘covert creative‘. The first group, the ‘overt creative’ group, labor in fields where their creativity and the results of their creative endeavors were on public display (artists of all stripes, lawyers, doctors, architects, etc.). The second group, the ‘covert creative’ group, labor in fields which require no special creative talents but who are, nevertheless, creative in their private lives or in the pursuit of personal interests (hobbies, social groups, etc.). So far, so good. I managed to compress four categories of creativity into two categories.
As far as the creative process was concerned, this proved a bit more difficult. How do you pare down 5 stages of creativity to a more manageable, less obtuse formula? It took a while but after some intense thought (and several more cups of coffee), I managed to whittle the five down to what I believe are the ‘bare bones’ of creativity.
These ‘bare bones’ are three in number. Intent. Expression. Outcome. In my revised model, these are the 3 basic stages of the creative process. In order to give an example of this model ‘in action’ so to speak, I’ll use myself as an example.
As a writer, my intent is to write a post for this blog. The actual writing of the post (with all the accompanying research — names, numbers, etc.) forms the expression of my intent. The outcome of my expression of intent is (or will be) the finished post.
So, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s my theory of the creativity and the creative process, ‘in a nutshell’. Well, not exactly a nutshell; more like five handwritten pages, or something just shy of 1,000 words. But you get the idea.
Until next time. . .
There are times I feel this “writing thing” will drive me mad. Errant thoughts dance through my mind just at the edge of awareness and just as my conscious mind is about to snatch them up, they skitter away, laughing (or so I imagine), like children in a game of tag. I try to capture these twinkling, dancing bits of brilliance and lash them to the page with streams of ink but I cannot.
Neil Gaiman once said something to the effect that writing was simply the act of sitting down at the computer and writing one word after another until you’re finished. (I don’t write at a computer; only transcribe the finished work. I use a pen — a Zebra F-301 ballpoint with a fine point). There is a part of the writing process missing from Gaiman’s description, the absence of which anyone who has attempted to write anything will recognize. Writing isn’t simply the act of putting one word after another. The thing that makes writing so deceptively simple and so maddeningly difficult at the same time is writing the right word, in the right order, on the page. That is the agony and the ecstasy of the writing process. It is also why there’s so much emphasis on rewriting; the need to find the right words.
Re-writing (writing, too, for that matter) is a sadomasochistic act; sadistic in that we demand it of ourselves, masochistic for submitting to it willingly (even eagerly). Writers have a tendency to perversity (in our writing regimens, if not elsewhere), so rewriting is just one more bit to be added to an ever-growing list of perversions, including (but not limited to) imbibing obscene quantities of caffeine-laden beverages along with dangerously high levels of nicotine (I tried e-cigarettes, but it’s just not the same), prolonged periods of self-imposed isolation (during which friends and family may be inclined to fear for our health, mental and physical), and repeated bouts of self-flagellating, mind-fucking self-doubt; all this, and more, in some demented attempt to simply “put one word after another” on the page. What sane person would submit, willingly, to such a nightmarish ordeal? Me. I would. I’m a writer.
And when it’s all over, the writing and the rewriting; when we feel, finally, we’ve found all the right words and managed, through force of will, to put them in the right order on the page, ready for the world to see, what then? We bind our wounds; gather up all the tears of frustration, the curses of self-doubt, the whoops of joy and the screams of anger and fear. We bundle these into our journals and diaries . . .and pour them all into our next book, or short story, or essay.
Curiosity is a key element of the creative process.
Knowledge and experience are also essential components.
Combining these elements will help to enhance the creative effort by aiding in the formulation of question.
Questions demand answers which, in turn, generate more questions.
But asking questions isn’t enough.
You have to ask the right questions.
Knowledge and experience will lead you in the right direction.
How will you know when you’ve asked the “right” question?
It’s the one nobody ever thought to ask.
As I stated in my last post, creativity is a mystery. Nobody knows, precisely, what it is. We know creativity exists because, like some sub-atomic particles (i.e., quarks), we see its effects. We even know some of the conditions necessary for it to function; the process by which the creative effect is produced. There is one condition, not often mentioned in discussions of creativity (actually, I’m not sure “condition” is the right term, but for this essay it will suffice), the sine qua non, which must exist before the creative process can be initiated. The condition is curiosity; the hallmark of the creative mind.
Curiosity makes creativity possible. Without curiosity to spur the creative process in search of answers, there would have been no spear or sling or arrow (or bow to launch it). Without curiosity there would have been no gods or creation stories; no daemons or Muses to inspire us with genius. There would have been no Golden Age of Greece or Rome; no Pericles or Galen or Archimedes or Homer or Socrates; no Cicero or Ovid or Caesar.
Without curiosity there would have been no Renaissance or Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution; no da Vinci or Michelangelo or Botticelli; no Shakespeare or Newton or Magellan; no Fulton or Whitney. There would be no steam or internal combustion engines; no automobiles, trains, airplanes or rocket ships.
Without curiosity continuously spurring the creative process, we would know nothing of our universe, our world or ourselves; nothing of the planets and stars; nothing of bacteria or germs or DNA. Without curiosity we would have no radio or television; no telephones or computers or internet.
The entire span of human history is the record of the creative process continuously striving for answers to satisfy an insatiable curiosity. Without curiosity we would be no more than nearly hairless, ape-like creatures, huddled together in the dark, fearful of everything around us.
So, the next time you think about being creative (or more creative), ask yourself . . .anything.
What is creativity? Nobody knows. It’s a mystery; one men have been trying to unravel for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks thought creativity was the result of intervention by the gods; sending a “daemon” or “genius” to a poet for inspiration. Later, they assigned these tasks to The Muses. With the ascension of religion (most notably Christianity), creativity was seen as a “gift from God” in the form of inspiration from The Holy Spirit (pretty much the same thing as the Greeks, only with a dash of “theological creativity” thrown in). Wikipedia, the oft-suspect online encyclopedia, defines creativity as, “a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created”. Sir Ken Robinson described creativity in much the same way. He said, “creativity is having an original idea that has value”. I have a small problem with these two definitions (actually, I have three small problems) and it stems from the words, “new“, “original” and “value“. I know, new and original can be viewed as synonymous (they aren’t, but that’s a discussion for etymologists), so that leaves two problems. The first is there is nothing new/original; everything having been built on something preceding it. The second is the question of “value”. Value to whom? When a problem or puzzle or difficulty is resolved, the solution, naturally, has “value” to the person who resolved the issue. If the solution is perceived as applicable to a larger, more varied number of problems/puzzles, etc. . . the person possessing the solution may present it to the general public (after patenting, of course, because, let’s face it, with 8 billion + people on the planet, it’s a sure bet someone, somewhere, sometime had the same, or very similar, idea) in hopes of eliciting the same (or even greater) value. Today, we’d assign the task to a “marketing team” and move one to the next problem/puzzle, etc. . . None of this addresses the question of what creativity is, of course, other than to demonstrate the inadequacy of definitions; also the fact these definitions have been bugging me for some time and I felt the need to deal with them.
Creativity has, over the centuries, undergone a metamorphosis, from the province of the gods, to the province of the one God, to the domain of humankind (most notably during the Renaissance). Since the end of the 19th century, creativity has undergone a further transformation, from singular trait or aspect to a “creative process”, consisting of a number of steps or stages which are seen as requisite for the production of a “new” and “valuable”, hence creative, idea. This latest iteration of creativity, from thing to process, has become the de rigueur position among all the sciences (esp. social sciences) studying the phenomenon of creativity.
The most widely held model of the creative process was developed by Graham Wallas (Art of Thought, 1926). It proposes five stages of the creative process: Preparation, when the problem is identified and explored, Incubation, when thinking on the problem and its possible solutions takes place. My brother, Mike (an exceptionally creative individual), likes to refer to this as the “percolation” stage (an especially apt designation to me as I am an avid coffee drinker). This is also the stage where “nothing much” appears to be happening. The third stage, Intimation, is when the first stirrings of a possible solution begin to take shape, but it’s not quite there yet. The fourth stage is Illumination, when everything comes together and you have the “Eureka” moment. The fifth, and final, stage, is Verification, when the idea is tested against the problem in the hope of it being a workable solution. If it works, if the problem is solved, so much the better. If not, the entire process is repeated. If this sounds familiar, it should. It is a slightly expanded, more artistically (shall I say, “creatively”?) expressed iteration of the scientific method.
But what sparked the process? What would drive these men to devote so much time and effort, so much intellectual energy to solving the “problem” of creativity? I found, or rather I think I found, one possible answer in a somewhat unlikely place.
I’ve never taken a journalism course but I have read a number of books and articles on the subject. In nearly all of them the author, usually a practicing journalist or an editor, at some point will invoke the rule of “the 5 Ws”: Who? What? Where? When? Why?. These were the five questions the journalism students were admonished to answer in their reportage; the better to pique and hold their readers’ curiosity. There it was, staring up at me from the page. I had, quite unknowingly, stumbled into stage four of Wallas’ model of the creative process. I had my “Eureka” moment.
They were curious! They wanted to know about creativity. They wanted to know, Why are we creative? Why are some men and women more creative than others? How were they creative? Under what circumstances? When were they creative? How often? They wanted to know . . .the answer. And so they studied, amassed knowledge, developed theories, designed experiments to test those theories and in the process added to the vast and expanding compendium of knowledge available to those who came (and those who will come) after them. I thought I had found the “First Cause” of creativity. Then I thought . . .
Why are we curious?
For anyone who wishes to nurture their “creative spirit”, or wishes they were “more creative”, I have a few suggestions. The first is, get a job. If you already have one, fine. Keep it. If you don’t, get one. Now. I know this is going to sound counter-intuitive to those of you who’ve grown up on the “all you need is passion and the will to succeed” myth, but the truth — the very ugly truth — is, unless you’re a “trust fund baby” or Mom and Dad are willing to foot the bills while you search for your bliss, without a job you’re likely to find yourself living in your car down by the river, real quick. So if you don’t have a job, find one. It doesn’t have to be the job, it just has to be a job; one that pays you enough to pay the bills and have enough left over for a modicum of entertainment now and then (all work and no play . . . ). It also helps if it doesn’t make you gag when you think about it, or show up at the office (or wherever) with a loaded AK-47. If it does, find another job. Quick! Oh, and it also helps if it affords you enough time for “outside interests”. There aren’t many of these types of jobs around, but there are some; find one that suits.
Once you’ve established how you make your living, make an effort to develop those outside interests; something different from your workaday job. It doesn’t have to be radically different, just different enough so you don’t associate it with how you earn your living, and different enough to provide a distraction. The “distractive (is that even a word?) element” in your choice of outside interest is important. Creative ideas have an infuriating habit of showing up at the least opportune moments, usually when you’re doing something else. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been elbow-deep in my herb garden or engrossed in a project at my craft bench when the solution to a problem I’ve been struggling with (like writing this post) presents itself.
I can hear you saying, “But I don’t have time for “outside interests”!” That’s pretty much a standard response. Today’s work environment is so competitive, so mind-numbingly tedious, all you want to do at day’s end is plop in a chair and “veg out” or mindlessly surf the ‘net. I know, I’ve been there (binge-watching “Breaking Bad” or “GoT” or “Girls” or . . . whatever). But if you were to divert some of that time and devote it to doing something you enjoy; playing a musical instrument, painting, drawing, woodworking, working with crafts, yoga . . . whatever “floats your boat”, I’ll wager you’ll soon find yourself making time for it. Besides, you didn’t really want to watch another NCIS marathon, did you?
I know what you’re thinking, “All that may be true, but I’m not interested in any of that stuff. None of if sounds “interesting” enough.” No? Well, you’re sitting at your computer, right now. Why not “google” your local community college or artists’ co-operative? I bet they have dozens, if not hundreds, of interesting ideas. Ever thought about origami? Tulle painting? How about glass-blowing? Why not join an acting class?
The point I’m attempting to make here is, once you have the necessities in hand, its time to open yourself up to new experiences. Pique your curiosity. Experiment with life. Meet new people; exchange ideas, learn new skills. It’s the only way to prepare yourself for the opportunities that will present themselves.
Being creative is not a passive activity; you can’t sit back and wait for inspiration to come to you. You have to go out and inspire yourself. Creativity, like Life, is not a spectator sport. So turn off the “Doctor Who?” retrospective and find something interesting to do.