Rai, I really respond to the “originality” factor being absent from my line of thinking. Thanks for that.

I also want to affirm the fact that I never meant to imply that creativity is only existant in the founding of something purely original. Of course almost every creation is a product of past experiences. I also did not mean to imply that I believe some people are not creative at all. I agree that we all have the potential to be creative within us. Just that some people tap into that creativity deeper than others.

And, of course, the original direction of my blog was to rail against those who are labeled as “creative types” simply because they hold a career position as an artisan. I’ve met many copywriters who were anything BUT original and creative. Same goes for designers, photographers and art directors.

I was watching an episode of Dinner for Five on the Independent Film Channel last night and the topic of “credit” came up. For screenwriters, they are only credited in a film if they dramatically alter the structure of a script. A writer can be brought in to fix crucial errors, to completely rewrite entire scenes, or to breathe life into the dialogue but unless they change the direction of a story, they are nonexistent when the credits roll. Sure, the assistant to the assistant hairdresser is listed but (because the Writer’s Guild of America is one of the weakest unions) only the “structural” screenwriters are listed. I experienced this first hand when I did script work on two different tv movies last year. I was brought in during production and did major work on the final product. In one case, I literally rewrote two pivotal scenes from the ground up (and one of these scenes was shown on a recent awards show). But because I didn’t change the storyline, I wasn’t credited. What does this mean? I didn’t come up with (create) the concept of either movie but I did come up with creative solutions to huge problems in the movie. It’s funny but when I think of these two projects, I don’t think of myself as being “artistic” because I was dealing with the mechanics, nitty gritty details of the scripts. I agonized over every single word of dialogue with literal scene “formulas” drawn out on chalkboards ala calculus theorums. But I certainly felt creative as I struggled to take a broken scene and transform it into something that worked, something that was a piece of art.

I believe that creative is about approach. Almost everything - be it film, graphic design, or mathematical theories - is based on a predecessor. But what do you do with the raw material/inspiration? Do you simply repackage it or do you spin it on its head? I think a good example of this is cooking. I don’t know of anyone inventing new ingredients so, using a strict interpretation of your definition, one could argue that no chefs today can be “creative”. But when a chef takes Asian spices and infuses them to Latin dishes or combines flavors & ingredients to create an unexpected palette, it is a creative approach to cooking. Meanwhile, artistic cooking (in my opinion) is thinking about the aesthetics. In other words, will the dish appeal to all the senses?

I concur with your statement that artistry and creativity are two different realms. But I don’t believe that creativity can be quantified as being “more” or “less” simply by measuring how much of the idea is new. That is where another realm comes in: originality.

But as humans, I believe we are made in the ‘imago Dei’ or ‘image of God’ and he has instilled in us this creative urge, and creative ability.

This is by no means limited to artistic endeavors, as Kenny and other have said. We are able to create human beings, we are able to create ideas, and realities with our words. We are able to create incredible devices specifically for “uncreating” people and buildings. Out innate creative ability is a gift from God that, like any other gift, can be incredibly abused.

So, to sum up. All people are creative, because all people are made in the image of God. How they express that creativity, or not, is the key.

Unfortunately I can’t gather my thoughts enough to post an insightful response to your question. I need to come up with three creative ideas by tomorrow at 8am and I only have one. Creativity on-demand is a whole other issue I struggle with…

i agree with you whole-heartedly about good mathematicians and scientists, and it’s a good question you posed about what really makes someone creative. creativity manifests itself in so many different ways that i would be hard-pressed to say that any individual is NOT creative. it kind of follows parallel to the idea of emotional intelligences–some are creative musically, some socially, some criminally, but they’re all creative. maybe we all have the capacity to be creative in one or various ways, and some have either chosen to or found themselves in circumstances that highlight those inherent abilities. if God is the final word in creativity, and we’re made in his image, i’d like to think that we’re all pretty creative.

i’ve also been told i was creative, and i had no idea what they are talking about. I can’t make up anything. stories, games, nicknames, whatever..i can’t do it. Maybe i’m just good at mooching off of other people’s creativeness….