Three Reflections on Creativity

March 2, 2011

This post is the fifth part in a series about deliberate practice, structure and creativity.

- – - -

Quick recap: Creativity can be hindered by structure, but it also requires structure.

In Part 3, I asked: What amount of structure is optimal for learning? In this post, the question is: How does creativity relate to structure?

Three Reflections on Creativity:

1) Improving Creativity in the Short-Term

The answer to this question depends on the player’s skill and their familiarity with the structures governing their choices.

When I first give my students the improv exercise outlined in Part 1, their capacity for creative improvising is almost zero. After a week, this will improve slightly. After a lifetime of deliberate practice, their capacity to navigate through, and be creative within this specific structure will be more significant.

In the short term and in the context of my improv exercise, improvement in a player’s capacity to be creative can be expressed as such:

2) Improving Creativity in the Long-Term

Thus far, I’ve presented these relationships as if learning to be creative evolves linearly. This has been useful up to this point, but I realize that creativity has to be considered more holistically with structures interacting on many levels.

For example, if a player wants to learn to play through changes, he/she will have to do much more than practice my improv exercise. There also needs to be a familiarity with many other musical concepts. Knowing what a 12-bar blues is, knowing what an F7 is, and knowing how to play an instrument would all contribute to a player’s ability to play through changes.

Likewise, when a player practices my improv exercise, they’re also practicing things that aren’t directly related to the exercise’s primary objective. This includes technique, the piano (for pianists), fingering, theory and time.

Considering the holistic nature of creativity, after many months and years of deliberate practice and learning how to navigate through many exercises, a player will be more comfortable and more creative with less structure.

3) An Alternative

At this point, it would be a good idea to step back and examine the meaning of “creativity.” Sir Ken Robinson defines creativity as “the process of having original ideas that have value.”

Consider the term “original ideas.” It’s important to establish a context here so that it doesn’t appear too abstract.

Having an idea that’s considered original depends on the conditions in which the idea was formed. I may have an idea that’s original to my experience, but old news to you. Additionally, consider a composer who writes music in the Baroque style. His/Her ideas may not be original in a broad, historical context, but creative, original work could still be achieved within the nuances of the style.

Originality and creativity are relative to experience. They depend on our fluency in, knowledge of, and relationship with the structures in which we live and create. Whenever we expand our relationship with structures through deliberate practice, we are consequently being more original. Likewise, a person’s assertion that something is creative will depend on his/her own knowledge of structure.

With this in mind, here’s another way to view creativity:

We are all equally creative.
We are all constantly working at our highest, creative potential
There’s no such thing as “improving creativity.”
Original ideas are a consequence of deliberate practice
We differ only in that we operate within different structures.

It could be represented as such:

Again, representing structure on a left-right, linear, x-axis isn’t totally appropriate. Structure is more holistic and always interacting on micro and macro levels. But it will do for now.

Next post, I’ll be further exploring the idea of “structure.”

Stay tuned!

No comments

Three Reflections on Creativity

Leave a Reply