Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
What you seem to be talking about is applied intelligence, problem solving, and pattern matching. All cool things, and all certainly part of the creative process.
|
But this is the point of the article, that we should change our definition of creativity to honor these things that we do that actually do involve creative process. I think Robo's "connect the dots" example is wonderful as it does take true creativity to realize that you need to go outside the pre-defined box to solve the puzzle.
I was recently at a conference and there was a class I took on tapping creativity. And no, Robo, it wasn't one of those cheesy business seminar things. It was talking about the things you've outlined here, most importantly putting two things that already exist together.
As an example he gave us each a balloon and a penny. Two things that don't really go together, but when you put the penny in the balloon and then blow the balloon up, you've got a pretty cool toy showing off centripetal force. It was mesmerizing and it only works with a penny. Another example would be mentos and diet coke. Or the Wright Brother's first "airplane" which was really a bicycle with wings. Or helicopters based on hummingbirds ability to hover. The examples are endless.
Just because we're not coming up with the next great work of fiction/painting/etc doesn't mean we're not creative. Most of us are creative every single day of our lives but we aren't given or don't give ourselves credit for it. The article's point, and one I think is valid, is that we need to reshape our idea of creativity to embrace this important nuance.