Confounding the myths of Creativity within me

I always thought that creativity is defined as a mental process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations between existing ideas or concepts (Wikipedia, n.d.) or otherwise, like most creativity theorists will endorse (Mayer, 1999) is that creativity is “the ability to produce work that is novel (i.e. original, unexpected), high in quality and appropriate (i.e. useful, meets task constraints)” (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002) It was not until the first day of my Creative Thinking class, a sentence which my lecturer, Margaret Chan, said, shook me up. She said: “There is no one definition for creativity.”

Time and again, Margaret had stood firm that there is no one definition on creativity, ideas has to be worked for and that creativity can be nurtured. This has prompted me to reflect over the myths, my thoughts and perspectives on creativity. So what is my take on the above issues? After much thoughts and readings from various sources, I believe that being creative does not mean ideas that come out have to be original, being creative does not mean that one does not have to work for ideas and that creativity can be nurtured.

Like most people, I agree that creativity involves originality. Thus, I felt that idea that comes out have to be original, new and refreshing, something one has not seen before, and then can it be considered creative. But I was wrong. Mark A. Runco states that though creativity involves originality, it does not imply that creativity is merely a kind of originality; originality is necessary but not sufficient for creativity. (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004) Moreover, originality needs to be defined carefully, just like creativity. Therefore, we cannot assume that being creative means being original, vice versa. Jean Baitaillion once wrote, “Really we create nothing. We merely plagiarize nature.” (Leboeuf, 1996) It sounds quite true. New and revised books are a rearrangement of words, sentences and concepts. New knowledge is built on fundamental basics. Hence, it shows that every idea is a duplicate or built-on of an old idea. The late Dale Carnegie who is accredited with creating ideas that has enabled many people to live happier, more successful and productive has summarized his creativity this way: “The ideas I stand for are not mine. I borrowed them from Socrates. I swiped them from Chesterfield. I stole them from Jesus. And I put them in a book. If you don’t like their rules, whose would you use?” (Leboeuf, 1996) Thus, no ideas are our own and nothing one creates is original.

I used to think that creative ideas different from other forms of thinking and are very precious as they are like flashes of brilliance that will only appear out of the blue. Thus, it is not possible and we do not have to work for ideas. Yet this is true only to a fortunate few. One has to be at the right place at the right time. However, Leboeuf (1996) mentioned that the problem with this myth is that if we believe, nothing will happen. Flashes of brilliance come to those who work for them. Magical insights and solutions are sometimes stumbled on, but most of these solutions are chanced on by people who happen to be studying the problem. (Leboeuf, 1996) Perhaps, most of us have underestimated ourselves and have overestimated the unusual or special aspect of creative work. This matter of degree could have resulted in us immobilizing ourselves from trying. Therefore, ideas are not like magic. One has to work for it. Otherwise, procrastination may be the right term for those waiting to be inspired.

Though it is known that creativity is a universally distributed human trait, I once felt that not everyone can be creative. I felt that only a gifted minority are creative. Especially with Singapore’s education system or culture that taught us to accept whatever the adults say and not to rebut since young, I strongly felt that our creative potentials that we could have developed is not unready to be unleashed but has diminished over the years to the extent that it is hard to be nurtured. Furthermore, Sternberg, Grigorenko and Singer (2004) have stated that “creativity training programs…are bound to yield limited effects on the development of creativity.” At that time, I felt that unless one has that inborn and gifted talent, he or she is more likely to be creative as compared to a normal child.

However, coming to SMU have changed my perspective on creativity. Once again, I begin to feel that creativity can be nurtured. Unlike the UK-type system, SMU adopts the US system; where students have to participate actively in discussions, raise questions whenever in doubts and to look for the professors and Teaching Assistants on their own if they have further enquiries. This system prevents the breeding of comfy and conformity that we are used to in our 12 years of education. So, the verbalization of thoughts and participation in discussions can help in formation of new ideas. And that’s why we are having creative thinking classes – to nurture, encourage and celebrate differences, with old taboos removed and new exciting activities introduced. Thus, one need not necessarily be ‘talented’ to be creative. Creativity can be cultivated.

Myths are part and parcel of our lives. To let go of beliefs that we held for a long time is difficult. Yet, we should not let myths and our erroneous beliefs we harbor about creativity keep us from utilizing our creative potential. As Leboeuf (1996) remarked: “Change is tough but it’s a worthwhile investment in our growth.” As for me, given the guidance in creative thinking classes, I believe I’m on my way to confound the myths of creativity and unleash the Creative Genius within me.