Philosophical Position on Creativity

Basic Beliefs

I sensed creativity before I understood it. My academic understanding of creativity is continuously expanding, but my intuitive understanding of it was present almost from the beginning of my studies at Buffalo State’s International Center for Creative Studies.

My studies began in June of 2008 with an intense class that ran from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday of that week focused on the principles of creative problem solving. I remember walking around on campus after Wednesday’s class and feeling how absorbed I was in the work. It felt fulfilling. It was engrossing. It was highly productive and it was fun. I felt positive and effective. I was living in the moment and I was filled with energy. I was expressing creativity and I was in a state of bliss. It felt natural.

While I was walking on campus with my cohort, I imagined an ancient tribe roaming the wilderness with nothing to rely on except their ingenuity and each other. I imagined how these people must have had to solve problems all the time. How might they build a shelter? What might be all the ways they could eat tonight? How to survive? As humans evolved throughout the millennia they were faced with an ever increasing set of challenges to overcome. That’s when I realized that creativity is something we have always expressed as human beings. It is our natural state.

I also reflected on the most creative thing I could conceive of, the Universe. I tried to contemplate how effortlessly it was constantly engaged in the act of creation, and how we were a small part of this same system. In her book, Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatley states that systems are made up of ever repeating iterative feedback loops that share a central programming, like fractals. If we were created by the universe, then the answer to why we are here is simple. To create!

Definition and Philosophy

My current working definition for creativity is purposeful and constructive exchanges between people and their surroundings, and it can be assessed by both intent and impact. Perhaps the single greatest debate I embraced was the difference between what I call potential creativity and actual creation. Ruth Noller presented a brilliant formula that described creativity as a function of attitude taking into account knowledge, imagination and evaluation (source). At first I was drawn to this type of definition that presented creativity as a mental state of being.

While studying the assessment of creative people, I came across the Inventory of Creative Activities and Accomplishments (Hocevar, D.J. 1978) which caused me to ask the following question: Can one really be considered creative if they are not actively creating? In contrast to Davis’ characteristics of creative individuals (1993), which outline typical traits of creative people, Hovevar’s inventory was assessing creative people based on what creative acts they had performed.

Although, I was reluctant to let go of my initial ideal that creativity is a mental state of being, I had to admit that there was a significant amount of merit in evaluating the achievements of a creative individual. But, is it fair to assess accomplishments in the same manner for all people? One could make an argument that it is easier for an individual with greater access to resources to achieve a task much more effortlessly (and with less creativity) than an individual who lacks equal resources. If two people accomplish the same ends but through different means are they equally creative? I wondered for a while if creativity and resourcefulness were synonymous.

To reflect I turned to Rhodes’ framework of the Four Ps (1961). I also considered the 5th P (reference) persuasion, and conceived of a 6th P, Proof which might just be a variation of Creative Products. Drawing on these, I conceived of a description of creativity in which people, working in the context of their environment (press), act deliberately (process) to bring about change (product). The above summary suggests four requirements in order for an act to be considered creative.

1. People – In this study of creativity we are focused on people. In contrast, a plant may create a flower, but this is not necessarily the type of creativity we are focused on.
   
2. Deliberate Action – In order for an act to be considered creative it must be intentional. Results that are novel and useful (source), but that are achieved randomly are not included in this academic definition of creativity.
   
3. Cause Change – Creative acts must cause a change, even if it only sticks for a while (source). If no change is caused then the creative act is considered incomplete for the purposes of this definition. This is often measured as impact and used to assess creativity (source).
   
4. Interaction with the Environment – Creativity does not occur in a bubble. It is the result of an interaction with others and the environment and has impact on each of the above.

Additionally, there is also a positive connotation to creativity. We tend to draw a contrast between acts we consider constructive and those we deem destructive, and typically it is only the constructive acts that we consider creative.I am reminded of that afternoon walk on the Buffalo State Campus with my cohort. We were collaborating. We were productive and engaged with each other and with the work we were doing. We were positively affecting each other and deliberately addressing issues that had surrounded us our entire lives. We were growing. We were being creative and it felt natural. Creativity is our natural state!

(c) Stavros Michailidis 2009