Creativity: Action is Everything
This post is my first contribution to a blogging conversation on creativity with isabella of change therapy.
In a recent series on the hidden workings of our minds I noted that scientists, artists and writers often have considerable difficulty explaining their thought processes. isabella replies that perhaps this difficulty is a necessary part of the process:
"perhaps these accounts of thought processes that are "disappointing", "unsatisfying" or "implausible" are so murky because creativity needs that muddiness, needs to work away from the light of our attention?"
I think there's a very interesting point here which I have a personal take on influenced by my own efforts at creativity.
Consider some of the language of creativity; people are:
- Struck by a thought
- Hit by an idea
- Visited by their muse
- Inspired by...
What these have in common is the idea of something coming from the outside to aid the self. They emphasise the external orientation of creativity: the concept that the self merely 'channels' ideas and energy from somewhere else.
Of course we are all influenced by external factors. So, to a certain extent these phrases are appropriate - creativity doesn't occur in a vacuum. But for a person in the middle of creating something, it can feel like the words, images, thoughts, forms, structures, relationships, notes or rhythms are coming from elsewhere. Unfortunately taking this apparently external locus too literally can be extremely detrimental to creativity.
When I first started writing I fell for this externally oriented language of creativity hook, line and sinker. I sat down in front of the computer and waited for the muse to visit me, an idea to strike, or some other vaguely conceptualised kind of external inspiration.
It usually didn't work, I just ended up going out for a walk to get away from the empty screen and the blinking cursor, still looking for my 'inspiration'.
It's the classic rookie mistake of course. The truth is, there is no muse, there is no right frame of mind and there is no perfect moment. There is only now, here, right in front of you.
In some ways the very murkiness and inaccessibility of creativity can lead us to think the ideas must be coming from elsewhere. But I'd argue that this murkiness is really a by-product of an exceptionally complicated process. People can't explain their creativity because they don't understand it themselves, and neither does anyone else.
Nowadays my way of approaching creativity is not by waiting for inspiration to strike but simply by starting with whatever I've got right here, right now. For me creativity is all about action.
Over to you...
What do you think isabella, and everyone else?
[Image credit: b_d_solis]
Join 21938 readers
Interesting post.
I think sitting down with a wish "to be creative" isn't going to get you anywhere. It makes you focus on wanting to be creative, which isn't particularly interesting. And staring a white screen won't give you any ideas!
You've got to have a germ of an idea that sparks off creativity - something to be creative about. It can be some idea, or some emotion, or something in the outside world.
One thing I've come to really enjoy about blogging is getting into colloaborative writing, where someone supplies an image or words, and then different people take the same image and write about it, often heading off in different directions.
So I'd say it doesn't matter what you start with - the creativity is what you make of it!
I'm a musician and a computer tinkerer. Whenever I'm not doing something that requires active concentration, my mind is stuck in a freewheeling daydream/tangent mode. It's almost like a random thought generator. I go about my daily life with this background pool of thoughts, and external influences (especially intellectually engaging conversations or written pieces) cause currents and eddies that spark off thoughts which, in turn, cause more eddies.
Every once in a while, one of those disturbances cause a thought that makes me curious enough to try and make it happen, at which point I have to either do it immediately or write down enough keywords to trigger a recall. Unfortunately for me, I can hardly remember anything without an accompanying physical action, even if it is just writing it down. On the other hand, that action also sets off more thoughts. I wonder if this has anything to do with my difficulty in using specific words, while at the same time odd, multi-syllabic words bubble over into my speech like, as a friend said, "a cauldron of words."?
A good example from my high school years: In my Creative Writing class, the final project was a TV show pilot. We were in 3-person groups and the minimum was a 15-page script (Each page was supposed to correspond to a minute of screen time. They must have a lot of commercials!) That Friday, my group tossed around some ideas during class, until one struck me pretty hard. I spent most of that weekend in a trance-like state, just writing. I don't know exactly how it happened, but when the weekend was over, I had a nearly-complete product that I was very happy with. I showed my groupmates the work on Monday. I don't know if they went with it because they liked it or it just meant less work for them. :) Either way, I was pleased with my work, even though it felt like very little effort. I'm sure if I had let the ball stop rolling, it would have taken quite a bit of effort to get it started again.
So, how do I get started when I'm trying to be creative? I guess I don't really. I'm not usually "trying" to be creative, and I'm usually always in a mood conducive to it. My "cauldron of words" friend and I regularly engage in silly pun wars, which I think helps keep me mentally active, and I just spent the last 4 years in a Marine Corps band, so I was, for all intents and purposes, ordered to be at least a little creative most of the time.
Where am I going with this? I have no idea. I doubt I'm any help for anyone looking to "be creative", but at least I reinforce the "inarticulately described and vague artistic method" sterotype. :)
At least regarding the language and terms we use I have some great reading to recommend for you.
"Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" by George Lakoff. It's a huge and rather intimidating book but it proposes a whole new philosophy of how language construction and logic work and is quite amazing... Especially in regards to creative thought!
Is action itself sufficient for creativity? Let's ask Truman Capote:
That's not writing; that's typing.
thanks for the post. I'm a graphic designer for a job and a musician/composer the rest of the time, so I spend a lot of time having to be creative.
I'd say there are two approaches I use.
when I don't have time and have to do something right here and now, I do what I've done before, with a tweak. occasionally I get a satisfying piece of work from that approach, but that's just luck, I think.
the ideas/designs that satisfy me most come from a process similar to that which Tuba Terry described well: I keep looking and listening to the world, finding stuff out, talking to myself, letting trains of thought spool out - priming my creativity. then I have to give it time to work, and relax, and something good will often pop up prompted by my thoughts about some trivial event or something I see. I'm lucky to live in the countryside and I walk a lot; I take a notebook, because most of the best ideas come when I'm outdoors not doing anything in particular.
I find it easiest to understand what is going on with a simple conscious/unconscious model of the mind, in terms of which the unconscious seems to be cooking up the startling new connections between things, and the conscious is there to listen and to decide which ones are likely to make good work.
Boise, on advice for New Faculty, describes the habits of productive writers. Fairly lazy habits by-and-large except for regular writing for around an hour first thing every morning. They publish about 7x as much more diligent souls.
He works through the dilemmas - starting before you are ready, free writing when you are stuck, structuring and rewriting, engaging others, etc. etc. Brilliant work written in a down-to-earth way.
I am on what he would call a binge - so back to work for me!
great discussions here - i'm really happy we started this conversation, jeremy!
i had to smile a few times. first, what you, jeremy, say about action is similar to a post i wrote last summer, don't wait for inspiration to strike. btw, in there i argue that waiting for inspiration can be a form of control - what do you think?
and then i had to smile about jo's comment. i'm not a very disciplined person at all and love doing all those things that are often called lazy. but by gosh and by golly, i write about 360 days a year.
i'll have a continuation of this conversation on my blog by the end of next week.
I'm really fascinated by the different ways each of us describes our experience of creativity.
I've been circling around this blog item for almost an hour, leaving & coming back to it, exploring other parts of Psyblog, reading the comments and reflecting on each of them.
I finally jumped on here and now when I suddenly noticed that I don't employ the words: create, creativity, creative...
Then I noticed that what I am doing and how I am doing it that results in a poem or magazine article or sermon or photograph, I consider that communicating and I am engaged in crafting a communication that expresses or translates or illustrates as compellingly as I can a thought, idea, mental picture, feeling, point of view.
It's about expressing something... some THING... that suddenly shows up as a blip or a blob on my radar, catching my inner air controller's interest.
So it is, at the same time, a blip on my attention span AND something else - a plane, a weather balloon, a banner...
The process is about discerning and expressing that other reality that the blip symbolizes.
I guess what makes it creative is that it is a process of translation that goes for the spirit of the thing rather than the letter of it. I engage in rendering it rather than engineering a blueprint.
I was struck by Isabella's rendering of her process (or her perception of the creative process in others)involving murkiness and muddiness. "Primal ooze" bubbles up on the screen of my imagination.
That's what makes our efforts to communicate with one another creative - this desire to translate and render something that stimulates us mentally/spiritually into an external medium - printed words, digital images, drawings, dancing, liturgies...
The part of one's personality that consciously assigns itself the task of producing something creative, or executing a task or project creatively, is not capable of being creative; it is best-suited to being the project manager, the generous patron of the arts, the producer - someone who takes charge of creating the conditions, materials and circumstances in which the reclusive artist is supported and freed to express and communicate.
So many parts of one self, probably sparking in various parts of one's brain, yearning to develop a means of being in conversation with all the other parts so that one can have moments of feeling "fully human" in dialogue with being "fully divine."
Amen.
Thanks for hanging in there and reading this to the end!
I came across this while looking for things to post to my own blog about creativity (Your Creative Kick in the Butt) and found the initial question and subsequent comments quite interesting. I'm a writer, a novelist, and in the ten years I've been writing fiction, I've learned that if I wait for inspiration to strike in order to work on my manuscript, I will never get a completed manuscript.
Rather, I approach writer (or creativity for the purposes of this discussion) like I would riding a bike or knitting or exercise or any other activity that requires brain training and brain stamina. I write at the same in the same place every day. I have found that even if I'm not in the mood, having a routine like this makes it much easier for my brain to get the signal "now it's time to write" and to find the pathways in which it then needs to work. Also, like any other activity, I believe writing takes practice. We believe that to be a good musician or athlete, a person must practice. But for some reason, we have this misguided belief that writers and artists should just produce perfect and amazing work instantly, when really these activities require the same amount of practice in order to reach a superior level of proficiency.
What's tricky about all of this is that we're all individuals, and what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. I teach writing, and I always tell my students to write every day, at the same time and in the same place, to at least get into the habit of a writing discipline. But at the same time, this approach really may not work for everyone. Some people bristle at such routine and it can squelch their imagination. I need quiet; other people prefer noisy places. I work on a computer; someone else may work best writing things out long hand or collaborating with another writer, etc. There is no one way to write, paint, etc., just as there is no one way to write a story, paint a picture, create a piece of music, etc. It can be different for everyone.
But I do believe that it's not magical. It takes practice and hard work to actually do the work. I know a lot of talented people who will never write anything because they just don't write. I don't think I'm particularly talented, but I work really hard.
Judith
I'm impressed with the variety of approaches to getting started in creative work - action, collaboration, practice, inspiration. I like Lauralyn's formulation of the process once started as finding the way to communicate the spirit of a thing is your chosen medium. For many artists, writers and creative people, there is a lot of emphasis on cultivating a certain state of mind or finding the right surroundings conducive to freer expression. There is also a lot of talk about fear and inhibition.(See, for example, Art and Fear by Bayles and Orland.) I believe that comes from the reality that creativity comes from deep inner sources that are not understood, and there can be a lot of fear of what might emerge. Many writers who produce steadily and professionally scoff at notions of writer's block because they don't experience it. As Judith points out, writing and other forms of creativity can be different for everyone. That's one of the things that makes it so hard to characterize creativity independent of a particular person's approach and experience.
JohnD
I hasten to clarify that my earlier comment was not on the quality of this post. My point is that everyone recognizes a difference between these two activities--typing and writing--and the difference clearly lies outside of action.
lauralynn - yes, i read your comment right to the end! :)
was struck by your words
that's what makes our efforts to communicate with one another creative - this desire to translate and render something that stimulates us mentally/spiritually into an external medium
because that's how this all started! trying to translate the creative activity and/or inspirational moment into the scientific medium.
interesting ...
Judy, you are sooooo busted! I went to your website and what I read definitely highlights the work of a gifted writer!
Isabella, so glad my words found a receptive welcome in your wonderful imagination!
Jeremy, thanks - always - for the illumination your passionate curiosity brings to often overlooked places in my heart and mind!
PS It occurs to me that everything can be done as either a technician or an artist/artisan without sacrificing proficiency.
I've heard some musicians play a piece and found myself thinking, "Wow! Great technique...But - there's nothing of the performer shaping its delivery."
I've heard the same piece performed by another musician and been spellbound! As if he found someone so interesting that they got intimately acquainted and now we are being introduced to this music as a beloved friend the performer is eager for us to love, as well!
A stunning example of the artist's role in rendering those static notes on the page creatively is Joshua Bell's performance on the movie soundtrack, "The Red Violin." It's the saga of the successive owners of a magnificent violin down through the centuries and the music it sings for them. This young violinist had to play his instrument in such a way that it expressed the "voice" and style of the one playing it in the story - also keeping it culturally accurate for the historic period. His playing was the only time I've heard an artist transform his solo instrument into a whole host of movie characters! To listen to the CD, you think you are hearing different violinists performing!! A fine technician would have played the music correctly, even observing the musical conventions of each era, but it would have sounded like the same studio musician doing all the dubbing.
I've read the reflections of some scientists and physicians that touch my heart and lift my spirit as they capture their awe toward the worlds their research or patients reveal to them.
I guess it's the difference between photocopying an image and giving it your personal rendition.
Thanks for listening, y'all!
Lauralyn
lauralynn, i know exactly what you mean!
and there are so many nuances to this ...
compare this: the heartfelt rendering of "moonlight sonata" by a 17-year-old piano student ... the precision-like execution of beethoven's fifth by a conductor who's performed it 300 times ... a zydeco band belting out a crazy cajun melody ...
who is the "better" artist?
oh, and here is the next instalment of this conversation:
http://www.moritherapy.org/article/chaos-and-creativity/