How Can We Talk About Creativity?

In the context of class discussions, the word creativity is unclear and I think almost worthless. It is important that we all have the same understanding of what we mean when we say “creative”, otherwise it’s going to be hard to communicate. What are people’s thoughts on what creativity means? Let’s see if we can come to a consensus on what we mean for the purposes of the class, and for the purposes of discussing DARCI.

My working definition is (derived from Csíkszentmihályi): creativity is the process of making creative artifacts (pictures, songs, algorithms, designs, ideas, stories, etc.). Creative artifacts are artifacts that a field (judges) deem valuable and novel to a domain (category of artifact). In other words, the artifact is going to stretch and change the domain in some way that the field accepts.

When attributing creativity, the field can be as broad or as narrow as you please, but the attribution of creativity is limited by the field. For example, the field could be me alone. Then I would essentially be evaluating my own artifacts. If I decided they were creative then they are, but only to me. This would be an example of the p-creativity mentioned in class. If I wanted to create something that was considered H-creative in a particular domain, then my artifact would need to be accepted by the field representing the entire domain (the experts of a domain / the gatekeepers). Obviously, the field can be anywhere in between these two extremes.

The domain can also be as broad and narrow as you please. In other words, the term is not limited to a discreet set of established domains such as visual arts, or music, or math, or whatever. It could be a hybrid or a sub-area of these for example. However, for there to be H-creativity, then there needs to be a field that defines what a specific domain is.

My understanding is that artists and scientists are striving for H-creativity in their respective domains (that’s the point of being an artist or a scientist). This does not mean that p-creativity is meaningless. For someone to be capable of H-creativity, they must be capable of p-creativity. I think that this does NOT necessarily mean that something that is deemed H-creative is p-creative.

What about artists that explicitly do not want to be accepted by the field? I’m no artist so I may not know what I’m talking about; but, I think that there actually aren’t artists like this if you think about it. Rather, these artists are hoping that the domain will change, hopefully in a radical way, because of their work. Or even better, a new domain will be created! Once that happens, then of course the artist will be uncomfortable because a field now exists that accepts their work. So, the artist will continuously try to change the domain (or create new domains). Boden, calls this transformational creativity (T-creativity) and if I remember correctly, I think she considers it the “highest” form of creativity. At any rate, acceptance by a field is still part of the process.

I feel like I just wrote a book :) Anyways, please expand, discuss, or tear-apart these ideas; or share your own. Let’s come to an understanding of what we mean by creativity.