>But maybe creativity exists precisely within boundaries, because they define the space in which our ideas can play with one another.
This, so much: boundaries are the origin of creativity!
If I say "fill this blank page with something", the least creative person in the world can do so. But if I say "fill it with a picture of a crow fighting a snail" or "fill it with an essay justifying the right to free speech", that is when the creativity will come out.
This is why I find it so frustrating when TV/movie writers for established franchises feel the need to get "creative" and completely change their work from the original. No, you are not "creative" for making something that doesn't play by the (meta-)rules of that show/universe! (Star Trek Discovery, I'm looking at you.)
To the contrary, you lacked the creativity to make fun new material to watch ... while staying within the boundaries of what made people like the show/movie in the first place.
Yeah. Was hoping Strange New Worlds would be more TNG like but with ethical dilemmas of our time (ie black mirror but much more optimistic) but, meh. Not as meh as Discovery, but the Orville does it better.
There are some occupations (artist, author, founder, scientist, etc.) that are popular forms of escapism because they look so self-actualized. From the outside, it looks like:
1. They only work on what they like.
2. Their work exists for its own sake, not to accomplish some other motive (e.g. the painter's paintings exist to be enjoyed as paintings. It's not graphic design, which exists to sell something else.)
In practice, that's usually not true. A founder deals with compliance forms, a novelist only writes a vampire book because that's what the market wants, and the scientist applied for 27 research grants this year.
When it comes to work, humans seem to need to believe that perfection exists, that there is a situation in which all of our problems would be solved.
I've been lucky enough to have had multiple situations where I reached the exact career goal I set a few years prior. The career that seemed like the situation where all problems would be solved. I was (and continue to be) happy with my career, but as soon as you live in yesteryear's idealized reality, you realize that even within that exist some annoying things and you idealize the next thing.
I saw a cartoon that captured this pretty well; a pianist who looks pensive, thinking "I don't enjoy this at all". The caption is something like "how to know you're a professional".
Everybody runs this risk, but "creative" jobs probably more so. Not being able to enjoy what you're doing even if you're successful. It may be because there's always a pressure to improve. But it could also be because the inner motivation that used to drive you has been replaced with external rewards. C. Thi Nguyen calls it "value capture".
I agree with the author's friend in that it's up to each of us to find creativity, it must come from within.
So what? Yes, when you acheived your dream, you need a different dream. That is not a fundamentally bad thing right? The fact that you find your current "dream" reality annoying is a sign that you have become and yes it is okay to dream again but that doesn't mean your previous dream was wrong or faulty or unrealistic.
Thinking perfection as a real thing to achieve is not good but striving an ideal version of you is how you grow. Your ideal version changes as you grow its natural.
> a novelist only writes a vampire book because that's what the market wants
Not exactly. If you're in it for the money, don't be an artist (because it's not very effective). Having established that you're not in it for the money, don't slavishly follow the market, what's the point of that? But respect your audience, of course, and try to get them to part with their money on your terms, which is the fun of the whole thing and why you're not working in real estate instead.
Many working novelists have described being pressured by their publishers to write whatever the publisher believes will sell, and many have given in to the pressure because ultimately they need to eat. Arthur Conan Doyle famously kept writing Sherlock Holmes stories despite hating it, because the public and his publishers demanded it. The foreword to Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard Of Earthsea talks about how she was convinced to write a children's/YA book despite not really wanting to.
The post you're replying to maybe overstated things, but was much closer to reality than your post.
"Hating", no. He wanted to write books like The White Company. He could have done! But Holmes was more popular, so he asked a higher price, got paid, and continued with the Holmes. This is like a dialog with the public. It's not that he had instructions such as now make Holmes a vampire and was compelled to obey. The level of his obedience to the public was modulated by his level of liking money. Less money and more freedom was an option. I can't find the Le Guin foreword, but I wonder in what way she was convinced.
But anyway, no, you are not on rails in your creative "job", and it is self-directed, unless you think you're compelled to make X amount of money and thus have no choice but to write loathed vampire books, without even the option to go and work more happily in a factory.
Not much discussion here, but this is a good observation about not just incorporating something like creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's.
I'll step up to the mic and give my opinion:
There was a time when most jobs were physically demanding in one way or another. Working on a factory production line doesn't allow much opportunity for adding creativity into your work. The answer: avocations.
My dad was a machinist--which can be a very creative job--but he always preached to me the need to have activities (creative or otherwise) outside of work. He played music, built projects in the garage, and played around with drawing and painting at home.
We are likely transitioning away (once again) from a majority of jobs that include opportunities for creativity to a majority of jobs that are just plain "work." So it's a good idea to remember that time outside of work can be the opportunity to be creative.
I can hear the comments already about no time outside of work: family, commute, etc. But remember, if you want something bad enough, you will make time for it.
I'm just as likely to neglect this fact as anyone else: we only get one chance to live. If it’s important, then make time for it.
How much time do the majority of people spend scrolling on their phones?
I tend to think that i don’t have time to do the things i want to do outside of work, but on the rare occasions when i managed to put my phone aside for a couple of weeks I find I have more time than i know what to do with.
Everyone’s situation is different obviously, but personally “I don’t have time” is completely untrue
>> If it’s important, then make time for it.
Indeed. Replace the sentence "I don't have time for this" with "This does not have priority for me."
This will make it easier to decide if you are going to read your kids a bedtime story or if your going to finish that report.
Working on a factory production line is just a blip in the history of humanity and creativity.
No offense to your dad, but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions on how we are meant to find self-actualization in our careers based off a very recent, and actually very inhuman mode of industrial production where people are expected to operate as indefatigable machines.
The most interesting creative decisions happen within a tight set of constraints.
Side note, I also had to expand my definition of "creativity" early in my career. I grew up and was educated as an artist. Even received a Bachelor of Fine Art Painting. Never took a single class on anything to do with computer science. As I was transitioning my career towards programming, I was worried that I would lose my creativity. It took me a while to realize that programming was intensely creative, just as much as being an artist. They simply have different aesthetics.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box, sometimes inside the box, and sometimes you need to think about the box itself.
Some people will tear down Chesterton's fence because they don't want to feel limited, others won't approach because they want to be safe. Few ask why it was put up in the first place.
With nothing but a piece of paper and a pencil you can draw an alley or start building an imaginary world.
Too many of us turn boundaries into chains to hold us down.
Surely the researcher has way more constraints and is thus less creative in their job?
I'm all for finding the joy in things, but the author starts with the comparison and then uses the ability to find creativity with it being a requisite part of the job.
Surely the person with more pertage of trdious work has a more tedious and less creative job.
Imagine if someone made this argument about dollars per hour, and the exec said they work overtime often so the valet has no right to complain about pay since they can look harder for tips.
>But maybe creativity exists precisely within boundaries, because they define the space in which our ideas can play with one another.
This, so much: boundaries are the origin of creativity!
If I say "fill this blank page with something", the least creative person in the world can do so. But if I say "fill it with a picture of a crow fighting a snail" or "fill it with an essay justifying the right to free speech", that is when the creativity will come out.
This is why I find it so frustrating when TV/movie writers for established franchises feel the need to get "creative" and completely change their work from the original. No, you are not "creative" for making something that doesn't play by the (meta-)rules of that show/universe! (Star Trek Discovery, I'm looking at you.)
To the contrary, you lacked the creativity to make fun new material to watch ... while staying within the boundaries of what made people like the show/movie in the first place.
Yeah. Was hoping Strange New Worlds would be more TNG like but with ethical dilemmas of our time (ie black mirror but much more optimistic) but, meh. Not as meh as Discovery, but the Orville does it better.
There are some occupations (artist, author, founder, scientist, etc.) that are popular forms of escapism because they look so self-actualized. From the outside, it looks like:
1. They only work on what they like.
2. Their work exists for its own sake, not to accomplish some other motive (e.g. the painter's paintings exist to be enjoyed as paintings. It's not graphic design, which exists to sell something else.)
In practice, that's usually not true. A founder deals with compliance forms, a novelist only writes a vampire book because that's what the market wants, and the scientist applied for 27 research grants this year.
When it comes to work, humans seem to need to believe that perfection exists, that there is a situation in which all of our problems would be solved.
I've been lucky enough to have had multiple situations where I reached the exact career goal I set a few years prior. The career that seemed like the situation where all problems would be solved. I was (and continue to be) happy with my career, but as soon as you live in yesteryear's idealized reality, you realize that even within that exist some annoying things and you idealize the next thing.
I saw a cartoon that captured this pretty well; a pianist who looks pensive, thinking "I don't enjoy this at all". The caption is something like "how to know you're a professional".
Everybody runs this risk, but "creative" jobs probably more so. Not being able to enjoy what you're doing even if you're successful. It may be because there's always a pressure to improve. But it could also be because the inner motivation that used to drive you has been replaced with external rewards. C. Thi Nguyen calls it "value capture".
I agree with the author's friend in that it's up to each of us to find creativity, it must come from within.
So what? Yes, when you acheived your dream, you need a different dream. That is not a fundamentally bad thing right? The fact that you find your current "dream" reality annoying is a sign that you have become and yes it is okay to dream again but that doesn't mean your previous dream was wrong or faulty or unrealistic.
Thinking perfection as a real thing to achieve is not good but striving an ideal version of you is how you grow. Your ideal version changes as you grow its natural.
> a novelist only writes a vampire book because that's what the market wants
Not exactly. If you're in it for the money, don't be an artist (because it's not very effective). Having established that you're not in it for the money, don't slavishly follow the market, what's the point of that? But respect your audience, of course, and try to get them to part with their money on your terms, which is the fun of the whole thing and why you're not working in real estate instead.
Ah yes, just be independently wealthy.
Many working novelists have described being pressured by their publishers to write whatever the publisher believes will sell, and many have given in to the pressure because ultimately they need to eat. Arthur Conan Doyle famously kept writing Sherlock Holmes stories despite hating it, because the public and his publishers demanded it. The foreword to Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard Of Earthsea talks about how she was convinced to write a children's/YA book despite not really wanting to.
The post you're replying to maybe overstated things, but was much closer to reality than your post.
"Hating", no. He wanted to write books like The White Company. He could have done! But Holmes was more popular, so he asked a higher price, got paid, and continued with the Holmes. This is like a dialog with the public. It's not that he had instructions such as now make Holmes a vampire and was compelled to obey. The level of his obedience to the public was modulated by his level of liking money. Less money and more freedom was an option. I can't find the Le Guin foreword, but I wonder in what way she was convinced.
But anyway, no, you are not on rails in your creative "job", and it is self-directed, unless you think you're compelled to make X amount of money and thus have no choice but to write loathed vampire books, without even the option to go and work more happily in a factory.
What if you're an artist who enjoys creating your own art, but also, you need to pay rent?
one for me
one for the rent
Not much discussion here, but this is a good observation about not just incorporating something like creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's.
I'll step up to the mic and give my opinion:
There was a time when most jobs were physically demanding in one way or another. Working on a factory production line doesn't allow much opportunity for adding creativity into your work. The answer: avocations.
My dad was a machinist--which can be a very creative job--but he always preached to me the need to have activities (creative or otherwise) outside of work. He played music, built projects in the garage, and played around with drawing and painting at home.
We are likely transitioning away (once again) from a majority of jobs that include opportunities for creativity to a majority of jobs that are just plain "work." So it's a good idea to remember that time outside of work can be the opportunity to be creative.
I can hear the comments already about no time outside of work: family, commute, etc. But remember, if you want something bad enough, you will make time for it.
I'm just as likely to neglect this fact as anyone else: we only get one chance to live. If it’s important, then make time for it.
I yield the floor.
>But remember, if you want something bad enough, you will make time for it.
>I yield the floor.
yeah, well, there are of course living situations that people can be in, in which time can not be made for it.
Creativity takes time to get into the right mindset before it manifests. The demands of life in the modern era leave little room for self.
Work alone is an unavoidable sacrifice of quality of life for the majority of people.
How much time do the majority of people spend scrolling on their phones?
I tend to think that i don’t have time to do the things i want to do outside of work, but on the rare occasions when i managed to put my phone aside for a couple of weeks I find I have more time than i know what to do with.
Everyone’s situation is different obviously, but personally “I don’t have time” is completely untrue
>> If it’s important, then make time for it. Indeed. Replace the sentence "I don't have time for this" with "This does not have priority for me." This will make it easier to decide if you are going to read your kids a bedtime story or if your going to finish that report.
Why not transition to a time where we do less jobs? Why should we have to carve out extra time in addition to a just plain work job?
Working on a factory production line is just a blip in the history of humanity and creativity.
No offense to your dad, but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions on how we are meant to find self-actualization in our careers based off a very recent, and actually very inhuman mode of industrial production where people are expected to operate as indefatigable machines.
The most interesting creative decisions happen within a tight set of constraints.
Side note, I also had to expand my definition of "creativity" early in my career. I grew up and was educated as an artist. Even received a Bachelor of Fine Art Painting. Never took a single class on anything to do with computer science. As I was transitioning my career towards programming, I was worried that I would lose my creativity. It took me a while to realize that programming was intensely creative, just as much as being an artist. They simply have different aesthetics.
Agreed, I hope we all go back towards doing this.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box, sometimes inside the box, and sometimes you need to think about the box itself.
Some people will tear down Chesterton's fence because they don't want to feel limited, others won't approach because they want to be safe. Few ask why it was put up in the first place.
With nothing but a piece of paper and a pencil you can draw an alley or start building an imaginary world.
Too many of us turn boundaries into chains to hold us down.
Small thing but makes a big difference
Surely the researcher has way more constraints and is thus less creative in their job?
I'm all for finding the joy in things, but the author starts with the comparison and then uses the ability to find creativity with it being a requisite part of the job.
Surely the person with more pertage of trdious work has a more tedious and less creative job.
Imagine if someone made this argument about dollars per hour, and the exec said they work overtime often so the valet has no right to complain about pay since they can look harder for tips.