David Wesley (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} dwesley) wrote,@ 2008-11-07 14:25:00 |
|
Where Is Creativity?
I'm currently reading a fascinating book, "Creativity" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Most of the time when you see a book with this kind of title, you'll find someone's personal insight to the creative process; the things they do to help themselves be creative. But this book is very different. The author is a research psychologist who applies the scientific process to analyzing creativity. It's a very fresh look at an old subject.
I'll try to blog periodically about what I learn as I go through the book, with a focus on writing as the creativity in question, although it applies to all creative endeavors. I'll start with the author's description of where we find creativity. Most people would say that creativity is soley a function of a particular individual. But Mihaly says creativity is a function of a system made up of three parts:
1) Domain: a set of symbolic rules and procedures. Writing consists of such things as letters, words, syntax, punctuation, scenes, and chapters, and much has been written about the appropriate way to put these all together to shape a narrative (rules and procedures). Domains are nested within a culture where the symbolic knowledge is shared.
2) Field: all the individuals who act as gate keepers to the domain. The members of the Field decide whether a new idea of product should be included in the Domain.
3) Individual. Creativity happens only when the individual uses the symbols of the Domain to form a new idea or pattern, AND the Field decides the new idea should be included in the Domain.
So, Creativity is then defined as:
And a creative person is:
So, when I write a story, I'm using the rules of the domain to create something new. If no one will publish it, then by definition I'm not creative because the gate keepers have decided the story does not belong in the domain. If the story is published and recieves little attention, then I can say I've changed the domain by expanding it ever so little and my creativity can be characterized as "ever so little". But if I write the story and it receives great attention (critical acclaim, awards, multiple publishing runs, fan fic, etc.) then I can say that I've demonstrated a high level of creativity.
Speculative fiction has been especially creative in pushing hard at the edges of the domain. That's why we see sub-genre's popping up all the time: Steampunk, Mannerpunk, New Wave, Space Opera, Vampire Lit, etc. I think Spec fic writers instinctively try to push the edges of the domain. Sometimes it works spectacularly, and sometimes it doesn't.
But now here's the really weird thing to consider about creativity: What about those times when a writer creates stories that no one wants to read ... at first. But, then later on they are hailed as great. Phillip K. Dick was not appreciated well during his life, but now everything he wrote seems to be golden. Was it creative work when it was written, or did it only become creative when the Field decided it was great?
According to a systems definition of creativity, his writing wasn't creative until the field decided it was!
Next time I'll write about "The Creative Personality".
I'm currently reading a fascinating book, "Creativity" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Most of the time when you see a book with this kind of title, you'll find someone's personal insight to the creative process; the things they do to help themselves be creative. But this book is very different. The author is a research psychologist who applies the scientific process to analyzing creativity. It's a very fresh look at an old subject.
I'll try to blog periodically about what I learn as I go through the book, with a focus on writing as the creativity in question, although it applies to all creative endeavors. I'll start with the author's description of where we find creativity. Most people would say that creativity is soley a function of a particular individual. But Mihaly says creativity is a function of a system made up of three parts:
1) Domain: a set of symbolic rules and procedures. Writing consists of such things as letters, words, syntax, punctuation, scenes, and chapters, and much has been written about the appropriate way to put these all together to shape a narrative (rules and procedures). Domains are nested within a culture where the symbolic knowledge is shared.
2) Field: all the individuals who act as gate keepers to the domain. The members of the Field decide whether a new idea of product should be included in the Domain.
3) Individual. Creativity happens only when the individual uses the symbols of the Domain to form a new idea or pattern, AND the Field decides the new idea should be included in the Domain.
So, Creativity is then defined as:
"... any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one."
And a creative person is:
"... someone whose thoughts or actions change a domain, or establish a new domain."
So, when I write a story, I'm using the rules of the domain to create something new. If no one will publish it, then by definition I'm not creative because the gate keepers have decided the story does not belong in the domain. If the story is published and recieves little attention, then I can say I've changed the domain by expanding it ever so little and my creativity can be characterized as "ever so little". But if I write the story and it receives great attention (critical acclaim, awards, multiple publishing runs, fan fic, etc.) then I can say that I've demonstrated a high level of creativity.
Speculative fiction has been especially creative in pushing hard at the edges of the domain. That's why we see sub-genre's popping up all the time: Steampunk, Mannerpunk, New Wave, Space Opera, Vampire Lit, etc. I think Spec fic writers instinctively try to push the edges of the domain. Sometimes it works spectacularly, and sometimes it doesn't.
But now here's the really weird thing to consider about creativity: What about those times when a writer creates stories that no one wants to read ... at first. But, then later on they are hailed as great. Phillip K. Dick was not appreciated well during his life, but now everything he wrote seems to be golden. Was it creative work when it was written, or did it only become creative when the Field decided it was great?
According to a systems definition of creativity, his writing wasn't creative until the field decided it was!
Next time I'll write about "The Creative Personality".
