Definitions of creativity

A definitive and generally agreed definition of creativity remains elusive as it is subjective, open to one’s interpretation and relative to the area of creative practice under discussion or scrutiny. Runco and Jaeger (ibid.) suggest that the first person to offer the standard definition in an unambiguous form was Stein (1953), predecessors’ attempts, they argue, were more inclined to focus on originality or genius.

The creative work is a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group in some point in time. […] By ‘novel’ I mean that the creative product did not exist previously in precisely the same form. […] The extent to which a work is novel depends on the extent to which it deviates from the traditional or the status quo. This may well depend on the nature of the problem that is attacked, the fund of knowledge or experience that exists in the field at the time, and the characteristics of the creative individual and those of the individuals with whom he [or she] is communicating. Often, in studying creativity, we tend to restrict ourselves to a study of the genius because the ‘distance’ between what he [or she] has done and what has existed is quite marked. […] In speaking of creativity, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between internal and external frames of reference (Stein, 1953:311–312). Stein definition recognises that creativity is not exclusive to the ‘genius’ and that there is a difference between the internal and the external contexts. His definition uses ideas that are still in use today and advanced for the time they were written. Indeed, if one reads further into the text there is a signpost to remix culture through his assertion that creative insight, “arises from a reintegration of already existing materials or knowledge, but when it is completed it contains elements that are new” (ibid.:311).

Academics, writers and commentators on creativity recognise that there is a broad range of activity which can be considered as creative. Distinctions have been made between a high level of creativity and ordinary or ‘democratic’ creativity, the latter phrase coined by National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCA) (1999). ‘’High’ or ‘big’ creativity would include definitions such as:

The achievement of something remarkable and new, something which transforms and changes a field of endeavour in a significant way […] the kinds of things that people do that change the world (Feldman et al., 1994:1).

Or:

[E]xceptional human capacity for thought and creation (Ryhammar and Brolin, 1999:261)

The problem with definitions concerning a high level of creativity is that they exclude the majority of the population as they deal mainly with highly talented individuals and, therefore, less pertinent to this focus of study. Csikszentmihalyi’s definition is a primary example:

For creativity to occur, a set of rules and practices must be transmitted from the domain to the individual. The individual must then produce a novel variation in the content of the domain. The domain then must be selected by the field for inclusion in the domain (1996:315).

Csikszentmihalyi’s definition demands that creativity must be innovative within a domain of expertise. Furthermore, the results from that creative process have to be acknowledged and accepted by ‘gatekeepers’ within that domain. This would mean that to produce a creative work the individual would not only need to produce a ground-breaking or pioneering outcome but have it recognised and approved by prominent and esteemed peers of that field. This would preclude most individuals and mean that their attempts at creativity would be unrecognised.

Therefore, definitions with a more ‘democratic’ orientation are more relevant to this study, which are concerned with and recognise the creativity of everyday people. This type of ‘small creativity’ could be considered to be more humble, though equally valuable. A good starting point is the previously referenced NACCCE report (1999).

[I]maginative activity fashioned so as to yield an outcome that is of value as well as original (ibid.:29)

The report’s definition places an importance on using one’s imagination to generate ideas. Crucially the report broadens the concept of ‘original’ to a more personal context in relationship to their previous work and their peers’ work as opposed to only

Being original: The originality of an outcome can be at different levels such as: individual originality in relation to one’s prior work, relative originality in relation to peer work and historic originality in relation to works that are completely unique. (ibid.)

The report makes a reference to the fashioning of imaginative activity arguing that creative activity involves playing with ideas and trying out possibilities, including modifications and failures, which shape an idea. Robinson (2001) has directed criticism at the UK education system arguing that people are being educated out of their creativity through the discouragement of experimentation and the failure that may result from this. Failing is often part of the process in learning how to reach a positive outcome. The NACCCE report (1999) suggests that there is a value in evaluation that is reciprocal to the generative mode of imaginative activity and provides critical, reflective review from peers. This implies a social and interactive process not directly associated with the internet but relevant to it.

A Demos report by Seltzer and Bentley defines creativity as: “the application of knowledge and skills in new ways to achieve a valued goal” (1999:viii) and offers four main characteristics that define the creative problem-solver.

• The ability to formulate new problems, rather than depending on others to define them.

• The ability to transfer knowledge gained in one context to another in order to solve a problem.

• A belief in learning as an incremental process, in which repeated attempts will eventually lead to success.

• The capacity to focus one’s attention in pursuit of a goal. (1999:19)

Here importance is placed on the process of creating and emphasises the intrinsic characteristics of creativity and less on the ‘uniqueness’ or ‘originality’ of the outcome. This is echoed by Craft who argues, ‘creativity […] is not necessarily linked with a product-outcome’ (2000:3). The emphasis is placed directed to ideas of individual creativity.

these practices with an importance given to the process of making and the connections made thereafter.

Everyday creativity refers to a process which brings together at least one active human mind, and the material or digital world, in the activity of making something. The activity has not been done in this way by this person (or these people) before. The process may arouse various emotions, such as excitement and frustration, but most especially a feeling of joy. When witnessing and appreciating the output, people may sense the presence of the maker, and recognise those feelings (Gauntlett, 2011:76).

Gauntlett’s defintion acknowleges a relationship to the digital world and emphasises the everyday process of creativity, rather than high level ‘innovative’ creativity that need expert validation. His definition focuses on the feelings of engaging in the creative process, which reaffirm the personal value of individual creativity to the creator and the connections and emotional connections made with the audience. Indeed, Gauntlett stresses the importance of making and connecting in acts of creativity and that they are actually part of the same process of making connections.

• Making is connecting because you have to connect things together (material, ideas or both) to make something new.

• Making is connecting because acts of creativity usually involve, at some point, a social dimension and connect us with other people.

• And making is connecting because through things and sharing them in the world, we increase our engagement and communications with our social and physical environments (ibid.:2).

Having made a link to the kind of creativity definitions pertinent in this study consideration needs to be given to the form of content this creativity could take.