Uncreative creation

To begin with, a couple of words about the heading. Today's lecture could be summarized in one question: Can the output be creative if one’s work input is uncreative? One of the big, conceptual questions. Again.

So that you would understand what I am talking about, I think I’ll have to clarify my thoughts a bit. It is, however, not so weird that I am a bit messy. After today’s class with Dr. Nina Kivinen it is actually quite understandable that I behave this way. Nina was talking about printed media and the boundaries of creative work in it. The lecture was everything else but clear, almost creative, one could say – at least if you compare to ordinary lectures boring professors give to us. But no talk about that. I must keep to the relevant issues since we have a word limit (!) – how creative is that?

So, Nina discussed about the concepts “work”, “creative work” and “non-creative work”. How can you define these and what (invisible and visible) boundaries are there in between? Her actual research concentrates on the creative process of producing a print magazine. She has been examining the everyday life in a family owned teenage magazine and the most part of the lecture she described trivial but interesting observations she had done in the editorial. This might sound weird (and it is) but since the research is ongoing, it is impossible to say what the outcome will look like.

Personally, the most interesting part of the lecture was the discussion about the very regulated and subconscious working habits. What makes an organization behave in a certain way? How does the hierarchy look like and who determines it? The employees at the magazine seemed not to notice anything weird. They had always eaten at the same time, had the same habits and sat on the same places. The big question is, however, how has this to do with creativity. Maybe it hasn’t but that is not the point here. The point is rather to show that creative work can be done in an uncreative way. I think many of you agree on the fact that publishing a journal is creative. You have to come up with new ideas, express yourself, take photos etc. All this creative blaa di blaa, you know. But according to Nina’s study, they behaved in a most uncreative way. The work was quite mechanistic, regulated (working hours) and habitualized. 

 

The third interesting thing was the discussion about boundaries. You know the concept socially and mentally separating us from something else. What makes us behave like that? Who sets up the boundaries and what would happen if we would break them? Would my work be more creative if I would in the classroom sit beside the teacher in front of the class? This would most certainly break the habits. People would be surprised and maybe even behave differently. The teacher at least would behave differently. Maybe this would lead to something new. Students would remember that lecture and it would stick out from the masses of hundreds of lectures. Maybe Nina’s magazine editorial should as well try this. One day they would come to work, change places, eat different time or listen to different music. Just to see what happens. Would the next magazine be better or worse than the previous one? 

Picture from thecreativelife.com

Of course I don’t have any clear answers. The above mentioned could function as a creativity test. Does creative way of working affect the creativity of the outcome? This would naturally work only for a while – every change and every attempt to creativity becomes ordinary if it is done every day.

So, over and out. Word limit exceeded already 20 words ago. Oops.