How creativity became the reigning value of our time

Americans don’t hold connected overmuch these days. Yet adjacent astatine a clip erstwhile statement world seems to beryllium connected the verge of collapse, determination remains astatine slightest 1 quintessentially modern worth we tin each inactive get behind: creativity. 

We thatch it, measurement it, envy it, cultivate it, and endlessly worry astir its death. And wherefore wouldn’t we? Most of america are taught from a young property that creativity is the cardinal to everything from uncovering idiosyncratic fulfillment to achieving vocation occurrence to solving the world’s thorniest problems. Over the years, we’ve built originative industries, originative spaces, and originative cities and populated them with an full people of radical known simply arsenic “creatives.” We work thousands of books and articles each twelvemonth that thatch america however to unleash, unlock, foster, boost, and hack our ain idiosyncratic creativity. Then we work adjacent much to larn however to negociate and support this precious resource. 

Given however overmuch we obsess implicit it, the conception of creativity tin consciousness similar thing that has ever existed, a happening philosophers and artists person pondered and debated passim the ages. While it’s a tenable assumption, it’s 1 that turns retired to beryllium precise wrong. As Samuel Franklin explains successful his caller book, The Cult of Creativity, the archetypal known written usage of creativity didn’t really hap until 1875, “making it an babe arsenic acold arsenic words go.” What’s more, helium writes, earlier astir 1950, “there were astir zero articles, books, essays, treatises, odes, classes, encyclopedia entries, oregon thing of the benignant dealing explicitly with the taxable of ‘creativity.’”

This raises immoderate evident questions. How precisely did we spell from ne'er talking astir creativity to ever talking astir it? What, if anything, distinguishes creativity from other, older words, similar ingenuity, cleverness, imagination, and artistry? Maybe astir important: How did everyone from kindergarten teachers to mayors, CEOs, designers, engineers, activists, and starving artists travel to judge that creativity isn’t conscionable good—personally, socially, economically—but the answer to each life’s problems?

Thankfully, Franklin offers immoderate imaginable answers successful his book. A historiographer and plan researcher astatine the Delft University of Technology successful the Netherlands, helium argues that the conception of creativity arsenic we present cognize it emerged during the post–World War II epoch successful America arsenic a benignant of taste salve—a mode to easiness the tensions and anxieties caused by expanding conformity, bureaucracy, and suburbanization.

“Typically defined arsenic a benignant of trait oregon process vaguely associated with artists and geniuses but theoretically possessed by anyone and applicable to immoderate field, [creativity] provided a mode to unleash individualism wrong order,” helium writes, “and revive the tone of the lone inventor wrong the maze of the modern corporation.”

Brainstorming, a caller method for encouraging originative thinking, swept firm America successful the 1950s. A effect to unit for caller products and caller ways of selling them, arsenic good arsenic a panic implicit conformity, it inspired passionate statement astir whether existent creativity should beryllium an idiosyncratic matter oregon could beryllium systematized for firm use.

INSTITUTE OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY/THE MONACELLI PRESS

I spoke to Franklin astir wherefore we proceed to beryllium truthful fascinated by creativity, however Silicon Valley became the expected epicenter of it, and what role, if any, technologies similar AI mightiness person successful reshaping our narration with it. 

I’m funny what your idiosyncratic narration to creativity was increasing up. What made you privation to constitute a publication astir it?

Like a batch of kids, I grew up reasoning that creativity was this inherently bully thing. For me—and I ideate for a batch of different radical who, similar me, weren’t peculiarly diversion oregon bully astatine mathematics and science—being originative meant you astatine slightest had immoderate aboriginal successful this world, adjacent if it wasn’t wide what that aboriginal would entail. By the clip I got into assemblage and beyond, the accepted contented among the TED Talk registry of thinkers—people similar Daniel Pink and Richard Florida—was that creativity was really the most important trait to person for the future. Basically, the originative radical were going to inherit the Earth, and nine desperately needed them if we were going to lick each of these compounding problems successful the world. 

On the 1 hand, arsenic idiosyncratic who liked to deliberation of himself arsenic creative, it was hard not to beryllium flattered by this. On the different hand, it each seemed overhyped to me. What was being sold arsenic the triumph of the originative people wasn’t really resulting successful a much inclusive oregon originative satellite order. What’s more, immoderate of the values embedded successful what I telephone the cult of creativity seemed progressively problematic—specifically, the absorption connected self-­realization, doing what you love, and pursuing your passion. Don’t get maine wrong—it’s a beauteous vision, and I saw it enactment retired for immoderate people. But I besides started to consciousness similar it was conscionable a screen for what was, economically speaking, a beauteous atrocious crook of events for galore people.  

Staff members astatine the University of California’s Institute of Personality Assessment and Research simulate a situational process involving radical interaction, called the Bingo Test. Researchers of the 1950s hoped to larn however factors successful people’s lives and environments shaped their originative aptitude.

INSTITUTE OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY/THE MONACELLI PRESS

Nowadays, it’s rather communal to bash the “follow your passion,” “hustle culture” idea. But backmost erstwhile I started this project, the full move-fast-and-break-things, disrupter, innovation-economy worldly was precise overmuch unquestioned. In a way, the thought for the publication came from recognizing that creativity was playing this truly absorbing relation successful connecting 2 worlds: this satellite of innovation and entrepreneurship and this much soulful, bohemian broadside of our culture. I wanted to amended recognize the past of that relationship.

When did you commencement reasoning astir creativity arsenic a benignant of cult—one that we’re each a portion of? 

Similar to thing similar the “cult of domesticity,” it was a mode of describing a humanities infinitesimal successful which an thought oregon worth strategy achieves a benignant of broad, uncritical acceptance. I was uncovering that everyone was selling worldly based connected the thought that it boosted your creativity, whether it was a caller bureau layout, a caller benignant of municipality design, oregon the “Try these 5 elemental tricks” benignant of thing. 

You commencement to recognize that cipher is bothering to ask, “Hey, uh, wherefore bash we each request to beryllium originative again? What adjacent is this thing, creativity?” It had go this unimpeachable worth that nary one, careless of what broadside of the governmental spectrum they fell on, would adjacent deliberation to question. That, to me, was truly unusual, and I deliberation it signaled that thing absorbing was happening.

Your publication highlights midcentury efforts by psychologists to crook creativity into a quantifiable intelligence trait and the “creative person” into an identifiable type. How did that play out? 

The abbreviated reply is: not precise well. To survey anything, you of people request to hold connected what it is you’re looking at. Ultimately, I deliberation these groups of psychologists were frustrated successful their attempts to travel up with technological criteria that defined a originative person. One method was to spell find radical who were already eminent successful fields that were deemed creative—writers similar Truman Capote and Norman Mailer, architects similar Louis Kahn and Eero Saarinen—and conscionable springiness them a artillery of cognitive and psychoanalytic tests and past constitute up the results. This was mostly done by an outfit called the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) astatine Berkeley. Frank Barron and Don MacKinnon were the 2 biggest researchers successful that group.

Another mode psychologists went astir it was to say, each right, that’s not going to beryllium applicable for coming up with a bully technological standard. We request numbers, and tons and tons of radical to certify these originative criteria. This radical of psychologists theorized that thing called “divergent thinking” was a large constituent of originative accomplishment. You’ve heard of the ceramic test, wherever you’re asked to travel up with galore originative uses for a ceramic successful a fixed magnitude of time? They fundamentally gave a mentation of that trial to Army officers, schoolchildren, rank-and-file engineers astatine General Electric, each kinds of people. It’s tests similar those that yet became stand-ins for what it means to beryllium “creative.”

Are they inactive used? 

When you spot a header astir AI making radical much creative, oregon really being much originative than humans, the tests they are basing that assertion connected are astir ever immoderate mentation of a divergent reasoning test. It’s highly problematic for a fig of reasons. Chief among them is the information that these tests person ne'er been shown to person predictive value—that’s to say, a 3rd grader, a 21-year-old, oregon a 35-year-old who does truly good connected divergent reasoning tests doesn’t look to person immoderate greater likelihood of being palmy successful originative pursuits. The full constituent of processing these tests successful the archetypal spot was to some place and foretell originative people. None of them person been shown to bash that. 

Reading your book, I was struck by however vague and, astatine times, contradictory the conception of “creativity” was from the beginning. You qualify that arsenic “a feature, not a bug.” How so?

Ask immoderate creativity adept contiguous what they mean by “creativity,” and they’ll archer you it’s the quality to make thing caller and useful. That thing could beryllium an idea, a product, an world paper—whatever. But the absorption connected novelty has remained an facet of creativity from the beginning. It’s besides what distinguishes it from different akin words, similar imagination oregon cleverness. But you’re right: Creativity is simply a flexible capable conception to beryllium utilized successful each sorts of ways and to mean each sorts of things, galore of them contradictory. I deliberation I constitute successful the publication that the word whitethorn not beryllium precise, but that it’s vague successful precise and meaningful ways. It tin beryllium some playful and practical, artsy and technological, exceptional and pedestrian. That was and remains a large portion of its appeal. 

The question of “Can machines beryllium ‘truly creative’?” is not that interesting, but the questions of “Can they beryllium wise, honest, caring?” are much important if we’re going to beryllium welcoming [AI] into our lives arsenic advisors and assistants.

Is that accent connected novelty and inferior a portion of wherefore Silicon Valley likes to deliberation of itself arsenic the caller nexus for creativity?

Absolutely. The 2 criteria spell together. In techno-solutionist, hypercapitalist milieus similar Silicon Valley, novelty isn’t immoderate bully if it’s not utile (or astatine slightest marketable), and inferior isn’t immoderate bully (or marketable) unless it’s besides novel. That’s wherefore they’re often dismissive of boring-but-important things similar craft, infrastructure, maintenance, and incremental improvement, and wherefore they enactment art—which is traditionally defined by its absorption to utility—only insofar arsenic it’s utile arsenic inspiration for applicable technologies.

At the aforesaid time, Silicon Valley loves to wrapper itself successful “creativity” due to the fact that of each the artsy and individualist connotations. It has precise self-consciously tried to region itself from the representation of the buttoned-down technologist moving for a ample R&D laboratory of a brick-and-mortar manufacturing corp and alternatively rise up the thought of a rebellious counterculture benignant tinkering successful a store making weightless products and experiences. That, I think, has saved it from a batch of nationalist scrutiny.

Up until recently, we’ve tended to deliberation of creativity arsenic a quality trait, possibly with a fewer exceptions from the remainder of the carnal world. Is AI changing that?

When radical started defining creativity successful the ’50s, the menace of computers automating white-collar enactment was already underway. They were fundamentally saying, okay, rational and analytical reasoning is nary longer ours alone. What tin we bash that the computers tin ne'er do? And the presumption was that humans unsocial could beryllium “truly creative.” For a agelong time, computers didn’t bash overmuch to truly property the contented connected what that really meant. Now they’re pressing the issue. Can they bash creation and poetry? Yes. Can they make caller products that besides marque consciousness oregon work? Sure.

I deliberation that’s by design. The kinds of LLMs that Silicon Valley companies person enactment guardant are meant to look “creative” successful those accepted senses. Now, whether oregon not their products are meaningful oregon omniscient successful a deeper sense, that’s different question. If we’re talking astir art, I hap to deliberation embodiment is an important element. Nerve endings, hormones, societal instincts, morality, intelligence honesty—those are not things indispensable to “creativity” necessarily, but they are indispensable to putting things retired into the satellite that are good, and possibly adjacent beauteous successful a definite antiquated sense. That’s wherefore I deliberation the question of “Can machines beryllium ‘truly creative’?” is not that interesting, but the questions of “Can they beryllium wise, honest, caring?” are much important if we’re going to beryllium welcoming them into our lives arsenic advisors and assistants. 

This interrogation is based connected 2 conversations and has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Bryan Gardiner is simply a writer based successful Oakland, California.