Deriving Creativity

Thoughts on creativity and how it applies to more than just what is intuitively understood as art.

Contemplating a subject such as ‘creativity’ is a task as nebulous as it is complex. I freely admit it’s a subject that I am by no means an expert in, especially when contrasted with those who have dedicated countless hours to such a pursuit. To date I’ve read a hand full of books where creativity forms at least a major component of the foundational topics, if not the sole undertone, and the most enjoyable of which is undoubtedly More than a rock, by Guy Tal. I am yet to start his other books, though they are waiting patiently on the bookshelf for their custodian to come to his senses and make more time for them. While the writings of Guy Tal are not the complete basis for this article, it was while reading More than a rock that a single sentence within one of his essays stood out for me for a different reason, and brought about a coalescing of some old thoughts that I had been pondering for a while.

For a few years now, I’ve been contemplating what creativity is (largely in isolation until recently, I should add), and why the concept of it felt so alien to me. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that it would be a considerable bending of the truth if I proclaimed my younger self as creative, at least as far as we conventionally understand the term. It’s not that I was discouraged in any way, but looking back I struggle to recall any significant instances of encouragement that were more than just passing words or platitudes. Now that I come to not only reflect on creativity, but also attempt to be creative in my photography, I find it to be a practice most unfamiliar. As someone who tends to look for frameworks within which to operate, when esteemed people say phrases with the sentiment of ‘just use your creativity’, one quickly realises that there is of course no framework for this. Having come to terms with this, the obvious first question is where do I even begin?

In secondary education (age 11 to 16) I found the most satisfaction and familiarity within the sciences and mathematics and, with what seemed quite standard back in the mid to late 1990’s, there was very little encouragement and active support to improve at something one was not excelling at if that something was deemed less than critical (such as mathematics, science, and English). With a concomitant lack of any other creative outlet, I gradually concluded that I was not ‘creative’, and focused on what I felt I was best suited to. Though I paint a fairly dim picture, it is not precisely this which I am frustrated about today. Instead I wish to highlight the deeper issue I experienced during this period of my life, which is that I feel there was essentially no room for creativity within any subject which didn’t fall under the conventional category of ‘creative’. I of course do not wish in any way to indict the modern school system; how could I, it’s not something I’ve had any experience with since 2001 and of course a great deal can change in two and a half decades. Considering the period I did experience however, this is certainly how I feel about it in hindsight. During further education I opted to study photography alongside other subjects, and I have to say I found the non-technical aspects of this a struggle. Was I therefore doomed to being uncreative? Had I crossed the threshold of being limited to rational thought, rigid processes, or textbook understanding only? At the time I think it felt like it.

Coming forward in time a little, and I opted to read physics at university. This was the start of a journey that I would gladly take again and again. Studying physics (or any science for that matter) is perfect for anyone who derives joy from understanding, and in my case the desire was to understand how nature works. Hidden behind the high level lecture course titles constituting the four year long syllabus however, something crept in gradually, unannounced, and stealthily to those not in tune with the subtle whisperings - creativity. For what felt like the first time in my formal learning of science, we were being asked to think creatively about problems. Derive this equation just from this starting point, explain this as yet untaught phenomena, and other tasks of a similar nature. You can imagine the surprise, discomfort even, when one is so tuned in to being essentially spoon-fed what and how to learn. The obvious question in my mind was why could this type of creative thinking not have been introduced earlier?

Skipping forward again, following my undergraduate degree and a gap of a few years, I opted to embark on a year-long post-graduate masters course followed by a PhD in physics for four years. Being creative went from being something that would help here and there to a foundational requirement. Being creative was now unavoidable. It was pre-requisite to adding something genuinely new to human knowledge, and this is where the conventional understanding of the word creativity in an artistic sense overlaps with the scientific endeavour. It became unambiguously clear that creativity is essentially a life skill, and the realisation that I had overlooked this snapped dramatically into focus. I vividly recall later, during my years as a post-doctoral researcher, I asked Professor Steven Harris - a highly accomplished scientist at Stanford University - a question during a panel discussion following a conference, I inquired “What do you look for when hiring post-doctoral researchers?”, and in a way which effortlessly rolled off the tongue, he replied “Originality, creativity, new ideas.”.

I mentioned at the start that this article was prompted by a sentence within More than a rock by Guy Tal. I started reading Guys’ work because of its stellar reputation among the art and photography community, and it certainly lives up to it. Some refer to [Guy] as a modern philosopher and, while I am sure his genuine modesty would dismiss this notion, I am inclined to agree. He exhibits a level of understanding, insight, and reason that is impossible to keep at arms length. His advice and perspective can almost be felt working their way into the fabric of your thinking in real time. His words can smart a little on ones ego however - as they did mine on first reading - where in the opening section of this particular work, Guy discusses the pure motivation for creating art, and (I paraphrase) that simply making pretty pictures will never amount to anything memorable, let alone change the world or tackle a deep problem. A hard lesson to digest indeed when it pokes at ones current foundations, but well worth it when ones new foundation is much more robust. Continuing on with a now more open mind, I came across a point which prompted me to start thinking about writing this article.

In one of his essays Guy writes “To record accurately the light reflecting off subjects is a technical matter (a marvelous one, to be sure, but still one made possible by feats of technology, rather than human creativity).”. The singular instance where I disagree with Guy entirely begins after the word ‘but’. My understanding of what is being asserted here is that, like the thoughts of my younger self, creativity resides in a domain that excludes science, or indeed the technology which arises from work of a scientific nature. They stand apart in common understanding, where science is assumed to be procedural; a logical set of steps which, when followed correctly, yield knowledge and inventions. It is my humble opinion however that creativity is a pre-requisite of good science, and to address the point, that it took a considerable amount of creativity to develop the technology for capturing a photograph as we understand it today - be it the chemistry required to store light as part of a chemical reaction, or the semiconductor physics required to record light electronically - I believe it took a great deal of creativity to solve these problems.

From reading Guy’s work and being aware of his extensive reading into a wide range of subjects, I am in no way suggesting any degree of flippancy in his statement, but I have to admit to this sentence piquing my attention. I am mindful that I am picking a single sentence from within Guy’s extensive work, which could be perceived as cherry picking, even to the point of being perhaps a little unsporting; I sincerely hope it does not come across this way. I simply wish to challenge more widely this seemingly well engrained societal notion that creativity can be exercised only in an artistic endeavour, and instead posit that creativity can be exhibited in anything that we choose to do. Granted, the definition of creativity varies depending on who is asked to provide it, but in a lot of cases it revolves around the development and implementation of original/novel ideas to create something new. Some definitions even state that art/creativity should aim to address or solve a problem faced by humanity. Is the modern age of photography not the very definition of a problem faced by humanity which took creative effort and novel scientific ideas to solve?

As I stated above, I know little of the modern education system. All I can hope for in terms of addressing the points raised is that creativity is fostered in the teaching of every subject, not just art, and indeed from a young age. Creativity almost seems to be a skill we are born with. It’s honed in our early years as our basic understanding of the world around us is being formed, and then one which is somehow encouraged out of us during adolescence. Surely it would take little effort to alter our attitudes towards expanding this skill rather than squashing it? More specifically I am of course aware that learning the basics of science and mathematics requires a certain level of procedural learning in order to provide the foundation on which to build further, but I sincerely hope that in time the general perception of these subjects can be altered to accept that creativity is an intrinsic aspect. After all, when eventually faced with the remaining unsolved problems of humanity, surely creativity is a pre-requisite?

None of this is to say that I no longer struggle with creativity or how to be creative, but I am at least more comfortable with the notion that creativity can be found down any avenue. Its complexity seems less impenetrable and it’s no longer something to feel is unattainable. I’ve heard some say that starting is simply the act of giving yourself permission to be creative, and I could not agree with this more. Creating art with a deeper meaning and connection, even if only for myself at first, is something I am still working to understand and achieve, but in my less optimistic spells I can at least fall back on the notion that creativity can be everywhere, not just in the domain of art.