This TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson is one of the most popular videos about creativity on the internet. In it, Robinson argues passionately that as children we are all naturally creative, yet by the time we reach adulthood, our creativity has been ‘educated out of us’ by the barriers of school, society and corporate business.
The talk has evidently touched a chord – as well as being enthusiastically received at TED, the video has been been viewed, downloaded re-posted and discussed countless times. As a creativity writer and consultant, hardly a month goes by without someone asking me whether I’ve seen ‘the Ken Robinson video’.
It’s not hard to see why Robinson’s video is so popular – he’s an engaging and very funny presenter, who somehow manages to be both down-to-earth and inspiring at the same time.
And his message is immensely appealing. It presents a vision of humanity as inherently creative, with new ideas and possibilities bubbling up inside us, waiting to be used – if only we would stop blocking ourselves.
But is it true?
Not according to Gordon Torr, a former Creative Director and author of the recent book Managing Creative People:
The truth is that creative people are different from other people – special, for better or worse, in a way that we’re only beginning to understand. And everything we know about them suggests that they’re creative because they’re different, not that they’re different because they’re creative. It’s a vital distinction.
Believing that everyone has the capacity to be just as creative as the next person is as ludicrous as believing that everyone has the capacity to be just as intelligent as the next person, yet it has become almost universally accepted as a truism. It’s also relatively new, taking root in only the last 30 or 40 years, coinciding much too precisely to be accidental with the popularisation of creativity as an essential ingredient of social and business success.
(Gordon Torr, Managing Creative People, 2008)
What makes creative people different? Torr highlights three factors in particular:
- Biology
Torr cites scientific studies that suggest creative people have different brain activity than others – specifically, lower levels of cortical arousal, which means their thinking is less inhibited and they are more likely to come up with ‘more absurd, dreamlike and just plain weird’ ideas than other people. - Motivation
Building on the work of Harvard Business School Professor Theresa Amabile, which demonstrates that creativity is strongly linked to intrinsic motivation, Torr argues that creative people are distinguished by ‘an all-consuming preoccupation’ with creative work, regardless of whether it brings them money or fame. - Personality
We all recognise the classic description of the creative personality as childlike, impulsive, fantasy oriented, emotionally sensitive, anxious and ambitious. Torr cites several personality studies as evidence that ‘creative people conform almost perfectly to their popular stereotype’.
Torr admits that he is swimming against the tide in this view of creativity – but argues that that is what creative people have always done:
for almost the entire duration of human life on earth, the popular conception of creative people was that they were born that way, with unique gifts that obliged them to seek out and fulfil the singular vocations of their destiny…
They were shamans, priests, prophets, storytellers, poets, witches, troubadours, jesters, Giottos, da Vincis, romantics, lunatics, misfits, outsiders, strangers, village idiots, inventors, novelists, artists and, eventually, advertising people. They were vilified as often as they were revered, and reviled as much as they were respected.
(Gordon Torr, Managing Creative People, 2008)
This view may not be universally popular, but it does fit pretty closely with the image of the stereotypical creative person: someone who is different, rebellious, individualistic and resistant to society’s attempts to shoehorn them into conformity.
Are Creative People Different?
Are we all creative, or is there something inherently different and special about creative people?
If you believe creatives are different – what are the differences?
About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a poet and creative coach.
View Comments (31)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »I think that everyone has the capacity to be creative if we define creativity as finding unusual solutions to tough problems. But the people that we dub as creative, are constantly creative. When we talk about creativity we don’t just mean people that carve ninja turtles out of wood, but something that goes over to just having a skill. Creative people are definitely different because their brains are hardwired in such a way that they never see the world as is.
I've often wondered the same thing that he talks about. How do people find their talents, which is different than creative, although ?
In some way it is about being typically creative, but mostly it's about being able to make mistakes and learning from them rather than hiding and never learning. We learn so much to take tests but never about why we're learning the subject in the first place.
How one defines creativity and what determines a creative are at the very heart of this “argument.”
One of the most noteworthy observations Robinson makes is that for the most part, society as a whole has allowed business institutions and academics to be the final word in defining creativity and determining who among us should be classified as creatives, when in fact, the particular faculties and playing fields that delineate and/or encompass creativity and creatives are entirely subjective.
Like Torr, I don’t believe we each have the exact same capacity for creativity. This simply isn’t possible in humans.
Although we can have overlapping traits and experience similar levels of thinking, emotional and behavioral abilities and capacities, no two humans—even identical twins—experience “perfectly” identical thoughts, feelings and behaviors, or abilities and capacities.
But to suggest we’re either born with or without creative capacity is ludicrous. Statements like this smack of nothing more than a form of--and opportunity for--self-serving, potentially discriminatory separatism.
His ideas seem to promote long-standing, counter-productive rating, ranking and pigeonholing of people, albeit with a new spin and twist.
The fact that Torr asserts he’s “swimming against the tide” with his viewpoint comes across as an “I’m so creative that I’m challenging the most rational and ultimately beneficial approach to creativity that would best serve ‘positive’ conscious human evolution and societal advancement” declaration.
With regard to his referenced scientific findings, you can almost always find research or studies that appear to support your perspectives, especially when you’re consciously seeking them out.
I wonder if Torr categorizes his children in this way. If that’s the case, I suspect he views them as creatives.
Excellent, thought-provoking post and comments.
I too, believe that everyone is creative. I was formulating a response when I read Chris Zydel's and realized she'd said it perfectly!
Mark,
I love Ken Robinson's talk. I'm one of the zillions who has linked to it—it is so inspired. Glad to see it referenced here.
WD and Chris said much of what I'd want to, and I've said it here before: Yes. We are all creative. Is that the same as all being equally creative? No, no more than we're all equally intelligent. Does it mean we are all able to become "creatives," if only some switch is left on in childhood? No.
But we do have an innate need to create something, in some realm, and we all do it.
And many of us have had the pleasure of creativity wrung out of us from an early age. That is a crime.
Great subject.
Regards,
Kelly
I believe everyone is creative, but some don't have to try very hard to spot their own skill. An analogy is in order. If you buy a Saturn Ion, you then notice ALL Saturn Ions. People can train themselves to see their world creatively this way; some are born with the skill already fine tuned (no assembly required).
If some of us were meant NOT to be creative, humans would have the ability to give birth to drone babies like bees that work and die and that's it. I believe since every human is born with a unique fingerprint, they have the ability to be uniquely creative.
Thanks everyone, great discussion as usual.
I don't know about the population at large, but I'd venture to suggests that everyone who comments on Lateral Action is creative. :-)
I think a lot of people are slightly missing the point of Sir Ken's talk - due to confusion over what constitutes a 'creative'.
Torr's description of 'creatives' quoted above buys into the stereotypical artist/advertising creative cliche, however I believe Sir Ken's idea of creativity comes from a different angle.
His central theme is that the education systems results in a majority of people losing their passions
This loss of passion is what makes people view 'creativity' as a mythical quality.
Sir Ken is arguing that anyone can be creative about something they are passionate about, as it is this passion that causes people to question existing structures as they strive for improvements
I think there is no question that some people are hard-wired creative while others are hard-wired to be practical.
But let's just say everyone has this little spark and all we need to do is fan that flame. Is that such a good idea?
Imagine a world dominated by "childlike, impulsive, fantasy oriented, emotionally sensitive, anxious and ambitious" people.
If that's too much, just imagine a home dominated by people like that. Might be great, but probably not highly functional.
I speak as someone who is incorrigibly creative who live with a wife who is incorrigibly practical. Our children have hope because of that balance. ;-)
Bottom line, I think we are all creative to some degree. My father-in-law, who was a telephone line repairman his entire life, is incredibly creative when it came to finding solutions to problems in his work. Some call this resourceful.
The comments have been just as good as the post. It really seems that people's arguments are colored by their definition of creativity.
I do agree with "the_infonaut" that the concepts of creativity in the TED speech and in the book are of two different flavors. They somewhat overlap in general subject matter, but little else.
The passion that is beaten out of the populace through the education system is not the same creativity Torr discusses when saying these folks are wired differently.
In the former, keeping that passion would result in society with more potential. In the latter, these folks continue their passion in spite of environmental influences.
This is definitely a nature vs. nurture scenario, so the debate will be endless.