|
Passages Of The Day |
|
| |
| Misperceptions about Creativity |
At several points in the book I have made comments about the way creativity is sometimes regarded. At various points later in the book I shall very likely make further comments. I feel, however, that there is some value in bringing together in one place these various points. This may lead to a degree of repetition, but that in itself can be useful. Quite obviously the views I put forward here are personal opinions based on many years experience in the field of creative thinking and the teaching of creative thinking skills.
1. Creativity Is A Natural Talent And Cannot Be Taught
This misperception is actually very convenient because it relieves everybody of the need to do anything about fostering creativity. If it is only available as a natural talent then there is no point in seeking to do anything about creativity.
The argument is usually set by pointing to rather extreme cases of creativity such as Mozart, Einstein, or Michelangelo. This is not unlike saying there is no point in teaching mathematics because mathematical geniuses like Poincare cannot be produced to order. We do not give up teaching people to play the piano or violin because we cannot guarantee a Liszt or Paderewski from every pupil. Can you produce a Bjorn Borg or Martina Navratilova from every tennis pupil?
There are very useful levels of mathematical ability, piano playing, violin playing, and tennis playing, even when these fall short of genius.
Imagine a row of people lined up to run a race. The starting signal is given and the race is run. Someone comes first and someone comes last. Performance has depended on natural running ability. Now suppose someone invents the "roller skate" and gives all the runners some training on the roller skates. The race is run again. Everyone goes much faster than before. Someone will still come first and someone will still come last.
If we do nothing at all about creativity then obviously creative ability can only depend on "natural" talent. But if we provide training, structures, and systematic techniques, then we can raise the general level of creative ability. Some people will still be much better than others but everyone can acquire some creative skill. There is no contradiction at all between "talent" and "training". Any athletics or opera coach can make that point.
That some people are naturally creative does not mean than such people would not be even more creative with some training and techniques. Nor does it mean than other people can never become creative.
When I first started writing about creativity I half expected truly creative people to say that they did not need such matters. Quite the contrary happened. Many well-known creative people got in touch with me to say how useful they found some of the processes.
At this point in time there is also a wealth of experience to show how people have used deliberate lateral thinking techniques to develop powerful ideas. There is also a lot of experience from others to show that training in creative thinking can make a significant difference.
On an experimental basis, it is quite easy to show how even as simple a technique as the random word can immediately lead to more ideas; ideas that are different from those that have been offered before.
In my view, learning creative thinking is no different from learning mathematics or any sport. We do not sit back and say that natural talent is sufficient and nothing can be done. We know that natural talent, where it exists, will be enhanced by the training and processes.
In my view, and at this point in time, I think the view that creativity cannot be learned is no longer tenable.
It may not be possible to train genius - but there is an awful lot of useful creativity that takes place without genius. |
-----
"Serious Creativity," by Edward de Bono, ISBN 0006379583 Copyright © Mc Quaig Group Inc., 1992
|
|
|
