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 »Several people have made the very good point that whichever argument you find most persuasive depends on your definition of creativity.
@Demian - so bearing that in mind, I would take issue with your distinction between 'creative' and 'practical' people. In my experience, people who achieve success in creative fields are highly practical, very good at either producing things themselves or making things happen through organising/influencing others.
They may not look at the world the same way others do - but that only means they have to be more practically-oriented if they want to make things happen in spite of resistance/ridicule from others.
Great questions.
Is everyone creative? Certainly everyone has some capacity for creating things, imagining new possibilities, and engaging in creative expression.
But yes, certainly some people are more creative in general, and others are less creative in general, preferring to "tow the line" and follow orders.
I do think that nearly everyone can personally benefit from being more creative at times, but I also think that not everyone's creations are equally desirable and needed.
I think the neurological perspective is an interesting one. However, it is important to realize that the existence of brain differences does not mean those differences are inborn. The pathways in a brain get strengthened by use, so over time brains become more different based on what they commonly do.
It is quite possible that all children are creative, but that some of them find normalcy appealing and are more comfortable following the rules and being sculpted into society's model citizens. This would be the process of schools destroying creativity. And perhaps there is some value to the process, for the stability of society and for the comfort of the people who prefer the comfort of normalcy.
If you take that view, it seems to explain why those creative children who do not find society appealing and who cherish their creativity more than safety and comfort would, over time, develop different patterns of activation in their brains.
I think the best way to study this would be via longitudinal studies of a cohort of children who would have regular fMRI studies done of their brains. Such studies could be correlated with other factors of those childrens' lives and personalities as they grew up.
Hmmm. Good points all around. I know I definitely fit into the last 2 :
<<>>>
They are sometimes swords that can cut for or against me!
I think I will go build one of my model kits tonight as a reminder
I think this is a semantic argument with an insidious political one behind it. Are we all capable of imaginative and innovative thinking? I believe so. Do rigid educational and work systems dampen such abilities (or even punish them at times)? Sure. I think many people on both sides of the argument could agree somewhat with those ideas.
In my opinion the cultural thrust behind the "we-are-all-creative" meme is to domesticate creative activity.
If "we are all creative", then we can hire the dutiful employee who dresses "right", doesn't question the goals, and behaves "normally", and merely send him to a "creativity workshop." We need not bother with those "difficult" creative types who don't fit in, disrupt the tightly controlled culture, or - heaven forbid - come up with creative ideas that aren't just slight tweaks on what was being discussed by the "non-creative."
Very flattered to find myself sparring against Sir Ken, even if only vicariously. Definition & language etc aside, I suspect we're pretty much in agreement on most issues. The difference is that he's interested in how education knocks the creative stuffing out of people and I'm interested in what happens if it doesn't.
Barbara Saunders correctly identifies the "domestication" of creativity as a political issue standing in the way of our ability to draw the best out of those talents who find themselves on the wrong end of the status quo.
@Breanna -- "The pathways in a brain get strengthened by use, so over time brains become more different based on what they commonly do." Which has positive implications for our capacity to learn new things, especially when we're passionate about doing so.
@Barbara -- Good point about the political agendas ready to co-opt 'creativity'. I've quoted John Tusa on this before, but it bears repeating:
@Gordon -- Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
Nicely put. I couldn't resist using the two of you to set up the debate, as you both articulated your positions so clearly, but I agree there's much common ground. Thanks for taking the virtual sparring match in good part.
I do agree with Mr. Robinson that all of us have the potential to be creative. But we do vary in terms of level and the specific areas where each of us can fully exercise our creativity. However, I think that the kind of creative potential Mr.Torr is discussing is very different from the generalized creative potential Mr.Robinson was talking about.
What Mr.Torr was referring to are the exceptionally creative ones, bordering on the gifted up to the genius level. These people have the kind of creativity so absorbing and different from the rest that it is already evident in their personalities. And they do not apply to artists or writers alone. Such personalities can even manifest among Mathematicians and Scientists, as proven by history.
This kind of creativity enables them to see what others can't and find possibilities when reason shows none present. And once this possibility is evident in their eyes, the drive to pursue it is so unrelenting that it consumes them, leaving them with no choice but to spend countless hours working or pursuing it until completion, to the extent that they no longer care about the why's or what's of the world outside their own minds. Hence others see them as "weirdos".
The creative juice that flows in them is so strong that when it manifests itself clear enough for them to comprehend it, they just dedicate their entirety to it, until this idea achieves a tangible form, visible not only to them but everyone else as well. It's like riding a wild, beautiful stallion whose destination you could only sense, yet you are sure would turn out to be be the most splendidly beautiful place you've ever seen in your life.
I may not be very knowledgeable about the varied spectrum of intelligence to which creativity can be discussed or even determined. But I know that this creative juice has a life of its own that defines more than half or even the entirety of the person possessing it, if he possesses the kind of creative level Mr. Torr is referring to. This must elucidate the fact why most creative thinkers are not so happy in their personal lives or spend the rest of their lives alone. It demands too much of them, that their creativity for them is both a blessing and a curse.
Thanks Maris for your thoughtful contribution. I agree with just about everything you said, except maybe this bit: "most creative thinkers are not so happy in their personal lives or spend the rest of their lives alone". I don't think creativity necessarily involves having an unfulfilling personal life. I've met plenty of happy and fulfilled creative people, as well as unfulfilled and miserable ones.
Mind you, the poet WB Yeats is on your side in this argument -- so I guess I could be wrong. :-)
"The intellect of man is forced to choose
Perfection of the life, or of the art,
And if it take the second must refuse
A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark."
Yeats, 'The Choice'
Torr is right, but that doesn't mean Robinson is wrong. People in highly creative jobs, which is what Torr is sort of discussing, do fit a profile. They have nicer eyewear; they care about where a vase is placed in a room; or they are obsessed by scientific or design problems.
But everyone is creative to some degree. This is Robinson's point. We need to nurture or tap that a little more often. I used to facilitate dozens of workshops each year and I'd begin each one by pointing out that creativity is more widely distributed in organizations than power is, so we should listen respectfully to everyone's ideas during the day. Business literature is full of anecdotes about factory workers or laborers who had a more creative, cost-effective solution to a problem than the guys in research and design could come up with.
Our society is obsessed with ego and novelty, and often mistakes them for creativity. They are the opposite of intrinsic motivation.
"creativity is more widely distributed in organizations than power"
I like that.