“Seeing what nobody else sees…”
-Michalko, 2006
In my opinion, it is just to define creativity within its context. Because I always believed that creativity is defined not by logic or rationalization; it is defined by creativity, itself.
That is why I appreciate different definitions of this powerful word coming from different “creative” people, especially the one presented above. Creativity was defined by using a verb normally used to support movement of our eyes. If you’ll read it and understood it literally, you will conclude within yourself that this statement probably describes a mad or crazy person. But if you use your creativity in this statement, you will find yourself having a certain understanding to where this statement is addressed and eventually find out that how you understand this statement would most probably be different to others as well.
I don’t want to highlight the technical parts of our creativity lecture. I just want to emphasize the “creativity” within “creativity”.
“CREATE to INNOVATE”
-Simon Majaro, 1988
You sometimes confuse yourself between the two but honestly, Creativity occurs before Innovation. You generate ideas to be applied on to something. You compose to write a book. You imagine to make a film. You mix colors to paint a mural. You gather things to invent. You Create to Innovate.
“Mandala of Japanese Creativity”
-Tatsuno, 1990
Last meeting, this topic interested me the most. Their process in innovation through creativity is what I really believed a creativity process should be. A lot of years have passed, a lot of inventions had already seen and even though you have something new in your hands, you are unaware of the similarities you may have with the rest of the world. Generating Ideas is a very practical way in creating something but every time we generate ideas, we should give credits to past innovations where sometimes limits us in producing new concepts. That is why Idea Recycling should be the first step in the Creative process. Giving recognition to used ideas and making them valuable in forming new ideas is better creativity, if you’ll ask me.
“CREATIVITY within CREATIVITY”
-Anonymous
After this topic was discussed, I honestly had a different view on creativity, especially in associating the word creativity to a person, place or thing.
For me, CREATIVITY cannot be defined by other terms. CREATIVITY can be defined by itself.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteyes. creative would speak for itself. michalko's words are also familiar with research works. "seeing things what nobody sees"... it has the same point of a scientist named Albert Szent-Gyorgyi butwith him its also thinking what nobody else has thought. Its viewed with ones perspective. which is often times becomes the point of agruement when it comes to self-expression of ones creativity -- think of the "kulo exhibit" CCP which was true to its word, it really boiled-up some heat and tension between church and artists. so creativity is something that can't be explained in one point of view.
ReplyDeletewe all have different view about creativity. what sir beaver said, there is no wrong definition and for me that for as long as we understand how a person should be creative, that's considered correct. For some it may be technical but I would agree that creativity speaks for itself. If one person aspires to creative, I would advice not to think to much but be just him or herself. creativity will come out naturally to a person who really understand what's going on to his society and how she or he overcomes situations or problems.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. Creativity is creativity. I'm not sure if you will agree with me but I think that when you box the word CREATIVITY with a certain definition, then it would no longer be creativity. I think that is why there are numerous definitions of the word because it cannot be fully described in a single sentence. :)
ReplyDelete