Introduction
Review Of Literature
Part I: Looking to History
Looking At The Lives Of The Masters: Einstein & Da Vinci
It's The Science...(Or Lack Of It)
It's The Spirit (or Spirituality) Of It...
The Question Of Talent & Cultural Disposition
Creative Types, Traits And "The Creative Personality"
The Path(s) To Inspiration
Part II: Unlocking Creativity
In Their Own Words...A Collection Of Useful & Interesting Quotes...
Part III: Discussion
Conclusion
Creativity Exercises
Bibliography

Written by Daniel Barnhardt

Introduction

The book Creators On Creating (1990), edited by Frank Barron, et al., cites the recent years of rapid and radical social change, its destabilizing effect on individuals and the outward affects on all aspects of our society. Not only is the destabilizing effect felt in our society, but individuals are also reflecting that back into society, into its organizations, businesses and institutions. The authors assert that creativity is of compelling importance in solving individual and societal problems. In an uncertain future, "...creativity can only increase in value. It opens doors and historically produces change for the better in the material condition."

Creativity is a magical and supremely practical key, rarely recognized or used either by the individual or society. How much better off would we be if government were more creative in dealing with the issues it faces? Established religions could shake themselves loose from creed and ritual and bring a more personal realization of God to the faithful. Health care and public education would open themselves to more creative collaboration with their clients and use of their knowledge base.

The individual, who is the catalyst for and the force of all change and creativity, would benefit immensely because he or she would be both the active protagonist and the active beneficiary of such creative change. Personal happiness would increase because individuals would find value and importance in creating solutions that would benefit themselves and others. Society would improve because of the active interest and stake in making these solutions work practically. Society would improve because its service would now be [once again] directly linked to preserving the individual. The individual would improve because he/she was now the benefit of society.

But what is creativity? Though it's been studied, analyzed dissected discussed and documented as if it were a tangible thing, we have no generally accepted definition of creativity—no agreement on precisely what it is. The Dictionary? It defines creativity as "the ability to create." We tend to immediately link creativity to the arts, and perhaps in our current mindset it is most apparent there because that is where it fits most precisely with our hazy definition of it. "The ability to create?" To create what? Things that didn't exist before, or didn't exist the same way before they were created. They are the invisible, intangible things of thought until they are actually created. And that, for the most part, dwells comfortably within our culture and society as "art," mostly because of our cultural ignorance of art. The cultures of Europe and Asia infuse an appreciation of art into their everyday lives, artists are looked upon much as craftsman, skilled and filling a place in society. In our Anglo-Western society, the place of art has been unsettled. It is a frivolity, an amusement of the rich, an impractical and sometimes immoral profession. We have for the most part ignorantly consigned "art" to the realm of the unknowable. And in the realm of the "unknowable" resides creativity.

Society trains us to obey the rules in jobs, in families, and life in general. It is how society works. Eventually we become experts who have mastered the rules and perform well inside their confines, meeting the expectations of the status quo. As we do this, we begin to accept a status quo, and the "rules" which started out as a generally good idea for the organization of activity become blindly and blandly accepted "laws" that govern and restrict the very thing they were established to do, which is to encourage and maximize mental and physical activity. When these laws remain unchallenged, especially in our individual thinking, they lead to unproductive and sometimes bizarre ends.

Take, as an example, our railroad system. Trains run on something called "standard gage," which is the dimension of the train rails. It runs on "standard gage" because Britain runs on standard gage, and Britain initially built the first train cars for us. Britain made the train cars a certain size, because the axels had to be a certain size. They made their axels that size because their trains started out on roads, and the roads were initially the width of the ruts in the roads—ruts originally made by Roman chariots, which had two horses. So our trains are the width of a Roman chariot. Now while this may not necessarily be "bad," it almost certainly could have been better. However, events just kept evolving and no one questioned the wisdom of continuing to do things a certain way, because they had always been done that way.

Books abound on the subject as seekers pursue a concept that eludes and recedes as surely as we grasp and advance in an effort at understanding it. Creativity. We all seem to recognize it when we see it. We admire it, and perhaps envy it in others. But we do not know it—even when it lives within us. Certainly even the primitive cave men who daily faced death and survival created crude drawings that were more than mere histories and factual data. The answer must be that creativity and imagination, the elements essential to creating, are a basic part of every human being.

Creativity and innovation lie at the heart of our humanity. We prize creativity because, in a sense, civilization has created itself and continues to create itself. Yet a certain carelessness exists in regard to our cultivation of creativity. Though we prize it and recognize its great merit, we also casually disregard the cultivation of it in everyday life. Yet it is this freedom, perhaps above all others, that enriches and gives meaning to the existence that is otherwise merely a tracking of scheduled activity within non-creative boundaries.

"Studies of creativity usually recount the actions of genius." Fritz (1991). The triumphs and the lives of those such as Kepler, Copernicus and Einstein are recounted in explanations of creative innovation. But the common man must shrug and think to himself, "But I am no Einstein." So the challenge becomes to specify the creative genius in relation to the daily travails of the common man, illustrating more perhaps of those days when even Einstein was "common," when he arrived at nothing more than careless doodles on a paper.

Lynn Levesque, in Breakthrough Creativity states, "...creativity is the ability to consistently produce different and valuable results. For creativity to be useful and valuable it must be constant and intentional in its application." This is not to say that spontaneous moments of unprovoked creativity may occur through sudden insight, but that for creativity to be a tool to us, we must learn how to bring it into play constructively and consciously.

An anecdote of a Hollywood executive recounts his weekly "creative meetings" where he would sit with designers and writers and invariably ask for everyone to throw as many ideas into the pot as possible, with the goal of taking the "top 50" ideas and pasting the most-liked elements together in order to get the best possible creative expression. But he didn't last long. He was not creative and neither were his meetings. There was no creative application. He was making soup not only without a recipe or regard for the ingredients, but without regard to a goal of a particular kind of soup.

It should be noted here that there is a serious drawback in writing and communicating an idea, and especially in writing about creativity. Creativity is usually impulses and instincts that carry a certain—if not emotional, then certainly intellectual—essence; a rightness and a directed purpose or wholeness. But words are a different medium, and written and spoken words are even different from each other. For that reason many great creative thinkers have had great difficulty and an aversion to expressing themselves in language. They can express themselves in symbolic representation—pictures, visual medium, music, numbers and so forth. But words are relatively ineffective in explaining or defining anything not so material, unless it be through the use of symbolic writing, i.e. metaphor, analogy etc... In fact, many creatives, when entering or existing in that world of imaginative non-tangibles, find themselves temporarily at a loss when forced to confront a material picture. (This is manifest in the anecdotes of Einstein staring at a doorknob for several moments as he tried to understand what it was for.)

Creativity is a "radical act of freedom." This freedom is not achieved by mining in shafts already well explored. It resides in the realms of the unknown. Creativity holds both pleasure and pain. The pleasure can be immeasurable and is accompanied by an inevitable opening of perspectives and new ideas, almost as if a new road has been forged in the pathways of our thinking, giving us more freedom and access to cover more and different terrain in our explorations. However, creativity can be dangerous in the sense that we must be ready and willing to accept rejection and disapproval, including dissatisfaction with old ways of seeing and thinking, perhaps even a degree of disenfranchisement from people, lifestyles and activities that no longer fit within our new and broader (perhaps deeper) perspectives. As an extreme example, think of Galileo, whose creativity evoked questions that led him to upset the established "facts" of the day that were established by science and the church. He suggested that the world was round and that the planets revolved around the sun rather than the Earth. He was actually arrested, stood trial and had to retract his statement if he did not want to face dire consequences.

Consider for a moment that you have suddenly been inspired that a certain key fact upon which our society and scientific knowledge, both as controlled and defined by a higher authority as the Church, in this instant, is wrong. Suppose that you began an inquiry as to why certain people are more susceptible to colds, or melancholy, and delve into the little known or understood science of the brain. Here you are led through sudden insight into great discoveries that demonstrably prove that the earth and its people are an insignificant sub-species among a larger cluster population of intelligent beings, whose primary philosophy and society is based on the fact that living beings are not created equal. There is, in fact, a genetic code that predetermines value and usefulness to advance society and therefore all roles are predetermined and opportunities will be defined, controlled and limited. Though an exact analogy is perhaps impossible, this breadth and implication of such a scenario is at least parallel with Galileo's dilemma.

His knowledge broke the back of everything the known world believed about itself and the "natural" command and order of the power structures. He found himself, while able to prove the assertion, without friend, neighbor or family to encourage or comfort him, for his discovery threatened them, their beliefs and status as well.

While few of us need fear that our pursuit of unlocking creativity within ourselves will set the world on its edge, be assured that it will, at some point, undoubtedly set our world on its edge. Imagine the struggles of blacks and abolitionists within slave societies, or of feminists bound by law and custom in a traditional marriage. "The strokes of genius are but the outcome of a continuous habit of inquiry that grasps clearly and distinctly all that is involved in the simple things that anyone can understand." (Bernard J. F. Lonergan) Many who have questioned and have evolved their thinking to find ideas and ways, better than an accepted and established tradition, have encountered turbulence amid a sometimes untenable situation. Employment, relationships, religion... day to day expectations of order and structure are invariably affected within our thinking and so affect our ability to function comfortably within them.

Ken Wilbur, in The Spectrum of Consciousness (1977), proposes that there should be A Grand Unification Theory of Consciousness, just as a Grand Unification Theory was developed in physics to reconcile and unite the various demonstrable theories that existed within entirely different camps of thought. This Grand Unification Theory would reconcile Western and Eastern philosophies together with the sciences of physiology and psychology that have presented us with certain ideas and data.

William James, in his oft quoted literary works says, "Our normal waking consciousness is but one special type of consciousness, while all about it and parted from it ... there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the requisite stimulus and at a touch they are there in all their completeness." What is the touch or stimulus that unifies these seemingly disparate forms of consciousness? Certainly, times of great stress, or need, or despair or hope have parted those "flimsiest of films", and have broken through that perspective we insist on to provide ourselves and others what we needed.

In a way, a certain kind of stubbornness is in play here. Though that seems an odd word to describe something that our understanding tells us is very unusual—the sudden appearance of new insights and avenues of thought that seem to come "from nowhere"—it does indeed seem, at bottom line, to be nothing more than our own stubborn insistence on believing a certain thing that deprives us from bounteous fields of creative inspiration. James continues his observation: "No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question... At any rate, they forbid our premature closing of accounts with reality."

Our environment is flooded with numerous types of radiation: X rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, infrared, ultraviolet, etc., but we don't see them. That doesn't mean they aren't there. Once we discovered these and became aware of them, we swiftly developed ways to harness and use them: microwave ovens, growing lamps, health care... Interestingly, all of these are either profoundly different or subtly the same, depending on how you look at them. The spectrum difference between ultraviolet and infrared appear profoundly different when we put them on a chart and analyze them with the spectrum of our own "seeing." But what separates them is the relatively minor amplitude of a wave or frequency, both of which have little meaning to us who cannot recognize their presence anyway. The difference is also profound if one tries to use X rays to cook a frozen TV dinner. Of course, a major point in all this is the profound influence of creativity upon others; that once the very first radiation outside of the visible spectrum was discovered, it was fairly quickly that many were discovered. In other words, once it was established as "there," it became easier for people to accept that other things could be "there" too.

As with the spectrums of radiation, consciousness may be thought of to be different band of vibration. Some, the "normal" or "everyday" level of consciousness we employ, is scarcely aware enough to even be labeled as consciousness. Most of our daily activities are carried about in a state of automatonic habit without any real conscious choice or perception taking place.

As there are differing levels of vibrational consciousness, so the methods of approaching, cognizing and relating to and tapping into these levels are varied. One may study Buddhism or Christianity or both. Neither is "right" or "wrong" and both access and are directed to differing types of awareness. These levels of awareness affect the way we function, for we act in accordance with our perspective. To refer to the earlier examples of the radiation spectrum, we generally see what we're expecting to see. If we don't expect possibilities, we don't find possibilities. If we are limited to unquestioningly reacting to what we believe is established as fact—from the occurrence of natural phenomena to the behavior of individuals and organizations—then we, for the most part, do not and cannot play a truly active part in our own existence. While there is ample evidence of our material lives being affected by our creative consciousness projecting outward, there is also the matter of our perception of the material world being creatively affected and thus enriching our lives.

As an example, some years ago, the Christian Science Monitor newspaper ran a series on art in the inner city. Through the exploration, which involved giving art materials to poor inner-city youth. The expectation was, undoubtedly, to see the gritty poverty and struggle for existence through the eyes of those experiencing it. But the astonishing result was—if not epitomized—then aptly illustrated in one result: a soft-focus, black and white photograph of dust floating through the light of a dirty, cracked window. Not only was this not a dramatic struggle illustrated harshly, this was art. And beyond art, here was beauty, imaginatively created through a perspective that the readers and project coordinators could not have anticipated. That is, not only was the anticipated result not experienced, but in this instance those who were anticipating a certain preconceived result were forced to reexamine their own perceptions, as in "What is beauty?" and "Where do I look for beauty?" Here, some very intelligent and thoughtful people came up against one of their unconscious "walls," a barrier of prejudice, a preconceived expectation that limited their view and therefore their understanding—a barrier in perception that infringed upon their daily expectation and experience.

Ultimately, the goal of unlocking creativity in ourselves is for us to tear through these barriers. Each of us, as a specifically attuned instrument, will respond better or more readily to a particular approach. A particular key sentiment or structure may resonate more strongly within us. And we need to be aware enough of ourselves to know not only when such devices are attuned to our natures, but to also know our own strengths and weaknesses in terms of where we intrinsically rebel against a prescribed "formula" of activity in our lives, and where we lazily accept a status quo, even if it seems innocuous or justifiable. In fact, it is usually the very things that we casually accept in the day-to-day routines of our lives that provide the most opportunity for changing, and practicing change in, our thinking. This self knowledge lends itself to developing our own "instinctive knowing," a feeling about where and how to begin, where and how to turn, what and when to unlock and let go.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Review Of Literature

Several books were used for this course and I found them quite informative on the process of unlocking creativity and imagination. The first book is called The Writing Life: Writers On How They Think And Work (2003), edited by Marie Arana. This is an interesting, easy read as a cursory insight into the craft and art of writing.

Writers: On Writing. Collected Essays (2001) edited by John Darnton is fairly interesting for what it does not contain. Most writers, rather than discussing the writing process, wind inventively around the process.

Drawing On The Artist Within (1987) by Betty Edwards is fascinating, well organized and practical. It is both an insight and an inspiration.

Drawing On The Right Side of the Brain (1986) by Betty Edwards is a mini-course in creativity on its own. While it dwells, obviously, on drawing and the visual aspect, much conclusion and material is applicable to other areas.

The psychology Of Imagination (1948) by Jean-Paul Sartre is rather ponderous and dense, but worth perusal simply for its fascinating complexity in attempting to define and discuss creativity and imagination.

The Courage To Create (1994) by Rollo May is a classic, well written inspirational book that helps to unravel our own resistance and fears of tapping into our own creativity. It is written with a gentle clarity that makes the uncertain seem safe.

The Grace Of Great Things: Creativity And Innovation (1990) by Robert Grudin is a wonderful mix of scholarly attainment in an anecdotal conversation style. It is thorough and complete as well.

Getting Unstuck (2002) by Dr. Joy Brown is rather pop, but practical (if limited) in its look at some everyday challenges.

The Spectrum Of Consciousness (1977) by Ken Wilbur is rather more scholarly, but still accessible and insightful. It is also valuable for its focus on "consciousness" as a means to understanding creativity.

The Artist's Way (1992) by Julia Cameron is a beautiful book about living an inspired and creative life. The book itself is as inspiring as the information it contains.

Creating (1991) by Robert Fritz is a good common-sense, easy reading development for the creative process. Also, it contains debunking and "exposing" of pop-wisdom-self-help methods that don't work and why they don't work.

Higher Creativity: Liberating The Unconscious For Breakthrough Insights (1984) by Willis Harman, Ph.D. and Howard Rhiengold is not as intimidating as it sounds. In fact, it is resourceful and accessibly complete in its treatment of the subject.

Creators On Creating (1997) edited by Frank Barron, Alfonso Montuori, and Anthea Barron provides truly fascinating insight into creative types through their own words as well as the observations of the authors.

How To Think Like Einstein (2000) by Scott Thorpe is simplistic and rather pulp like, but with some interesting observations about Einstein and his work.

The Care And Feeding Of Ideas (1986, sequel to "Conceptual Blockbusting") by James L. Adams is a rather practical, if incomplete approach. Although it contains ideas of substance and value within, it lacks a sense of comprehensive, stand-alone value or worth as a reference tool.

Breakthrough Creativity (2001) by Lynne C. Levesque is a very limited perspective and incomplete focus of which the value is in its specific application, and examination, of creativity in the modern workplace. For workplace insight, it has definite value.

How To Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci (1998) by Micahel J. has real value of which can be found in the insight into Leonardo and his work. The "How To" exercises seem rather forced, and some of the associations and conclusions feel stretched to fit. Nonetheless, this work is a good Cliff Notes insight into the greatest creative person in history.

The Creative Habit (2003) by Twyla Tharp is a rather fun read, something of a working artists' notebook of real-life experience with broader insights gained upon reflections.

Why Didn't I Think of That (1980) by Charles McCoy offers good advice on how be alert when making judgments so that we don't commit unnecessary mistakes. Numerous examples also illustrate the practical content.

Molecules of Emotion: Why you feel the way you feel (1997) by Candance Pert, Ph.D gives fascinating insight into Pert's journey from conventional scientist to one who embraces alternative routes of medicine. Ways of having a healthier lifestyle and resources for alternative medicine are also provided.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1991) by Harper Lee is a touching exploration from the eyes of a child growing up, surrounded by racism in the South, during the Depression. This is definitely a book accessible for everyone.

The Artist Way (Artist's Way) is a book by Julia Cameron and many use it as a workbook and some keep a journal as suggested. The work around the seeing way is a companion volume to the Artist's Way creativity kit. Unlock the dragon spirit of the inspiration meditation and creative spirituality give the starving artist something to live on even if it might not translate into food!

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Part I
Looking To History

History is ripe with examples of those who channeled a creative insight that changed the world. A postal clerk envisioned a theory of relativity in his spare time, long before we were capable of even conceiving a way to prove his theories. A poor camel driver had a vision, and in a few centuries the armies of those who believed Mohammed's vision had conquered an arc of the world from Spain to India. Da Vinci, Galileo, Columbus, Newton, Napoleon, Einstein, Picasso, DeMille...the list is impressive because the names are so universally recognized. From every walk of life and every conceivable avenue of human achievement we recognize the names of the great, ostensibly because of what they achieved. In truth, it is not so much that they achieved it, but that they were first able to conceive of a possibility or a solution to a problem that made them into giants as creative thinkers, inspired to implement their imaginative visions.

G.N.M. Tyrrell, an early British investigator of inspiration, writes in The Personality of Man: "...those creations of the human mind which have borne preeminently the stamp of originality and greatness, have not come from within the region of consciousness. They have come from beyond consciousness..." This "breaking though" of sudden insight and inspiration is creativity. Almost everyone has experienced some form of this—whether a sudden "knowing" of where to look for the mistake in balancing their checkbook or when faced with a complex project or assignment. Whether it is called our inner voice, Spirit, our higher self, it is undoubtedly recognized as creativity, inspiration and imagination focused into an action.

Inevitably these revelations were historically usurped as mystical by a church that demanded absolute power. Any such creative insights falling outside of accepted dogma, and which could not be exploited for the church's immediate advantage, were labeled as insanity or heresy. This was especially true in the case of philosophical, political or scientific revelations that directly contradicted by existing church teaching. For instance, when Galileo was able to offer scientific proof through the mathematic calculation regarding his [heretical] view of the solar system, he was still convicted [rather thinly] by ignoring his evidence as to the validity of his discovery and prosecuted by the fact that he had to have first had the thought that contradicted Church teachings in order to pursue his theories. Truth though, once introduced, has a way of irresistibly rising again and again until at last it is accepted. (There is an old adage about truth and invention. It is said that first, everyone ignores it. Then they debunk it and persecute it. Finally, everyone claims to have believed it all along.)

In the age of the Industrial Revolution, when technology and science were outpacing the ability of the Church to adapt, there was less public outcry to the evils of invention and free thinking (creativity). The citizenry—for all the detriments such as pollution and working conditions—were by and large immensely aided by the advances spawned through these creative imaginings that were being tried out. Indeed, the whole era seemed to compose itself around "modern thinkers," who were usually the elite, upper classes who had the time and inclination to pursue innovation and inspiration.

These are examples on a large scale. The smaller scale of the working poor, peasant or tenant labor has always maintained a degree of applied creativity in order to survive. Somewhere in time, one of our human ancestors must have mused about combining smaller animal pelts to form a larger one that could serve as a coat or a blanket. From there, the idea of a sharp bone fragment and sinew stitching emerged. The European so-called Gypsies survived through their own flexibility and creativity, determining how to do what the people around them couldn't or didn't want to do, and performing those services. When even that was not enough to garner tolerance or acceptance, they put their houses on wheels so they would never be seen as attempting to settle or to overstay their welcome and thus risk reprisals. In the United States, from the original settlers to the early westward pioneers, to the depression era generations and beyond, into the migrant workers and homeless of today...necessity has oft times proven to be the mother of invention.

Whether necessity, or idle musing or obsessive curiosity, the common link among all types of creativity, is that it must begin with a thought. The idea must first be conceived before it can be brought into existence. We may not care to explore abject poverty or dire physical circumstances to test the "necessity" theory of instigating creativity. We may neither have the luxury of inordinate idle time and finances to sponsor our musings, nor the personality make-up to incessantly pursue a seemingly inconsequential paradigm. Yet in our everyday lives, each of us would inevitably benefit from the ability to be more creative in our thinking, and undoubtedly most of us would be happier and healthier if we were able to invoke a more creative approach to living.

Alvin Toffler (author of Future Shock) wrote... "The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." As a cultural historian and sociologist, Toffler seems to have accurately predicted our times with an unprecedented amount of displaced, skilled workers within an economy and government that seems to be toddling unsteadily on baby steps as it tries to make sense of a politically and economically new world.

We would do well to remember that, at various times, China was the most advanced civilization in the world. And yet it spurned trade with the ignorant West at a key point, and was soon left behind in a static culture. Saladin once ruled the greater part of the educated world in the Middle Ages, an area that is now regarded at best as a substandard in its educational and social services. Tuscany, hub of the world's first great Renaissance, Rome, the conquering architect of great social and sociological advancements, Greece, Sparta, Egypt...at one time each of these societies stood at the forefront of leadership and commerce achieved through creative invention. However, each of them died in turn when the wealth and success fostered of their creativity became more important than the creative thinking which had built them.

Bill Russell says, "There is no inherent benefit in doing something a certain way merely because it has always been done that way." Bill Russell, for those who don't remember, was an exceptional pro basketball player who is credited by many with changing the way the game is played. Along with that change came, coincidentally, television and Russell's exciting, high scoring style enhanced the popularity and mercantile value of professional basketball. Whether naturally or through diligent work, Russell arrived at the perspective quoted above. This thought enabled him to do things differently and better than anyone had previously. Moreover, when he retired from basketball, he became a successful businessman in a large part, which he attests to, due to this perspective.

While Bill Russell may not rank with DaVinci, Galileo or Napoleon in terms of changing the world, we use his example for exactly that reason. Rather than being a far-off figure, Russell represents more of an everyman and thus perhaps stands as a better or at least more personally identifiable example than, say, Einstein or Newton. This "basketball player" not only defined and illustrated the core of creative thinking, but he demonstrates its power twice; in being a giant among his field (basketball), and then in moving from a successful athlete to successful businessman, at a time when African-Americans were generally prevented from being "successful businessmen". In both cases his success came through "not doing something a certain way because it has always been done that way." If he had, then he probably would have been just one of many forgotten athletes and he certainly would not have had the temerity to begin or to pursue a business career at a time when there was no real precedent for black entrepreneurship.

Like Sparta, Egypt and Rome, Mr. Russell's creativity applied in a specific direction lifted him above and beyond his peers, Russell did not simply decline and fade as these great civilizations did, as many who achieve a level of greatness do. His creativity, when applied, prevents him from accepting any stagnation or walls of status quo resignation.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Looking At The Lives Of The Masters: Einstein & Da Vinci

Homer, Aristotle, Confucius, Dane, Newton, Milton...most of them did not speak of their own creating as a subject of special interest. Of course, there were exceptions. Da Vinci, for example kept detailed notes and observations about his own creative process and the creative process in general. For the most part, it is not until the early nineteenth century, with the romantics, that we begin to get hints of self-awareness in the creative process. It is not until the twentieth century that an awareness of the creative process becomes a defined self-concern. This can be tied to the general twentieth century discovery of the unconscious mind and the kind of attention that went into the process of creativity, along with every other kind of mental activity.

Because we lack a definitive way of categorizing and quantifying any type of mental activity, let alone that of inspiration and the creative process, it seems prudent to look at two specific and exceptional creatives in detail and as much through their own eyes and words as possible.

Einstein
In his book, How to Think Like Einstein, Scott Thorpe analyzes the creative process through his particular attention on Einstein's life, words and works. Einstein qualifies as a remarkable, creative individual for several reasons. He was best known for his Theory of Relativity, a formula for which can be recognized by almost 100% of the educated public. We will also look at a bit of his work that is from the very earliest part of his life, pre World War II, when he was still a young man. However, it is his life afterward that is indelibly printed in our memory: the ruffled white hair and thick moustache on a kindly grandfather face. His major contribution already accomplished, he became and remained an icon. Why? Because he was present. His creative outlook was not confined to a field of physics. His was actually a creative outlook on the problems affecting our sense of God and the Universe, specializing solving mathematical problems. This kept him busily engaged by think tanks, universities, presidents and prime ministers who continually sought his view on a wide range of universal problems.

A second reason for Einstein's continued public focus is that he exhibited almost all of the characteristics of a true creative type: he was compassionate, impassioned, caring, generous, reclusive, full of humor, etc... In short, he was a true individual, a thinker independent of political correctness and convention, an original. An original is always interesting and unpredictable, especially in times of fear experienced through the advent of wars, McCarthyism and so forth.

One of Einstein's first motifs is that if you can't solve a problem, it's probably because you are stuck in the rules. Though he may not have ever stated this, he practiced it. He assiduously avoided "rule-ruts." Remember the ruts in the road that led to modern track gages for trains? Rules are not always bad, but they're like railroad tracks. Sometimes, in order to get where we want to go, we need to get off the tracks. The trains just don't run there.

As an example, we can look at Einstein's famous theory and its discovery. At the time, Einstein was a kid just out of college. He claimed that most people thought about time and space and learned about it as children, but that his development had been retarded and he hadn't started thinking about time and space until he was an adult...and by that time he had the tools (the mathematical knowledge) to play with his ideas. Children may ask "why" a certain thing has to be a certain way, or why a certain thing acts a certain way, but they do not have the tools (in this case, mathematical skills) to satisfy their own curiosity. They rely on the verbal assurance of an adult, who may or may not have considered the problem themselves and is most likely just repeating conventional wisdom.

At this point, Einstein was a postal patent officer and did physics in his spare time for fun. E=mc2 is a solution for, or at least a way of looking at, what is actually a very old problem: why light always seems to travel at the same speed relative to any position. (If this doesn't seem such a big deal, think about cars on a highway. The closer they are to you, the faster they seem to travel). Newton, in discovering and explaining his own ideas hundreds of years earlier, had declared that time was absolute. It did not run faster or slower. It made perfect sense, and it certainly helped his equations to work out. For hundreds of years, this "truth" was accepted. Einstein simply imagined that time could run faster or slower, and that started the whole process.

Through this imagining of a possibility other than what everyone else took for granted, Einstein demonstrated another of his particular flairs and a general characteristic for unlocking creativity: Breaking the Rules. "Rules" can be, as discussed earlier, anything from convention to actual rules governing a particular set of thinking as in, say, economics or marketing. The story of the Gordian Knot is one that appealed to Einstein. During the time of Alexander the Great (before he was, "The Great") there was a certain legend or prophecy around the Gordian Knot, which was a very complex weave of ropes...sort of like a Rubik's Cube of rope. It was said that, "He who unties the Gordian Knot shall rule the world." Many great minds and leaders amused themselves in the attempt, much like the Arthurian legend of the Sword in the Stone, in which every passerby attempted to pull the sword free. When Alexander learned of the Knot, he traveled to the city and studied its complexities for sometime. Then he drew his sword and sliced the ropes, proclaiming himself destined to rule the world. Alexander, like Einstein and other creatives, simply refused to follow a particular set of rules.

As an experiment, gage your reactions to the breaking the rules. There is probably a mixture of "You can't do that," to "That's cheating" or "That's not fair." The truth is, in order to creatively succeed, you will need to break rules. In everyday life, we have to: Identify the Rules. We all have them and live by them. See which of those are yours and which you've merely adopted or accepted. Then you must see if they're valid. In Einstein's case, he decided that Newton's established rules weren't valid for him. He began with an assumption, and that assumption was itself a violation of one of Newton's very constants of physics, the idea that time is linear and unchanging.

The peculiar, admirable and exemplary thing about Einstein that makes him such an example of creativity is that he rarely accepted any rules without testing them. He applied this perspective to almost everything in his life. As he said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." He was equally persistent in not accepting "reality" as an established fact.

Once one has determined and examined the rules there are other possibilities. One can violate the rules. In this case, look to the American rebels during Revolutionary war. They violated the established rules of battle. They refused to march on parade or to bring units face to face with the enemy on an open battlefield. Instead, having learned from the Native Americans, they hid behind trees and rocks, dressed in camouflage colors instead of bright uniforms and other equally abhorrent violations of the existing code of ethics. To us today, their behavior makes perfect sense, as it usually does with Einstein and others when the strategy is successful. It seems laughable and ludicrous that anyone would stand still to be shot at during a military campaign. It is, in fact, a complete violation of the primal instinct of self-preservation, which only illustrates further how entrenched and destructive a set of rules can become to a social mindset. The British and other modern powers of the day were outraged over the behavior of the colonists, especially the lack of war manners and etiquette.

Another possibility is to circumvent the rule. That is, go around the rule but change the consequences. If you jump out of an airplane, carry a parachute. When you're having financial problems, negotiate with the utility company, or find aid that is not necessarily monetary to shore up other needs and free cash flow. Successful entrepreneurs are extremely adept at this, but most people do not consider alternatives (like negotiating) simply because it's not part of their own rulebook, so to speak.

An interesting note is that Einstein's theory was almost proven wrong. An eclipse was due to occur and testing was going to be done which would have invalidated Einstein's theory. The problem wasn't so much his theory as it was that the (then) current technical abilities would not have been able to prove him correct. However, WWI delayed the experiment several years, which gave him the opportunity to amend a few minor but significant things in the theory. When an eclipse next happened and technology advanced, which set the conditions to test his theory, it was then proven to be correct. In the first instance, the others would have demonstrated only what they were expecting to see, relying on Newton's "constant" in the very conditions of their experiment. They did not yet have the proper perspective even to be able to "see" the possibility that Einstein had presented.

Along the way, we should simply ignore inconvenient facts. As Thomas Edison said, "Hell, there are no rules—we're trying to accomplish everything." One example of this is of Miranda Stuart, who became a doctor when women were barred from studying medicine. She wanted to study medicine, so she simply enrolled as though she were a male. She checked the "M" box, so to speak. She didn't disguise herself or attempt to mask the fact. She just ignored the rule that said women couldn't study medicine, and circumvented the rule by marking that she was a man. When she arrived in class everyone just assumed that she should be there because she was there, and when it was investigated, the "Rule" for why women could not study medicine had already been disproved by the fact that she already was studying medicine.

"It's not that I'm smart, it's just that I stay with the problems longer," said Einstein. One of Einstein's major focuses in his work and his thinking about the world was that we have to find the right problem. Unless we can correctly identify the problem, we are incapable of asking the right questions that will lead us to a solution. In regards to his own work, Einstein noted that they [Science] had always asked, "How can nature appear to act that way when we know that it can't?" His question was, "What would nature be like if it did act the way we are observing it to act." In a way, we all tend to look at an anomaly and try to pull it into line with our other thinking, when in fact, it is the anomaly itself that illustrates something wrong with the sum of our previous thinking. Just as Columbus could see an anomaly in the water current charts and maps and assumed that some piece was missing out of the puzzle, so too should we ask the question from that standpoint. The problem isn't the anomaly. The anomaly exists. The problem is the rest of the thinking that cannot account for the anomaly.

"Impossible only means you haven't found the solution yet." At one point everyone knew that the world was flat; that thunder and lighting were the gods at play or battle; that the sun moved around the earth; that time was constant. It comes down to a mindset of opening yourself to any and all possibilities and looking at obstacles as an adventure instead of a problem. This may seem simplistic, and easier said then done, especially when one is confronting a whole potato patch full of problems in life. However, as a creative thinker, we can live an adventure and adopt, as Einstein did, a "James Bond 007" solution to problem solving. Einstein was willing to make very big mistakes, and he did quite often. Ego will defeat you if you can't take the defeat as learning, and learn from it. "In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself." (Einstein)

Leonardo Da Vinci
Leonardo Da Vinci stands out as one of the most prolific and versatile people in history. We are all familiar with the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper paintings. However, he mastered many arts and sciences. He saw possibilities everywhere and to him everything was interrelated. Art was not separate from science. He invented and designed things that couldn't be realized until hundreds of years later. He devised the parachute and airplane, tanks and siege engines. He was a master musician and singer, botanist, anatomist, astrologist and responsible for planning parties for court events.

Our question has to be: "Is our premise that one is 'lucky' enough to be born a Leonardo? Or that you can you learn to be one?" Certainly the Renaissance Men and Women of the day were creative and versatile. Due to the increased prosperity of mercantile trade, the cultures of Europe valued the art of education and knowledge as a means to enhance standing and status. Today, with public libraries and internet, we have access to information undreamed of in Leonardo's time. Though he enjoyed his comforts as did everyone, it was not until he was in his early sixties before he had a soft bed to call his own, and time just to muse, think, draw and invent for his own pursuit of knowledge. To him, the questioning and searching for the Intelligence he saw behind all of nature was the utmost importance. It might be said that he was searching for God, but instead of shutting himself away from the world, he chose to immerse himself in it so that he might see and therefore know more of the Creativity governing it's creation.

Aside from his art and inventiveness, another way that Leonardo blessed us was that he was a compulsive writer and documenter of his thoughts. He asked questions. He observed. He experimented. Then he asked more questions. He wrote down everything he observed. Not just interested in being creative, he was also interested in the creative process itself. He observed himself, as well as those around him, and devised and adhered to seven principles he found to be a guide to life, a guide to a creative life. They will be covered shortly in this course.

Some other key points gleaned from Leonardo's life include: Making a choice...if your big challenge is to lead a balanced, fulfilling life, beating back the stress of the world, you may find yourself merely in retreat and isolation. The certain level of peace you may find or exhibit comes at the expense of any real challenge to your own evolvement. It is easy to be zen when you are by yourself and face no challenges. Detachment is a form of ennui and a commitment to the dross. Though a perhaps noble purpose, it is the effect of monasteries, locking themselves away to preserve the knowledge that had accumulated (out of fear it would be lost). Though repositories of knowledge, none of these places actually advanced and it could be argued that they did not help the world to change. So too, we find within families, organizations and governments, that when truth and the sharing of truth is withheld, it produces adverse and destructive reactions. There must always be choice and action taken through awareness.

The reality is that great creators rarely can "just create." Though we long for that time when we are free to idly pursue a chosen course or pursuit, it is, to some extent, the intrusion of the world in its daily, petty ways that propels and inspires us to action. If we are active and aware, such occurrences and incidents are not random. How can they be when all is part of an interconnected whole, a system? These petty annoyances of daily intrusion into our great goals are actually the synergy of interconnectedness giving us choices and lessons that can help feed our subconscious and our creativity. Think here of Gershwin, who had been commissioned to write a piece of music. However, he was busy and lacking in inspiration. On the train ride cross country to present the piece he was subject to the noise and rhythms of the train, the train whistle, the station stops and bustle. Rather than bristling, the inspired Gershwin created Rhapsody In Blue, incorporating all those elements and translated them into music.

Einstein actually lamented that when he became part of a "think tank," with nothing to do but dream up ideas, he had very few worthwhile ideas. Arguably, his greatest idea came when he was a postal clerk scribbling on the backs of paper during lunch breaks. Even greats such as Leonardo, far from spending all his time sketching and inventing, had official duties to function as a party planner, court musician and social host for royal functions. Needless to say, his art was required to please commercially and not just a select intelligentsia.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

It's The Science...(Or Lack Of It)

Everybody knows the story of Sir Isaac Newton and the apple. He created the term "gravity" after an apple fell on his head from a tree. Teachers love to tell it, and we all remember it, long after we forget the chemical symbol for table salt (NaCl) or what a logarithm is. And why do we remember it? Ask yourself who discovered that the moon reflects the sun, rather than giving off its own light? Or that the earth spins on its axis? Copernicus? Kepler? Galileo? Why do we not remember these important discoveries so well?

Simply, we like the logical narrative of the apple story. We can "see the mystery" if you will. Sir Isaac Newton sits under the tree. The apple falls. Aha! There must be gravity. It's so simple, anyone should have thought of it. Anyone could have thought of it. Even we could have seen that moment and made the discovery ourselves. In his book, Self Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson says, "In the work of every genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts," and to a great extent, that seems to hold true. The discovery of gravity anecdote lends itself to our facile understanding and comprehension. However, look up in the sky and it is not so apparent that the earth is moving and that the sun is not. The signs are there to read, for anyone with the interest, aptitude and inclination. But that "Aha" moment is not nearly so transparent, and so it mystifies, confounds or perhaps even intimidates us. Better Newton and the apple, something we can almost share credit for in our imaginative subconscious, than a bunch of complex mathematics to prove something intangible to the naked eye.

The "Aha!" moment is what happens when a creative idea is born. Imagine you saw the apple fall. You've seen hundreds of apples fall. That's the way of it. That's the natural order of things. Apples fall. Leaves fall. Rain falls. Everything falls. Do you really all of a sudden feel inspired by a realization that there is a powerful physical force exerting itself upon all the objects of earth that keep them from flying off into space? Hardly. We pick up the apple and go on about things. But it's that "Aha!" moment that we long for, perhaps even lust after. We want it to be that simple as we imagine with Newton and the apple. We want to have it again and again at will, without even thinking about it. If it is not so easy as we thought, then how do we get it?

"Everything is getting to be inherited these days," bemoans Frank Barron in Creators On Creating (1997). There is no scientific evidence that creativity is inherited. However, in a more mundane meaning of "inherited," one may expect that those who are fostered by or live in a community of highly creative people will have a greater predisposition to accessing their own creativity. They will have both experience and exposure in the norm-rejecting, rule-challenging thinking that fosters creativity.

When we find ourselves challenged creatively, through either a problem to be solved or an activity to be accomplished, we may find that it is the moment of "insight" that becomes impossible to proscribe or formulate. The inciting event, the "Aha" moment that gives us either a well-ordered path to take, a clear image of the finished product, or an ideal solution to work toward. This is, of course, somewhat due to the internal struggles in patterns of thinking. Our conscious selves struggle to have concrete, linear and verbal assurities that, for the most part in a material worldview, represent order and action. We rebel against the "intangible" nature of instinctive leaps, emotional processing and free form associations because, for the most part, it is elusive and seemingly unexplainable. Creativity steps outside the norm, bringing in something new.

Science is an arrogant thing, sometimes. It was as arrogant when doctors and barbers were the same profession as it is now. The physician who employed leeches to rid the blood of foul humours was as certain of his science as is the present day physician. The wisest men of their day trembled to sail west from Europe because of the danger of dropping off a flat earth. The point is, Science presumes to know and explain everything. That which it can't explain, it theorizes over. And, if looked at comprehensively, Science would be found to be, at any given moment in historical time, at least 80% wrong, according to the discoveries and knowledge that come after. If we adopt the view that Science, as we currently understand it, maintains this record based upon knowledge that will come in our future, than we should use it intelligently and skeptically, especially in dealing with the realms of thinking and consciousness of which creativity is a part.

For the how's and why's of creativity, the scientific rationale is that creativity involves thinking, which is an activity of the brain. Therefore, it must become understandable through the understanding of the brain and its physical functioning. As of yet, however, the brain has remained a monumental mystery. We have seen the spheres and labeled the lobes. By pricking needles and electrodes here and there, now we know that certain parts of the brain do certain things. A certain area "X" seems to be involved somehow with speech, or an area "Y" in the moving of arms and legs, and so forth. Then again, people with damaged brains have been known to re-learn certain skills, indicating that other parts of the brain can adapt and take over.

We do know that the neuron synapses in our brains are "trained," that with each new experience or thought pattern, new connections and pathways are established. This is the equivalent of adding more and more processors to your hard drive. As no one has ever successfully maxed out their capacity, it seems safe to say that this process, for all practical purposes if not in fact, is unlimited...infinite. As a matter of fact, Pyotr Anokhin of Moscow University staggered the scientific world when, in 1968, he demonstrated that the minimum number of thought patterns capable by the average brain is the number 1 followed by 10.5 million kilometers of typewritten zeros.

Even at the rate of age-related degradation that supposedly exists in our faculties, one could learn seven facts per second, every second of their entire life and still have plenty of room for even more. Couple this "factual" ability with the idea that your brain is incredibly more flexible and multidimensional than any supercomputer ever built, and you begin to see that we really have no excuse for not being creative. The lowest and meekest of us in the scale of abilities has the potential to function as the most revolutionary thinking device ever conceived!

The first "modern" scientific research occurred in the 19th century when German physiologist and physicist Herman Helmholtz described his "scientific" discoveries (which were actually mere behavioral observations) of the creative function by assigning the process to 3 specific stages: Saturation, Incubation and Illumination.

According to Hemholtz, creativity is instigated when we are saturated with all known information and data related to a problem. What follows is an incubation period during which conscious and unconscious thought sorts, processes, categorizes and examines this information. The end of the incubation process (which varies in length of time) is described as Illumination (that Eureka! or Aha! moment). It is this point of "illumination" at which we find creativity...the dawning of a new thought or realization.

In 1908, a fourth element was added: Verification. Verification refers to the act of implementing the illumined or inspired solution in actual practice. Then, in the 1960's Jacob Getzels contributed to Hemholtz's theories by suggesting that there is another stage that precedes Helmholtz's Saturation. This is a preliminary stage of Finding or Formulating; however, this seems merely a practical specification and does not really contribute anything "new" in relation to revealing the mysteries of creativity. Getzels' unique contribution lies in his suggestion that "creativity is not just problem solving of a kind, but the active searching out of problems that need to be solved."

As the sum of scientific research into creativity remains relatively unchanged from the 19th century until this point, Getzels' observation stands out. On its own merit, however, it is distinctive in that for the first time there appears an attempt to characterize or delineate the actual state of being creative by introducing the ideas of observation and inquisitiveness. Thus, we now have an assertion that perhaps creativity is not a passive but an active state. And certainly observation and inquisitiveness are skills rather than talents, which means that they might somehow be nurtured and developed.

At this point, certain advances in technology and research began to reveal a little more about the brain, and concentration on the problem of creativity tediously focused along "natural" science; that is, looking to the physical medium of the brain. This type of research led to a rise in popular opinion of the notion of Left Brain/Right Brain thinking, a theory that supposes portions of the brain maintain functional neurological specialization.

The Left Brain/Right Brain theory became popular the day a scientist realized that when someone uses their left hand, the right side of the brain was active, and vice versa. Through the magic of electrodes, it seemed "proven" that just as men are from Mars and women are from Venus, that the Left brain handled logical, linear thinking and the Right brain was "creative." What the testing "indicated" [not proved], was that the left hemisphere of the brain routes all Linear, Logical and Language-Based thinking. Conversely, the right hemisphere of the brain registered activity during Visual, Spatial and Relational Thinking situations.

The clinical tests, however, show patients who have suffered acute damage to one or the other side of their brain defying this tendency during a relearning process. Therefore, the whole Right Brain-Left Brain hypothesis emerges more as a mode of thinking about creativity in relation to the brain rather than to limitations or predictions about actual "sides of the brain" being responsible for our ability or inability to be creative. As is obvious when reading the collective body of work about the brain, we know so little of the actual functioning of the brain that we can't really specify such things with any great authority. Probably the metaphor of Yin and Yang is more accurate to describe a categorical "type" of thinking than is "left" or "right" brained thinking.

The interesting part of this theory is the almost alarming degree with which it caught on in popular thinking, indicating the sincere and deep desire to understand the ability to be creative, and, perhaps, to eradicate any seeming inability to be creative. Despite the fact that this research was first made public in the late seventies and pretty much erroneously entered into popular thinking, it persists to this day in both casual and corporate decision making as a reference to creativity and the ability to be creative.

The problem with all Science to this point, including the Left Brain/Right Brain theory, is that 1) it makes creativity an almost predetermined, physical and genetic function that excludes what we actually know through observation about all creatures being able to respond and learn from stimuli, effectively "problem solving," i.e. being creative, and 2) the research and theories ignore the very valuable and revealing observations of people known to demonstrate high levels of creativity. As an analogy, if the brain is a machine, and no two machines are alike, then why do we see many machines able to demonstrate this ability? Or, if the brain is a "computer," then perhaps it is not the hardware (brain) but the software (experience, learning, etc...) that determine creative ability.

Intelligence
Another aspect of creativity, as supposedly defined and measured by science, is that of intelligence. Creative people are generally perceived as intelligent. Even those who struggle with exhibiting the typical standards of success (money, prestige, power) are excused as being "too" creative to function normally. Remember all the anecdotal stories from school about Einstein being "too smart to tie his shoes" or "having trouble fathoming the function of a doorknob?"

Intelligence (as tested) ceases to have any discernible impact on creativity after an approximate IQ of 115. At that point, factors of personality and motivation take over. Mostly, these factors, along with both home and educational environment, manifest a category of traits.

1. the ability and motivation to work independently and autonomously (rather than in a group or in a mundane manner)
2. a high level of general energy (but particularly psychic energy)
3. a drive to make sense of contradictory or divergent facts into a single theory or perception
4. flexibility of thought and action

Intelligence is not "fixed" at birth. In the journal Nature, Bernard Devlin concluded that genes account for no more than 48% of IQ, and the remaining percentage is a function of prenatal care, environment and education. In the spirit of this paper, it would seem fair to follow such thinkers as Einstein and Da Vince and challenge even that hard, scientific fact. If science, which invented intelligence testing at the turn of the century (Binet, circa 1900) could move in one hundred years from believing that 100% of intelligence was predetermined to acknowledging that less than half may be so, then it's conceivable that in another hundred years they may eliminate the notion of "built in limits" altogether. So our job is to, as all great creative thinkers do, begin with the supposition that this FACT is not, after all, a fixed truth. It is merely what is presently perceived and agreed upon. If we were to conclude this line of reasoning, one can assume that our ability to be "creative" is not limited by any predetermined factors outside of our control and, in fact, are as much within our control as our own determination to learn to be creative.

The other problem with Intelligence Testing is it is invariably tied into Mathematical and Verbal reasoning skills. These skills would seem to test not only the development of only a certain part of the brain, but a certain predilection or experiential quality. An analogy would be to measure and define overall strength only according to a specific muscle or muscle group. The result might be that all people who could bench press a certain amount would be considered "strong" while those who could squat or curl substantial amounts of weight would be unaccounted for within the strength measuring scale. Of course, farmers, steel workers or heavy laborers would have the advantage, while all the rest, delivery cyclists, fishermen, endurance runners etc...would be consistently mislabeled and unappreciated.

Measured intelligence plays a part, but not a big part in creativity. Some problems just require a certain level of aptitude to understand the problem even before creativity can come into play. It is important to remember that there are many types of intelligence, and it is a many-sided quality and ability. Intelligence testers say that "the structure of intellect is multi-factorial."

Colloquially then, it would seem that we measure and judge intelligence only for "left brain" activities. The irony is that we generally respect and reward those who manifest a preponderance of "right brain" ability as the creative ones. An investor who can analyze the market at a glance is included, because we translate his ability into the tangible sphere of "number crunching" when he is more likely doing something akin to reading complex patterns of behavior through visualization. A star quarterback or point guard is actually intuiting tens of thousands of complex physics problems within their "supercomputer" called a brain. However, this ability translates into the intangible "talent," perhaps boosted by "hard work" and "practice." More readily do we ascribe the same abilities, when manifested through sculpture, dance or the like, as "creative" when we also have tangible, material explanation like strength training or mathematical ability to ascribe to the creative ability.

While it is certainly predicate to include at least an aspect of these perspectives, who's to say that Shakespeare couldn't have solved Trigonometry problems? Or that Mozart could balance a checkbook?

As far as Science and intelligence testing go, they don't go very far. In terms of creativity and the brain, Science, at its best, is like a child who has just learned their multiplication tables trying to determine the relative trajectory of the sun and stars. The tools and knowledge are simply too imperfect and limited to provide a satisfactory answer. The best it can do is to speculate, while at the same time it forces that same speculation into reality.

Psychology
While the physical sciences struggle to understand the machine, psychology is busy dealing with the software. As it is accepted that creativity, ideas and even simple non-reflexive physical actions require, first, a thought before the action can be rendered, so has creativity come under the scrutiny of psychology. Even here, the big questions elude pat answers. However, psychology has furnished us with some interesting clues that help us in being able to unlock our own creativity, even if we can't presume to understand exactly what it is or how it works within a perfect psychological model.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, wrote a book in 1900 entitled the Interpretation Of Dreams, a book that ripped back the curtain on the conscious mind and began the first true exploration of the unconscious. He ended up asserting that the unconscious mind is the basis of "psychical life." This psychical life is the realm of all things mental: thought, thinking, dreaming, etc... The "conscious mind" is, according to Freud, nothing but an organ for the perception of "psycichal qualities." In other words, Freud is saying that everything in our conscious thought is nothing more than an impression or idea formed in our subconscious. Say what you want about Freud and all those Victorian notions and eccentricities that colors the modern readings of his work. He throws materialism on its ear with this statement and pretty much outdoes many of the modern spiritually based disciplines in this statement.

To look at Freud's statement deeply is to infer that everything we see, hear, smell, taste or touch is nothing but a product of our subconscious. Though often overlooked and rarely acknowledged nowadays, Freud's notion here has more in common with today's exploration of the psyche and self than it does with modern psychology. Granted, Freud is still looking at the brain as a modifier in the process and thus not moving purely into a metaphysical basis. In fact, he, like most others in science to this day, seems uncomfortable trying to determine exactly what this well of "subconscious" is, much less determine from where it comes. However, the huge significance of his statement must not be overlooked. Freud opened the door and encouraged us all to begin to explore what lies behind our actions and our beliefs and attempt to tap into that realm of non-linear thinking and free association that the subconscious is akin to.

In The Psychology Of Imagination (1948), Jean-Peal Sartre makes a distinction between thought and perception. "You cannot perceive a thought, nor think a perception. The two phenomena are radically distinct; the one is knowledge which is conscious of itself and which places itself at once at the center of the object; the other is a synthetic unity of a multiplicity of appearances, which slowly serve as apprenticeship." This philosopher and man of letters devotes several hundred pages to exploring the subtle and fine-edged subject. The headiness of the language and ideas may strike many as obtuse, yet even in this, an important point is made. First, talking about the "intangible realms" of thought can lead down a muddy road. As easy as one can describe an object, such as an umbrella or an elephant, it is also almost equally impossible to describe or discuss an immaterial experience. Think, for a moment, how you would describe the color yellow, or the emotion of joy. We can talk around the subject, use examples and such to try to frame our subject, but our best effort is likely only to circumscribe what we actually think and feel.

The second bit of usefulness found in Sartre's musings is to separate thought and perception, a distinctness that is quite useful in training our own thinking to be creative. Sartre points out that, "...an image—from whence the word imagination comes from—is an object perceived in thought, and limited by the consciousness one gives to it. You may pretend that you are turning it over and seeing its sides, you may add color or change size, but it has nothing not given by your own conscious effort." In effect, there is no "free will" to our thoughts. They are organized, shaped, colored, and manipulated by our own perceptions and misperceptions, perception being the emotional and experiential charges that are associated with the thought symbols themselves. The more conscious we become about our thinking, the better we are at not being ignorantly subject to subliminal or subconscious emotional content, we are also more adept at consciously employing thought to gain perception (in this case, to gain control of our creativity as a type of knowledge or insight).

Abraham Maslow created his hierarchy of needs to explain how one reaches levels of self actualization through the meeting of basic needs (food, shelter) first, then moves on progressively, graduating to higher levels of desire. Ultimately, in this model, one reaches the level of "self-actualization," a state of conscious existence from which one can create, philanthropize and exist at all levels of creativity and compassion because one has eliminated obstacles to this state. Unfortunately, "...Maslow's decidedly logical theory cannot explain the spontaneous joy of creativity in Appalachian Folk Music, birthed in hills of abject poverty. Nor can it explain how Olivier Messiaen was able to compose Quartet For The End Of Time while in a Nazi concentration camp. Nor does it explain the creative yearnings that produce art, music and dance from every culture—no matter its struggle for daily survival—such as hip-hop from poverty stricken inner-city neighborhoods, exquisite carvings from drought besieged African nations and multiple other ingenuities created from the seeming depths of despair and blighted social mediocrity." (Fritz, 1991)

Today it is the cognitive psychologists who have emerged as the ruling class in present day psychology, and have the lock on studying and defining "creativity" in psychological terms. Certainly a degree of cognition (or self-awareness) is important in unlocking our own creativity.

Perhaps our strongest encouragement from Science comes if we generally reference from the lot of data and research to conclude that 1) even the most "limited" brain or intelligence is capable of infinite information storage and processing, 2) there is no way to describe, ascribe, limit or delineate the source of inspiration, ideas or imagination beyond that of "subconscious" or "unconscious" thought, and 3) Inevitably the unconscious or sub conscious is considered an integral component. Some effort must be made to accept that our thinking, and specifically the "Aha" moments, are coming from somewhere. Whether they are a touch of God, ancestral memory, universal Mind or whatever, somewhere ideas are being formed and perceived, and those who can reach it are the recipients of something called "creativity."

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

It's The Spirit (or Spirituality) Of It...

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum. So too, does the human mind. What Science cannot prove or demonstrate inevitably falls into the realm of mysteries, of the great unknowable; in other words, the realm of religion and spirituality.

When we talk of creativity, inevitably the word "inspiration" arises. The word "inspiration" originates from the same word as "spirit" and originally meant "the breath of divinity," literally a sort of "transfusion of Soul" received from God. It is interesting that this divinical, religious meaning remains with us in the form of unconscious or conscious ascribing of inspired creativity as being limited to that of one "deserving." That is, just as the breath of God could only come to one who was holy and pure, we perpetuate the notion that creativity is reserved for those selected few, gifted or lucky ones. The fact that it is a gift from God is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand it forgives and excuses those of us who are not creative, and on the other hand it seems a cruel joke from the Creator to predeterminately condemn or bless us.

However, unlike physical Science, with its foregone conclusions and limitations based on physical/genetic factors, or the science of psychology, with its careful meandering through spaces it cannot even adequately acknowledge even to itself—the idea of a spiritual basis for understanding creativity allows us all "a chance." Depending on the degree and type of religious and spiritual beliefs, one is capable of either "earning" this inspired ability, to manifest it through the petitioning of God in something akin to a "miracle," or to develop and nurture a growing ability to be creative through the claiming of a certain "divine manifesto" whereby self knowledge, humility, faith, prayer, etc... bring us into expanded capabilities.

The word "inspiration" signifies that sudden leap of insight that cuts across and through categories, boundaries and the "normal" step by step processes of reasoning, in other words, the creative moment. Grudin contends that inspiration partakes partly from abandonment, or surrender (of conscious control) and also partakes of assertion and authority. The spiritual context then, at least as Grudin explains it, would require the abandonment and/or surrender of self (ego, preconceptions...) while asserting the authority of one's inherent, spiritual right to manifest intelligence or insight, to "receive the word of God," to tap into the universal consciousness et. al. The signifier here is not so much the precise indicator or quality of Deity that is being ascribed to so much as it is an acknowledgement of a higher source/power/intelligence itself.

Granted, a purely scientific explanation might cynically render such thinking as mental gymnastics, temporarily short-circuiting the normal operation of the ego and id so that the subconscious may be heard. More modern science might describe the various synaptic relays and functions as a background operation while our CPU was displaying alternate data. Either explanation is unfit to bring us into a conscious, repeatable creative state. Despite any aversions we may have, nearly all of the people recognized as being creative do ascribe a certain amount of their ability to something other than their own thinking or mental ability.

In The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron, a book that has received much following and coverage for it's ability to enhance and promote creativity, she writes, "There's no getting around it. One must attend to the spiritual. While many rebel, it is without a doubt that the intangibles are inevitably linked to each other."

Creativity is, "...the most hopeful source of transformation for the good of all," says Barron, in Creators On Creating (1997). Based on the assemblage of interviews and observations with these men and women who are known as "creators" in their field for both accomplishments and endeavors, the underlying questions of what drive them and inspire them remarkably mirror the questions traditionally asked of religion. Creativity is put forth as a quest for meaning, an attempt to penetrate the mystery of Being. Science is lauded as being fearlessly creative, because it had been given the task of solving perpetual problems like disease, the structure of the universe, etc... as well as incorporating its discovered knowledge into daily lives (calculators, refrigerators, cars, etc.). Often the most correct scientific solution is also the most aesthetic solution. "...What is more evocative of the awe proclaimed by religion than to gaze at the mysterious order of the universe that continues to unfold before us in ways that reinforce a perfect design?"

Ken Wilbur, in The Spectrum Of Consciousness (1977), provokes us with the concepts of "evolution" and "involution." Evolution is to unfold or open outward, while involution describes the drawing inward. Wilbur uses the terms as describing either moving toward Spirit or away from Spirit. Spirit is the One Creativity Identity that is manifested individually among the different personalities of mankind.

Charles Schultz, creator of the Peanuts comic strip insisted that he never used the word "work," as in, "I go to work." or even, "I get to work." He always insisted on saying, "I'm going to the studio" or "I'm going to draw." Schultz said, "I always have the feeling that if I call it work then God is going to take it away from me. That's my spiritual superstition." Though it is a bit of spiritual superstition, Schultz touches on some things echoed by many religious and spiritual leaders as well as many of the great creative minds themselves. First, the acknowledgment of a divine power outside themselves as the source of creativity; and second, acknowledgment and gratitude for the gift. This is markedly different and a distinct departure from the "original sin" and outlook of suffering that was imposed through the religious doctrines that permeated many cultures.

Whatever one's outlook or personal faith or belief system, there seems to be, as we shall see, certainly more effective results in allying ourselves with the premise that creativity has in its basis a purely spiritual aspect. It certainly includes something that requires many of the similar prerequisites: humility (a quieting of the conscious ego/self), self-knowledge (an understanding of one's own motives, patterns of thinking and "temptations" or weaknesses), gratitude (knowledge of and appreciation for what is given), and, of course, a willingness to admit to an intelligence or inspirational force outside of oneself (outside of conscious control). Noted writer and philosopher D.T. Suzuki insists, "Self knowledge is possible only when scientific studies come to an end."

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

The Question Of Talent & Cultural Disposition

"Talent is a slippery concept." So says Gollwitzer in The Joy Of Drawing. She raises the question, "Perhaps artistic talent is considered rare because we expect it to be rare..." Rather, we should claim it as an inherent part of our being and train ourselves in a way that allows us to manifest creativity naturally. We all exhibit a talent of some sort, talent for compassion, talent for organization, talent for making people laugh, and so forth. We must recognize that "talent" and learn the skills of what we ascribe as "natural talent."

It is a fallacy that "learning" a skill such as drawing will inhibit or stifle natural creativity. Picasso was trained classically and was said to "draw like an angel," and yet this did not prohibit him from manifesting distinctly original creative expression. It can be argued that every great artist of their age was unorthodox for the accepted standards of their time. However, in applying the philosophy earlier espoused by Bill Russell, that there is nothing inherently advantageous in doing something a certain way just because it was always done that way, these leaders moved beyond current convention, despite accepting and acknowledging the knowledge and ability that had come before.

Talent plays a part in creativity, but it must be exercised. "Creativity, and the joy of it, usually arises out of mastery of talent," Creators On Creating, edited by Frank Barron et al. (1989). Mastering talent in order to be creative requires discipline and routine, but this need not be boring, mundane or numbing to the imagination. Even discipline and routine can be creative. If one thinks of a sports team, or a dancer or photographer, one can see that there might be infinite variety and imagination in the practice of basic skills. In the discipline of going to the barre, to the playing field or to the garden or studio, joy can be present, discovery can be made. Several years ago, W. Duncan Ross, former head of the Bristol Old Vic Theater School in Britain, told the story of a young actress who was rather awkward, even clumsy in her physical movement and so had been enrolled in several dance classes...where she failed miserably. One day the dance teacher was many minutes late in arriving and was surprised to find the girl dancing gracefully across the stage in an impromptu fantasy. The girl was questioned about the sudden change, and remarked, "But you see, I wasn't trying to do what you wanted me to do. I was just playing at being myself."

The unfortunate aspect of our current cultural disposition is that we usually select and praise talent, especially in children, by certain predefined criteria that have more to do with the political correctness of the day, or to an educational structure that cannot accommodate original thinking. What may be merely a skill or an undeveloped ability such as an "ability to draw realistically" earns one a "gifted in art" label. This inevitably leads to a true talent being undeveloped and unexplored (as "drawing realistically" is accepted as the accepted goal of creativity) or is falsely labeled (as when "drawing realistically" is actually an outgrowth of a different skill such as organization of spatial relationships, or fine hand-eye coordination which might be better applied in developing microbiological protein models.)

When we observe talent to be a skill, albeit a finely defined skill for which one has a natural aptitude, it demystifies the experience. As with religious mysticism or spiritualism, we have developed a cultural comfort for dismissing such things, as we don't care to explore as "mysteries" and natural order. The historical consequences of such actions are seen in the ultimate dissolution of the great cultures of Rome, Tuscany and others that are similar.

On the other hand, as a culture and society, we tend to idolize and idealize those attributes we consider talent (mostly in the arenas of arts) but lend our material respect and reward to those things that we accept as natural skills, like organization, mathematical computations and such, even though such things might easily be categorized as talents. This tendency creates a certain antipathy towards the pursuit and development of creativity, in that we continually see the so-called left-brain activities rewarded at the very time we are expected to "think for ourselves," "problem solve," and "think outside the box." Again we find a certain irony in the fact that studies consistently point to the fact that infants and children (and by extrapolation, adults) are healthier and happier and better able to accomplish creative reasoning when they are in and around a creative atmosphere, i.e. a nurturing, natural setting. There is also a distinct and marked reduction in overall abilities, not just creativity, when we are deprived of the "intangible" qualities of environmental structure assurance. Despite this we insist on lining up the rows in schools with cold metal desks, and putting office workers into maze like cubicles.

Truly, culture provides few opportunities for training alternative perceptional skills. But that is not to say that we are not or cannot become creative. Television personality, singer, composer and author Steve Allen said in The Right Brain Experience, "No one is entitled to say, 'I'm not creative,' because the proof to the contrary is dreaming. Everybody dreams, so everybody is not only creative but astoundingly creative. A dream is like 827 moments of creativity all scotch taped together." (The Right Brain Experience, 1983).

In truth, we have a highly creative unconscious, and the key is learning to listen to it. Allen recounts his lesson in leaving hotels or home with a sudden nagging that he'd forgotten something. Invariably he would realize that he'd lost his keys, or left his wallet. And at that point he began to realize that when things "went wrong" he could usually trace a preceding feeling of something not being exactly right. He began then to pay close attention to these feelings and came to the conclusion that his subconscious was always operating perceptively, and that his conscious awareness was usually screening out thoughts that seemed irrelevant, though these "irrelevant" thoughts were invariably valuable. (This hearkens back to Freud's surmise of the psychical quality of the unconscious).

The question of "relevancy" is decidedly that of a learned anticipation of what is accepted or expected by those rules and laws we have established in our culture. Many times we have seen or experienced the thought, "I could have come up with that!" Whether it's a simple movie story line, some gizmo, gadget or toy that makes millions, or a new idea for streamlining and cost saving at work, we are inevitably struck (and often envious) of the simplicity of a solution. "When the solution is simple, then God is talking." (Einstein) Why then aren't we all creating these million dollar gizmos, the next great toy or receiving big bonuses and promotions for making the company run better? Because we are, in the words of the old adage, looking at the problem and not looking for a solution.

What does this mean? It means that, in the grand scheme of things we are not players. We are pawns. We have been taught and accepted, from our parents, past failures, society, and our bosses, that there is a formula, a process, a way of doing things. This isn't necessarily all bad. It keeps traffic moving, it ensures that products are shipped, received and placed on the shelves. It means that at 6:00pm the news is there on the television. If everyone were to try to be creative and imaginative all the time, most likely nothing would get done and a lot of energy, time and money would be wasted. You don't need to be creative when you brush your teeth. You don't need to be imaginative to boil water. But, if you are aware while you are doing these things, you might just invent the sonic toothbrush or the electric teakettle.

In The Care And Feeding Of Creative Ideas (1986), James L. Adams says, "We should neither steer the same course as we used in past rapids nor should we pull in our paddle and just let the boat go." Creativity is that which allows you some control over the new and unusual; not a white knuckled grip on the reins, but rather a loose hold that expresses a confidence in both yourself and the creature you've imagined. Creativity is inevitably "change," something new, a departure from the usual. We are best at understanding things over time. But that is a rather lazy sort of engagement, requiring something predictable. "Creativity implies something new and without precedent."

Currently there is a great focus, or at least lip-service, paid to creativity and change. There are good reasons for this preoccupation. Much of the economic and social norms have become unstable from that which we have fixed as a cultural icon. It would be best, perhaps, if we were to stop and consider for a moment. In Why Didn't I Think of That, Charles McCoy spends approx. 200 pages giving examples of real life situations where sloppy thinking and assumptions failed to grasp the right question, or the right problem and re-acted rather than acted. From the New Coke debacle to the tragedy of Vietnam, our great failures as a culture and society have usually been about the inability to correctly perceive the problem.

Consider that our society, this sociological model, the "ideal" if you will, is basically a construct that has existed only since the 1950's. Post WWII found our society industrious and expanding. The corporate models and the white picket fences were planted as a "fixed reality" by the expanding television and entertainment industry. The marketing giants swooped into this media and quickly found that they could paint a picture of ideal America. However, the reality is that pre WWII America was primarily rural, farming, communities. A scant few years prior to WWII, the American Army still fielded cavalry units. Twenty years before that we were still trying to settle the west with six-guns. Of course, by the 60's, after a scant 10-15 years of "ideal America," we experienced the rebellion of the counter culture symbolized by Woodstock, and we had already begun to deconstruct our own myth. Yet the myth persists and lives on.

For most of America, both corporate and private America, it is that 10-15 year window that exists as the perception of what America has always been and what it stands for. Now, 40 years after the beginning of the death cries, society finally seems to understand that the model doesn't work. Corporate America has its bases in other countries where it can exploit laborers for only a few dollars a day. American workers are replaced by cheaper labor, and thus cheaper products come home to roost on our shelves. The foundations on which we have based our lives have tottered. For now there are less jobs to support the American dream with.

We have a great need to re-discover our creativity, even as a survival tool. If we think of those pioneers of the past, cruising in ships and wagons across an unexplored frontier, we find remarkable creativity. These are not just backward reminiscences for a beloved myth that never, or only briefly truly existed. We must recognize, that along with any cultural myths come the personal labels we have accepted in order to fit into this imposed, mythical structure. We should become therefore, those pioneers, fearlessly advancing and sure of our abilities to creatively manage any challenge before us. Becoming more creative would cause us all to be more present, aware, and in touch with our spiritual connections.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Creative Types, Traits And "The Creative Personality"

In keeping with the preceding statement on labels and myth, this section provides some assembled thoughts and research into the personality of "creative types." The purpose here is emphatically not to adhere to further labeling, or to categorize a particular "type" as creative (and conversely condemn others to the role of being non-creative). Rather, the opposite. By looking at certain choices, tendencies, and outlooks, and characteristics that tend to be viewed as what is often assumed to be s a "naturally" creative personality, it is hoped that these can be viewed as patterns of thinking and patterns of behavior that one may choose to cultivate within oneself in order to facilitate the emergence of creativity. If one wanted to achieve better physical conditioning, it would begin by steps of training. If one specifically wanted to be a better golfer, studying and copying the swing of Woods or Nicklaus might be undertaken. Here are these illustrations and opinions presented. The goal is not artifice nor to adopt another's personality. The goal might conceivably be to change one's personal habits in order to facilitate growth in creativity, just as setting aside the time to jog or practicing another's golf swing would facilitate those goal oriented endeavors.

An unhappy environment is not necessary to produce a creative individual. Think of ancient Athens or Florence during the Renaissance. For the most part it was a boom of wealth and prosperity in relative peace. Certainly there was Greek tragedy and Florentine intrigue, However, as long as the environment is lively, complex and provides varied opportunity for self-expression and personal involvement, then it seems to stimulate flexibility and spontaneity in people.

Children are naturally creative in a spontaneous way, but usually without the thought or discipline of style and intentional discovery. While that doesn't mean that there isn't style or discipline, one should recognize that a considerable amount of self-sought discipline and training is often necessary for one's creative work, whether it is musical composition, painting, dancing, problem solving, physics, architecture, etc. A complex, highly creative act is usually only the product of well-disciplined, well-trained adult creatives.

Creative potential can sometimes seem to "go to waste" in a society that puts too much emphasis on an established "right" way to live, a "right" way to do things, a "right" way to succeed. These can cause a "creatopathic" situation of routine where we are bound by too many worries and obligations, become self-absorbed in the pressures of daily living itself within the proscribed obligations of surviving, to have any energy left for doing something new.

Despite the romantic notion of "creative madness," this is mostly a wealth of anecdotes and can be largely discounted when dealing with creativity as a whole. Extremes are always more vivid and more noticeable and more memorable than the average, or norms of sensibilities and behavior, and without a doubt, extremely creative people would stand out in many ways.

While there are some studies that would suggest creatives are more prone to such things, it is probably more accurate to look at Plato's comment that a person must have something of "the divine madness" in their soul to create poetry. (Note the qualifier, "divine"). As creatives can be said to see more of the "possible" in their creative perspective, this would be accompanied by a sense of loss, apathy or despair if the creative perspective and/or energy were stifled or lost for a momentary time. Certainly the wards of mental hospitals are riddled with the truly "mad" who are at a serious loss of contact with consensual reality. What creatives experience is more of a momentary loss of their enhanced, creative reality. The mundane world is that which they strive to overcome and see beyond, and have fallen from the mundane reality into one of near total disconnectedness.

One of the primary traits of creative people is an interest in knowledge, in learning new things and having new experiences. Even when stymied by lack of job or circumstances, they are motivated to try to find a way to create in the future. It is a primary, intrinsic and motivating force. Creative people also are driven to find order. They often create their own insular, private cosmos into which they are reluctant to invite people. Their haven is the order of their own cosmos from which they are centered and able to look out and venture into the world.

Also, creative people tend to exhibit several other traits; independence of judgment, the insistence of thinking for oneself, which often shows itself in resistance to conformity or even rebelliousness against authority or status quo. Yet another trait is intuition. Creatives seem to have the ability to see to the heart of things, even when they are at a loss as to how to articulate or explain how they arrived there. It is not logical at first glance, but can be seen to be logical from hindsight or a distance. They also have the ability to take large risks, to be wrong and subject to ridicule, punishment and even loss.

Columbus is such a symbol. Defying conventional wisdom and logic, he set forth for the New World based on an intuitive sense that he examined in light of the knowledge of the day. Though such knowledge did not necessarily support his theory, to his sense this very absence of support, and the holes in the knowledge itself, lent a kind of "backward justification" for his intuitive feelings. Herman Melville stated, "Who is willing to be the Columbus of the mind." It was only with his success (on the third try and at the end of his options in gathering a sponsor to support what other's were describing as his mad beliefs) that his intuition, and more importantly the basis of his intuition, were proven correct, and in fact, seemed obvious. Columbus succeeded.

Columbus had filled in a missing piece of the puzzle and changed a picture he intuitively felt to be incomplete. Only when others saw the more complete picture did the maps then seem to have been the incomplete puzzle that Columbus felt them to be. Herman Melville queried, "Who is willing to be the Columbus of the mind?"

There are also the traits of originality and the ability to make connections that are not apparent to others. It's interesting to note that two creative people can occasionally be at odds over the most mundane matters. The fact is that their creativity (that is, intuition, associative connections and such) may operate differently or in different spectrums. Imagine Einstein and Picasso engaging in a problem solving exercise. Undoubtedly there would be points of connection, but invariably these two thinkers would be operating through their own highly developed creative methods of reasoning and encounter some turbulent times in the practicality of working it out. One might be assured however, that even if they did not arrive at exactly the same place, that both would probably solve the problem in a highly creative way.

Finally, introversion is invariably an aspect of creatives. Though they may be extroverted in a particular area, or have an extroverted creativity, they are predominantly introverted in that they are introspective, applying and searching for meaning as they create a mental and physical order of perspective.

Again, and it cannot be stressed enough that this matrix is not in order to define, type or limit oneself, but rather as an identification tool to assist in targeting behaviors and modes of thinking that will achieve the breakthrough creativity. Rollo May insists in The Courage to Create that many of the processes and characteristics that foster inspiration and creativity are merely that. When assembled together, we see them as "talents" and "abilities," when in fact they are very recognizable as perhaps merely virtues of a certain character.

In The Grace of Great Things, (1990) Robert Grudin builds upon many of May's assertions and creates his own profile of many of the shared traits among the creative types.

1. A passion for work. This is neither a workaholism or an aspiration for some yet unattained goal or condition, but rather the delight of being totally in one's element, identifying with the work or activity as an expression of one's own nature and not as something apart from self. It transcends the traditional boundaries and separation of work/leisure to become an activity as engrossing, fulfilling and enjoyable as any sport or playful activity. It does not distract from life but is rather a complement to it.
2. Fidelity. "Inspiration tends to visit people who renew contact with the major challenges of some ongoing project every day and who set no time limits on their involvement." This fidelity is akin to persistence. It maintains confidence in eventual movement or a positive outcome, no matter how long it takes. It believes that it will be rewarded with eventual discovery. Fidelity here also means an ability for prolonged concentration, not for blindness to possibilities, but concentration to the end that the whole volume of our being is focused on engaging an idea.
3. ove of the Problematic. A "deadness" to inspiration can often be traced to a "hatred" of problems, usually stemming back to childhood, and also possibly the result of an educational system that emphasized solutions rather than process. Arguably, the mind loves problems for the natural, sheer fun of exploring something new, and the ability to exercise and draw conclusions. Many creative people are seen as "troublemakers" because their vigorous love of exploring the problematic in order to discover solutions tends to not only acerbate those who do not wish to do so, but also because such exploration also tends to expose other problems that have been hidden or ignored. "...the true lover of problems must be a lover of order, and vice versa." The problem solver revels in the establishment of soundness, of order.
4. A Sense of Wholeness. To honor wholeness is to understand that everything from a cell, to a musical tone, to a thought is an interlaced part of everything else. Holistic thinking promotes continuity of existence and experience, and opens one to explore and ask questions about relationships between people, objects, thoughts, events in such a way that opens inspiration. (This thought in particular is echoed by Da Vinci in his creative principles discussed later in this paper.)
5. Boldness. Socially and culturally, boldness can be seen as arrogance or as courage. Depending on which perception more often than not determines the levels of inspiration and creativity achieved within that culture. Boldness here is defined as a courage to open the door to new and different possibilities and to close the door to "inhibited nonsense." The strangeness of new ideas and concepts alone make boldness (courage) requisite for their exploration. The lively child with an inquisitive, uninhibited mind is thwarted often by the "guardians" who insist on such courtesies as "consult the authorities," "counsel your elders," "don't make waves" and the like. While a child sees the value of these rules, the child cannot reconcile them with the reality that they are exploring, knowing that violations and breaking the rules is dangerous, in a sense, but that not to break them is psychologically intolerable.
6. Consequence. This refers to belief in the consequential nature of events: that is, every failure, success or venture leads toward further discovery and insight.
7. Innocence and Playfulness. Inventive people are able to wipe the slate clean with each new venture and experience. They are open to possibilities and refusing of preconceptions. This is not to say that they ignore experience foolishly, but rather that they are cognizant of not participating in any biasness. This ability leads to a sense of cheerful play. It lends itself to being in the "now," the page of a book in which you neither know or anticipate the events of the next page, and you eagerly and willingly follow where the story takes you.
8. Courtesy, Civility. Though histories are filled with tales of the erratic genius who is quick to anger, usually, upon closer inspection, we find the uncommon courtesies without respect to station and class, the sign of a mind unwilling to overlook details and events around them, making them unusually sensitive to the well-being and/or distress of those around them.
9. Suffering. This is not the suffering of Romanticism, an angst of distress and morbidity, but rather pains symptomatic of the failures, or a discovered end to lines of reasoning and exploration, the refutation of new possibilities, or the smothering of excitement over something new. This suffering is a kind of suffering of the soul over the small mindedness of fellow man when the longing is to share the joy of the experience.
10. Liberty. The creative mind chooses justice, moderation and simplicity, not as an aversion to "evil," but because these things are the closest parallels to the natural, native freedom of being and expression. The spiritual self is free to be whatever it wishes and so is the creative self.

In Creators on Creating (1997) by Frank Barron et al. we find another similar compilation of traits and characterizations that are seen as fairly universal and standard to the patterns of established creatives. It is provided here to give interesting reference and correlation to the previous models. As with creative thinking itself, one is often spurred by the recognition of similarities as well as differences in established observations. Thus, we are told that among the primary traits of creative people is the desire to create (seeing creativity as valuable but also possessing a desire to do something and not leave it to others).

So, what are we to conclude from the matrix formed by the observations concerning traits and personality types of creative people? If one is naturally gregarious and socially extroverted, that one cannot be creative? No. Rather, one should be aware that to raise one's awareness, it is impossible to be "doing" and thinking deeply at the same time. If one has a problem or problem area, one is not going to solve it by a frenzied engagement of social activities, or gossiping about the problem over lunch with friends. Even if your area of creative application involves social functioning or group dynamics, an actual dynamic of self-reflection and quiet examination or meditation is needed to punch through the how's, why's and wherefore's of habitual or dynamic behavior.

The patterns, traits and characteristics of creative people are examined only to suggest a pattern of established behavior for one to compare against, much as one who wishes to become a better musician might look at the study and practice habits of a virtuoso. If true desire is there to improve, then "the proof is in the pudding." One may not want to become a virtuoso, merely to get better at their instrument. In that case, obviously, the regimented discipline of a professional musical master is not warranted. However, to become better, one must undoubtedly practice. To practice most effectively and efficiently for the desired results, application of proven skills are the best solution.

Personality trait and character trait (anger tolerance, or Scorpio) can determine many things, six (6) of which are someone's personal behavior, aptitude for leadership or dominant, or creative interest in book, picture, writing, teach. We are all genetic human, subject to action and reaction.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

The Path(s) To Inspiration

Just do it. The famous motto from a series of commercials is absurdly simple. But the action is both direct and elusive at the same time. Just do it? Just do what? Run...or run faster? Just compete...or just win?

Ironically, this is an example of creativity meets creativity. The answer is Yes...and yes. Or, No...and no, or no and yes or any other combination thereof. The creativity that leads to the ad agency copywriter goes from the specific to the general. It must appeal to the widest mass appeal and inspire through association some belief in the product. So...Just Do It. It is like a bright swath of red on a white canvas...or a Jackson Pollack painting. It evokes something...but what? Is it the same in each of us or is it different?

So you want to be creative? Just do it! Just do it? Do what? Well, let's look at the copywriter again. We can't define why someone is able to generate a catchy phrase (or a catchy tune, incredible painting, or a solution to a difficult political negotiation), but we can see some steps. The copywriter reads, absorbs, thinks, then...Aha!, or something like it. This sounds remarkably like Hemholtz's theory discussed earlier: Saturation, Incubation, Inspiration. Now, what if it doesn't come upon you, this "aha!" moment of creativity? The deadline's looming and you can't think of anything, or at least anything very good. Now somebody in this situation, assuming one has been in the job for a while and makes a decent living at it, has invariably been in this situation before and will be again. If this person has been successful, he or she knows what to do—whether consciously or unconsciously. That is, "just do it!"

Interestingly, the important thing about the Nike ad isn't about running or running faster, it's about trying. It's about putting the shoes on and giving it a try. It's about the possibility and potential of "doing it," whatever "it" is. Whether you've been creative in the past, or only in a particular area, or feel you have never been creative at all...there are things one can do to begin to unlock creativity. These "things" are many. They may not all work for you. Some that work for you may not work all the time. The important thing is to "just do it," because creativity is a way of thinking and a way of seeing. All that happens when we "aren't" creative is that we are stuck in a particular perspective, point of view, and mindset. "There is no more certain sign of insanity than to do the same thing over and over and expect the results to be different." Einstein. We can't see a solution because we have a mental wall in front of ourselves, yet there are many possible solutions.

There are basic principles that you can learn that help enable you to be more creative in both everyday things and in new expressions. These fundamentals are where you turn when you realize when you are stuck. Can't play that A minor scale? Practice. Keep grinding the clutch in the car? Rehearse it in your head. Children driving you over the edge? Take a deep breath, step back and try something new. But what? Well, that's where creativity comes in. An inspired moment of insight that leads to action. Getting to that creative moment takes practice. Free up creativity by allowing the spirit/subconscious/unconscious/right brain to do its thing—to see, think, taste, hear, smell, cognize, reason, and perceive in a new way.

Obviously, from the aforementioned and the previous explanations within this paper, there is no consensual agreement on exactly what or where creativity is or is coming from. Truly, there is no need to determine this universally, or to define it as a "Truth." For the purposes of this paper, we will settle on calling the realm which we are attempting to access the "creative consciousness." When a particular author or writer has a specific term that deals specifically with something that cannot be referred to as the creative consciousness, then the writer's language will be used.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Part II
Unlocking Creativity

Get a different perspective. Without doubt, creativity hinges on and rests upon this primary effort: the ability to move our mental perspective away from our current position. We must be able to see new paths before we can walk new paths. We must first acknowledge that there are other paths before we will begin to see them. Granted, we may eventually come to the conclusion that our own path is the best solution, but this is unlikely, or we would not be stuck, beset by so many obstacles, or be so dissatisfied with our journey.

Test takers and test makers plague us by the idea of "right" and "wrong" in an informational, data sense that destroys free wheeling, associative, creative thinking. Rigidity is maddening to our natural order of thinking (literally; think of the naturally imaginative, creative child). Its eventual effect is to force a particular perception or way of perceiving upon us. Granted, there are certain advantages to "not seeing" the multitudinous possibilities in everything. It prevents information overload and incessant stress. It has a practical application in navigating through life and even through creativity. As one art teacher says, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." However, the key is to be aware of when we are acknowledging such thinking and when we are blithely accepting such thinking as the only reality. This is especially important in an era when we are barraged with messages both visual and audible that are specifically crafted to insidiously engage our consensual response by associatively bypassing the conscious filters. Advertising, marketing, and news media are as dangerous as family emotional traditions when it comes to numbing our alertness to creative response.

The principle of Separation is key to perspective shifting. You are not your car. Advertisers and marketers and certainly car manufacturers would like you to think so. You know that you're not your car, yet they promote the car as an image or extension of yourself. Though we may identify with a particular car, what about when it's old and run down, perhaps crashed or in need of a paint job? Do we really look at the car and think, "This is who I am?"

Most people are able to separate themselves and their identity from material things and possessions. (If they can't, they need to start somewhere other than removing blocks to creativity.) Many people do believe that they are their experiences. Think about it for a moment. "I am the sum total of all my experiences." Many will answer instantly "Yes," a few will answer "No," and almost all will end up prevaricating as they ponder the meaning and implication of the question. There is an obvious advantage to knowing that you are separate from your possessions. Yes, your possessions might be indicative of your emotional and mental weather, but they are not who you are.

What is the advantage to separating yourself from your experiences? In a word, perspective. To say that you are your experiences is to limit yourself, passively, to what has already been, the past. If experience is all that we are, then we would constantly be repeating the same thing over and over, we would have no new experiences, and we could not think outside of what has already happened and move into the possibilities of what might happen. To put it another way, metaphorically speaking, the painter is not the painting. You see a Matisse painting and you know that some part of him, his beliefs or experience, went into the picture, but you are not looking at a life map or a visual representation of the artist himself. Matisse is much more than the painting. As for Matisse himself, he could never paint if he stood only one inch from the canvas. His mastery required vision and a vantage point, sometimes even distance.

Separation is key to creativity because it gives one perspective, an objectivity uncluttered by the conscious self. Having established that you are separate from the painting (the thing you want to create), let us consider thoughts. If you have a thought, are you separate from that thought? Again, the principle of separation applies and allows for maximum creativity. The greatest thinkers have not held their thoughts as personal possessions, but rather as separate from themselves. This allows them to move in and out of these thoughts without judgment, to analyze and change their thoughts freely as they consider them over time. An idealogue is someone who insists on remaining bound to their thoughts so that their thoughts become their identity. When the thought is challenged, the identity is challenged and usually sets up an overzealous, overdefensive response. The ideologue is not rational because they are not dealing with thoughts as ideas, but rather thoughts as identity. To change or adjust is almost impossible because it implies a need for change of self or identity.

It's a Process, Not A Result

The Creative Process can be argued to have had more influence, impact and success than any of the scientific or technological processes we so readily turn to. Indeed, those other processes were usually developed as the result of some creative process. Take, for example, any of the anecdotal information about great discoveries. Newton and the apple, Da Vinci and the birds, Gallileo and the stars, Copernicus, Einstein, Hitchcock, Baryshnikov, Copeland...every field and every discovery began with either a quest or a question, and was the result of looking/seeing/perceiving in a new way, one that usually defied prevailing "knowledge" of the day.

Rudolf Nuryev was from a poor family in a small Russian town. Under the Soviet system (a perfect illustration of traditionalist, non-creative thinking manifested as a government or society), Nuryev was considered too large and too athletic to be trained as a ballet dancer: this, within the culture considered the epitome classical dance. Yet Nuryev loved and longed to dance, and through persistence and perseverance got himself into training by the age of 15, even though, under the state system, ballet training for men was begun no later than eight years old. Nuryev had surpassed many legal and traditional rules. Once in training, he was considered too large and too athletic to be a dancer. Still, his persistent vision was so strong, his commitment so powerful, that he continued to see alternatives to the denials given him. He took menial jobs as his "official" activity and yet continued to present himself at the classes. As a non-official dancer he ate veritable scraps rather than the carefully nutritious diet given to the "real" dancers. At every turn he persisted until he was finally admitted officially into the training. He became an almost instant sensation by overwhelming the world with a "rough athleticism" that defied all accepted principles of male ballet dancers. Today, most modern choreography for male dancers in the ballet world is derived from some version of the original choreography devised expressly to engage Nuryev's abilities. His own strengths (and limitations) created a new standard and perspective.

So at what point did Nuryev's creativity manifest itself? During a particular choreography for a particular ballet? When he defected to the West as an acknowledged master and dance legend? No, the illustration of Nuryev is that his is an example of a creative process powerfully put into action when he was a young boy and consistently, persistently applied. In fact, it was years of creative effort just to be able to get into the school as a conditional student who had to perform drudge work in kind. It was creative effort that enabled him to promote his own strengths and build upon them, rather than submit to defeat because he was too tall, too muscular and too crude for the traditional choreography or the traditional sense of a dancer.

Nuryev's problem solving skills exemplify true creativity. If Nuryev had succeeded in entering school at a younger age for professional training, he might have acquired some of the skills that he lacked as a dancer. However, the creative process within him did not look for excuses or what-ifs. He consistently found a new way of applying what he did possess: strength, athleticism and an almost fanatical commitment. Of course, there is a certain irony in that Nuryev's style became the standard against which others are judged and molded. So even beyond the individual is group/cultural creative process that should demand an ever evolving and idiosyncratic standard rather than an "accepted way" of doing things because it has always been done that way.

As illustrated throughout this paper, nothing has "always" been done a certain way. From the American myth prevailing after the glory days of post WWII, to Newton's "discovery" and society's limited understanding of gravity, which deterred advancements in physics even as it expanded the doors to discovery, to Nuryev's challenging and overcoming accepted artistic standards...all of life is a creative process.

The creative process is not a "handy tool" as presented by some books and authors. No proscribed formula or method exists that can be pulled out like a screwdriver or hammer. In fact, even the tools of creativity, like the traits and habits of creative people, do not themselves alone guarantee the building of anything sound or useful. Tools themselves do not create, do not inspire. A process can be an effective tool, but one needs a whole array of tools and the knowledge to use them in order to effectively build. Every creative person has unique internal rhythm, a balance of the intuitive and the rational, and idiosyncratic variables such as temperament, personality, strengths, weaknesses, tastes, biases, interest, aspirations and so forth. All must be acknowledged and accounted for at some level in order to become conscious and alert to one's own thinking so that one can begin to challenge, imagine and create.

Admit That There's A Problem And That There's A Solution

Most people believe that something exists between them and the ability to create. This is the byproduct of pop psychology and self-help approaches that love nothing more than to diagnose your problem and then tell you how to fix it. The supposed solution may be therapies, affirmations, positive thinking or heightened emotional zeal. But to be creative...? "No amount of therapy will enable you to play the piano," says Robert Fritz, in his book Creating (1991).

The issue is to admit that there is a solution to a problem. To many people, that challenge is to recognize and admit that there is a problem in the first place. This is the result of the vast number of areas where the conscious mind unconsciously passes through certain tasks without questioning the validity of either ritual or result. As mentioned earlier, there are distinct advantages and reasons for doing this. However, if one were to begin with an informal look at the activity and results in one's life, and then ask the question whether or not said results and activities are satisfying, the door for the question is open.

One of the easiest and most universal examples of this is to reflect on the beginnings of any serious, intimate romantic relationship in one's life, especially when or where it concerns sharing living space. For a brief (though sometimes longer) period of time, almost every mundane ritual that has been established in your life is hit with an illumination of perspective. From how the towels are folded to where the alarm clock is placed (and at what volume) becomes a question open to explanation and discussion.

If we think back to these early days of relationship building, many instances of tension and eruptive emotion emerge as we rebel against analyzing each of our activities. They all seem quite rational and justified...in fact, "beyond" analysis. The logic, in our rationale, simply speaks for itself. However, when establishing a mutual routine, we are often unable to provide a specific rationale that stands any sort of test for being "better" or "more efficient" than our partner's way. The annoyances add up because we do not want to put this kind of scrutiny on mundane activities...at least not so many and not constantly. Of course, there is always acquiescence, which in some cases is quite acceptable and valid. A true creative would seize the impetus of opportunity to truly question themselves and absorb the self-knowledge contained in the creeping establishment of these simple habits in our lives. The worst choice is to figuratively rip the list in half and say, "I'll give in on the way the dishes are stacked but not on the way towels are folded." In this instance, we have neither taken advantage of uncovering self knowledge or exercised creative capacities in ourselves. There is also the fact that we are setting precedents for continual and further separation of ourselves from conscious choices. The rather unexciting nature of this example contains all the perquisites of the way in which creativity is ignored and the way in which thinking must be challenged in order to first perceive and then remedy the problems with which we seek creative solutions.

In the later section on Einstein, the art of finding the right problem and asking the right questions is illustrated further. Following, however, is a short compilation of the further resistances we might find in beginning to attempt creative thinking in regards to specific problem solving events. As explained by Robert Grudin in his book The Grace of Great Things: Creativity and Innovation (1990), we rebel against the "intangible" nature of instinctive leaps, emotional processing and free form associations. Grudin offers the following breakdown of this struggle:

1. The task, while simple when viewed abstractly, becomes an emotional challenge to our sense of control and order of ideas...in a sense, a challenge to our sense of being in control.
2. This challenge produces a loop of irrational, negative feedback that plays upon itself. Doubt, indecision, and distraction cause negative feelings and physiological changes, which in turn cause us to feel bad (emotionally and physically) and then doubt and evade all the more.
3. The loop created by doubt is augmented by conscious or unconscious comparisons (with others, with other situations, etc...) in which we begin to compare ourselves to others negatively.
4. Impulses arise to distractive actions that incorporate the visual (Right Brain-Mode) centers such as cleaning and organizing the desk or office, or doodling on a pad, staring out the window or some such thing. This action is a form of engaging and assuaging the associative thinking components of the brain while boxing them into a linear, ordered activity.
5. The tasks (of #4) produce a certain catharsis to the emotional anxiety, and either release us to continue further or stymie further activity by fooling us into believing that a thing has moved forward or actually been accomplished when what we have actually done is merely relieve the emotional pressure involved with trying to engage creative thinking.

This scenario helps to illustrate that there is no amount of "conscious concentration" through which creativity can be achieved. We can't will it or force it. Creativity requires that all functions be engaged without holds or bars or censorships or definitions in place. It is truly a "mind/body" experience, drawing upon sensory perceptions as well as the imagery of associative thought. A key, according to Grudin, is to modulate and focus the thinking and the environmental experience so that we create the most conducive, least distractive setting (emotionally and physically).

Some Approaches For Getting Unstuck...

In Getting Unstuck (2002), Dr. Brown reiterates a key point: that we should begin with admitting that solutions exist. Brown presents that we should consciously claim that solutions are knowable, useful, feasible, and can work for everyone, if we can shift the focus from Winning to Solving. How often are we stuck in a problem because we're trying to "win," whether with an employee, a spouse, a child or some distant memory? The bottom line is that we need to get unstuck, get a new perspective. How we do that, according to Brown, is to adhere to the following discipline:

1. Time Shifting. Remember where you are, here and now, and recognize any irrational emotional reaction that is surfacing as not part of the present problem, merely part of your thinking about the present situation.
2. Patterns. Remember where you've been, and learn to look at patterns of behavior and patterns of consequences to establish for yourself, any self-knowledge of land-mines, pitfalls and or shortcomings in dealing with particular situations or personalities.
3. Self Awareness. See yourself in these situations and objectively watch your own patterns of thinking and behavior from a distance.
4. Building Blocks. Find and use the right materials. Look around you for the materials you have to solve the problem. It may be personnel, it may be time, it may be structural, organizational or whatever. In your mental picture actually "see" what you have around you. If, for instance, it is a confrontation with a colleague and you mentally see the clock on the wall in an office, does it remind you that you should take time out to collect yourself? Or that the important project that you are arguing about has plenty of time to resolve itself, or that you have plenty of time to work out a viable compromise? Find the right materials to help yourself.
5. Goals. Have a direction; know what you want. Make sure you're not confusing a smaller "task" with a larger life goal.
6. Get A Toolbox. Determine the dozen crucial skills that allow you to see the big picture clearly. Remind yourself of them. Use them frequently until they are consciously and quickly at your disposal when you are confronted with an activity or a situation that requires creative thinking and problem solving to "unstick" your reactive behavior and unsatisfying life results.
7. Interactions. Know that the only behavior you can control is your own. You cannot control anyone else's thinking nor anyone else's behavior.

Also, Dr. Brown brings up, as do many authors, that you've got to be able to "Ask The Question," not get lost in the problem. For example, a couple may find themselves in the middle of a discussion about one or the other's dysfunctional family and where to spend the holidays, when then evolves into an argument about getting a divorce when the original question might have been, "Is home-school going to be better for the kids?"

Asking a question focuses inquiry and mental activity, it prevents us from squandering time and energy on the wrong things. Being able to ask the question means being able to leave the past behind. It focuses on the present and on action. Living in the moment is no new philosophy or revelation, but it is required in order for inspiration and creativity to manifest. Otherwise imagination in the form of fantasy is regaling you either in the past or in the future.

There is also a particular significance and ease (for most) in being able to discern Patterns in situations, behaviors and thus, thinking. An animal (lab rat) will explore endlessly through a maze until he finds the food/prize. Thereafter, the animal only wants to take the easiest, shortest path to the same destination. This is not a good basis for thinking creatively, but it seems to be a base nature common to everyone and everything. The fact is that no two problems are ever exactly the same. The exploration through the maze still works in every case, but blindly following a path almost never works successfully and truly never works for creative growth. If a real problem keeps presenting itself, try to find what's behind your patterns. Watch out for words in your thinking like always, never, everyone, etc. If you don't have the practice or experience in thinking it through, work with a pencil and paper to watch the kind of words and sequence your thinking takes. If what you're doing or have been doing isn't working, stop and try something new. The unconscious pattern itself might be the problem.

Finally, we should watch out for assumptions, for they are always dangerous. They're based on the past and tend to blind us from the present. Are you making assumptions? Are you anticipating either a problem or an unrealistic solution based on assumption?

Steps In The Creative Process
Robert Fritz in his book Creating (1991), places a large emphasis on the role of love in creativity. This is not a mere cliché, but rather a deeper look at the essence of the word. "In the creative process, love is generative instead of simply responsive." Love must come first. We think of "falling" in love. Though we unconsciously accept the notion that we "fell" in love, we actively engaged in a lot of activity and thought to get there. There was rarely a complaint about not getting enough sleep; energy was always available for the pursuit of love.

There is a love/creativity connection. You love a thing before it exists. You want it and desire it so much that you must create it. First, you become an appreciator, appreciating the thing and the stimulus that caused it to be created. By doing this you open yourself to the stimulus to create as well. This love and appreciation translates into breaking down your barriers to the actual creating of the thing for which you are actively developing the love and appreciation for.

Fritz repeatedly cautions about regarding love as a passive thing, insisting that love and appreciation must be cultivated, pursued and nurtured in order to be a stimulus for your own creativity. We don't want to just be a better, more appreciative, loving audience, we want to be the filmmaker, loving the film long before the first scene is ever filmed. This presents great difficulty for certain types of people. Analyze yourself. If you have trouble with the concept of loving a concept, an idea, you may be one of those passive love people who must first find an object that stimulates love, sort of "I have to see it to decide if it really 'does it' for me?" You should be cautioned to analyze this in yourself. "If you truly want to become a creative person, you must abandon what is essentially a track of cowardice: wanting to see and judge another's efforts before applying your own." Also, such a person usually becomes merely imitative, mimicking the work of others rather than offering their own truly unique and individual effort.

Once we have cleared ourselves on the concept of love and appreciation, we must begin a self analysis to better understand what we love to do. Is it your work? What do you care about? What are the motives? Hundreds of highly successful people have been interviewed in various studies and invariably it is revealed that they continue to work, despite their millions, from the sheer enjoyment of it. Whether it's doing the deal, making the pitch, producing the product, reveling in the consumer appreciation...the bottom line is that what they love is essentially the "creating" of the thing, whether it's advertising, marketing, investment banking, real estate, music, or widgets. Even if they could make more money, say, by opening a restaurant, they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't love it.

Fritz outlines a creative process that is surprisingly similar to Hemholtz's original Incubation theory from the turn of the century. However, he has added some practical expansions to the explanation so that it has value as a tangible map for at least a particular tract of analyzing or beginning to analyze and prepare oneself for greater creativity.

1. Conception. Begin with an idea. "I am going to write a novel." You now already know that 1) you are going to write, and 2) it is going to be a novel, not a poem. More than that, you probably have a few standards, morals or ideals about the subject that you want to include. What's your take on what makes a good novel? Is it character or plot driven? Is it period-historic, contemporary fiction, or future fantasy? The point is that there are assumptions there, in whatever you decide to create, so it is essential to recognize them explicitly. Maybe you only want to experiment as a writer, or experiment as a writer with some new form. It's usually better to have some idea, even if it is vague, about the end result, no matter how spontaneous or improvisational you wish to be.
   
   To use another example, perhaps you wish to start your own business. Why? To have personal freedom? To invest yourself in your own project? To explore new ideas you can't explore within another setting? To say, "It's my dream," isn't specific enough. You must know yourself well enough to know yourself. In other words, you can't possibly succeed at something new (or something old) and be happy and fulfilled unless you have some notion of what's driving you. In recognizing that factor, you open yourself to a lot of new, creative explorations of possibilities and ideas about how to accomplish this.
   
   On a much smaller scale, perhaps you're struggling with a problem of communication breakdowns at work. You don't want to own or redirect the entire company, but you do want to creatively solve a problem that seems to have you at an impasse. Again, begin with your conception and examine your motives and your commitment by asking the same or the same questions. If there has been friction, personal pressure or discomfort as a result of the work situation, then there may be some need to completely clear the emotional content before you are able to conscientiously begin a creative process.
2. Vision. This indicates moving from the general notion toward a result. In the interest of continuing with examples that might be considered both mundane and aesthetic, we'll look at creating a video and redecorating your house. Say you're creating a video for a product, or a teaching video. How will it be used? In a store as part of a selling tact? In the home as instructional, informational material? Or in conjunction with a presentation, class or demonstration? What/who will the audience be? Does it make more sense to be practical and emphatic or playful and associative? These types of questions help to inspire a more fully realized vision of the end result, and will allow for more creativity within the project itself.
   
   It is a common misconception that creative vision is a vague, indefinite "feeling" and that definition and focus limit creative vision. They in fact enhance creativity by insuring that the effort and creative energy are directed toward the end result and not frivolously employed in areas where disciplined efforts serve better. Amateurs, or those without training or experience in a particular field, may often have interesting and worthwhile insights as a result of lacking any preconceptions about how something is to work. At the same time, however, particularly in what are considered "creative" endeavors such as the arts, this attitude or approach interfered with true creativity by hindering necessary, merely functional processes.
   
   To move to the example of redecorating, again, a series of questions helps to define and delineate the vision. Is it to be a specific and particular room for a certain usage, or a general theme or motif? Is it a family dwelling with children, a young couple or established professionals who entertain? Is it a second home or vacation spot? Are there frequent visitors or family? Such lines of questioning inevitably help one to plan and focus. Now that it is established that we need a guest room which doubles as a study, we can imagine the small sofa that pulls out into a bed, the need for certain neutrality in colors and styles, and so on.
3. Current Reality. While most people immediately jump to "getting there," that is, to establishing the vision, the best actual action is to establish what is currently present or available in relationship to the result you want. This ongoing stage in the creative process is described as a "tension," the discrepancy between the reality and the vision. The process along the way, but incepted at this stage, is to keep one eye on where you are and one eye on where you want to be. (This ability, incidentally, is abundantly developed in successful negotiators who do not get bogged down in the emotional, stagnating issues at the table. Keeping both images firmly fixed allows one to continually move toward that vision of the end result.)
   
   Interestingly, most of the major breakdowns in the creative process seem to focus on one's not being able to keep an undistorted awareness on where the current reality is. A sense of distortion is usually present, either fixing one in the past and unable to see the progress and present position, or too firmly fixed on the end result and unable to maintain an accurate assessment of the current reality. Either way leads to misfortune. It should be noted that although the vision is fixed as an "end result," that vision may adapt and adjust without affecting the end result. The paint may be blue instead of turquoise, and not affect the function of a study/guest room, for instance. A popular form or memorandum may be kept with a few adjustments that do not affect the outcome of communications efficiency in the office. A scene in a script may be altered or even dropped in favor of another expanded scene or even a single visual image that communicates the overall objective of the idea more simply or more powerfully. The end result is still the same in essence.
   
   This discernment is important in that it affects, actually impairs, your ability to act creatively toward your goal. You could not effectively travel to Boston if you did not know where to start your journey. First, know where you want to go. Then figure out how to get there from where you are.
4. Take Action. Once you know the end result, have a vision and a sense of the current reality, you may begin to take action. It is helpful if you accept this stage as an adventure. Either procrastination for fear of taking a wrong step or overzealousness without proper research and focus are equally prohibitive to success and the deployment of creativity. At some point in the planning stage, usually before you think you're ready and completely comfortable, try out one of your ideas. Maybe just a small one, a step in the process of creating your vision. You'll find that you don't really need to be "ready" as much as you need to be open. Chances are, this first little step is not going to go exactly as planned, but you'll adapt. Perhaps step one will even influence your next step. You may find yourself creatively adapting amid the process...so watch for it. The moment you begin to deviate from the plan in order to solve a problem, you are being creative.
   
   Sometimes, during an exercise in creativity, students at this stage end up throwing out their entire plan. That's ok! Because they learned something about their idea, that meant they had to change the vision. Remember the importance is on the process, not the product. The product that is a result of a creative process will inevitably be satisfying itself; whereas not yielding to inspiration, and forcing through a particular vision in the face of obstacles, will inevitably consume more energy, emotion, time and expense and be an exercise in maintaining stress and anger rather than encouraging creativity.
   
   Remember that creativity is a process of invention, not convention. Creativity is most apt to spring forth when there is a tension or distance between the current reality and the vision. Reconciling the two, relieving the tension, is the activity of creative inspiration. This creativity is appropriate because it is tailored exactly to your situation. Stubborn adherence to a particular execution of a vision is not. Remember, you don't have to give up your end result, you just may have to get there a different way, or perhaps find that your end result looks a little different than what you originally anticipated. ("Different" does not mean second rate, any more than "different" means "better".)
5. Adjust/learn/evaluate/adjust. The creative process is a process of learning. Once you take an action, observe and adjust. There may be a great degree of trial and error depending on your particular project and experience in being creatively open. As you become better in the creative process, i.e. the steps and stages of employing and evaluating your creative choices, you become better attuned to your own creative instincts, and ultimately better at simply being creative. This is a skill that is cumulative. As the instincts increase, so does your ability to evaluate them.
6. Building momentum. This is actually about accelerating learning. Creative people have the advantage of experience over time. You can add momentum to your learning by building in and enforcing deadlines. Though arbitrary to some extent, they have the result of forcing this creative experience by stimulating the decision/action/evaluation process. You will also find that as you experience this momentum, the creative inspiration begins to give energy back, invigorating and involving you to such an extent that there is no fatigue through expellation, only energy that is generated and rebounded back into the process itself.
7. Always have a place to go. This principle roughly translates to "always know where you are in relation to where you want to be." You should never leave off or abandon work without a clear idea of where you want to get to at the next stage. Generally, people stop when they "hit a natural 'stopping point.'" However, while this usually leaves us with a certain sense of satisfaction over work accomplished, it leaves us dangling and at odds with how and where to start, to "get into it" the next day or next time we approach it. By giving ourselves a stopping point that leaves a clear action open to us, we engage within the momentum established by our previous work and avoid the process of a "cold start" that may leave us uninspired, unchallenged and unsatisfied. Several accomplished authors (of fiction) remarked that they never left their typewriter (or computer) without a leading sentence or partial sentence beginning the next sequence or narrative. This allowed them to sit down and instantly jump back into the momentum of the particular project or passage. Even if they eventually changed or altered the work, it was inevitably more valuable than the time spent trying to begin a narrative momentum after being away from the process for a while.
8. Completion. The completion stage can bring about a number of unusual feelings and situations. Often there is an acceleration of energy and activity, including joy and elation. There can also be a certain uneasiness about completing something that has taken time and a great amount of energy. When you finish, the creation is done...no more to do. Now is the time to declare that you are the author/originator of the project and declare that it is done. Some people may have a bad habit of never bringing some things to an end simply to avoid the inevitable let down of post completion. It is similar to the post-partum depression of women who have just given birth, and this is what you have done: given birth. Otherwise, enjoy creation!
9. Living with your creation. Develop a relationship with your creation. Live with it, be an audience as though you were not the creator. There are differing degrees of satisfaction you might develop, and they may differ from day to day, week to week or over a period of time. The important thing is to recognize and love it for what it is; your manifested vision at this period of time.
   
   Isaac Asimov once said, "The best way for you to learn about your own internal rhythms is to experience the creative process many times." Isaac Asimov wrote over 400 books in addition to papers, histories, scholarly articles and more. He wrote fast and didn't do much re-writing. He taught himself to do that. His own particular process was at such a continual momentum and immersion level in his work that he rarely needed to consider time for research, plotting, outlining and the like. He was habitually in tune with his subconscious and his subconscious was always absorbing and working with an unrestricted affinity with his conscious state. He was, if you will, extremely conscious of his subconscious. On the other hand, novelist Frederick Forsyth typically spends five years on each of his books. He spends four and one half years researching, gathering data, developing plot construction and so forth. He then goes off by himself for six weeks and actually writes the entire novel in that time, a process which he hates. Forsythe claims to dislike the actual writing as much as he dislikes the idea of ending his love affair with research and formulation and imagination.
   
   The key here is to know yourself well enough to know your process. Know yourself well enough to know what you avoid as well as what you enjoy. What do you procrastinate over and what do you try to prolong? You must know yourself, and then you must simply "do it."

Leonardo Da Vinci's Seven Principles

Leonardo Da Vinci, when observing himself and other creative people, came up with seven principles for a creative life. They are:

1. Curiosity.
2. Demonstration: A commitment to test knowledge through experience.
3. Sensation: Continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, to enliven experiences. (also to challenge what you're seeing)
4. Sfumato: (literally, "going up in smoke") a willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox and uncertainty, to see cherished ideas and preconceived notions going "up in smoke."
5. Art/Science: Development of a balance between science and art, logic and imagination (whole-brain thinking)
6. Corporalite: The cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness and poise.
7. Connessione: Recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena. (Systems thinking.)

Further detailed explanations follow:

First Principle: Curiosity. Examples of this principle are illustrated by taking this and other classes, reading, and a quest for learning. Finding the right question. "How do we get to water?" vs. "How can we get the water to come to us?" Find your weaknesses and blind spots. What are your strengths? "What can I do to be more effective." Avoid self serving-ism. If you're too abrupt with someone, don't justify it. Take hard looks at yourself. Where are you inflexible, unyielding. What do you hold true without challenge?...Patriotism? Religious beliefs? Any Truth is equal to the challenge, to our curiosity, and da Vinci felt it an obligation to the Creator to partake not blindly of his Creation, but to explore it fully and deeply so to better appreciate it and our place in it.

Second Principle: Dimostazione. (Demonstration) da Vinci insisted on questioning conventional thinking. Thinking for yourself, trying it out through experience, was essential to fully understanding and fully appreciating nature (God). When he wanted to learn, he took it into his own hands. Probably the biggest single falling down of creativity is to rely on others for "expert" opinion or information. We are lead into all kinds of "creativity sins" when we unquestioningly partake. A story found in a recent news item told of a woman who wrung her hands at the plumber's report and estimate until her six year old daughter simply asked, "Why can't he just do something else?" A "something else" was possible, but she hadn't thought to ask and the plumber hadn't thought she'd be interested.

Pick something to learn, and challenge it. Find something you're dissatisfied with. Challenge it. Think about the problem and try something new. Boss you don't like. Smile and ask him to lunch. Hate that crabgrass....start reading about weeds. Don't ask the local guy at the store, read about it yourself. Soon you'll be an expert and much happier with your yard. Relationships. What's wrong? What don't you like? What do you like? How can you change to make it better? (Not the other person...creativity is about you seeing things differently.) What emotions or beliefs instantly rise to make you feel "right" or the other person "wrong?" What makes you think you can or can't change? Challenge yourself, explore. Don't settle for "because" or "that's the way I was raised" or "I'm uncomfortable with that." Why are you uncomfortable? If you can't ask these questions of yourself you'll never be able to ask them of someone else.

Religion comes into play here as a defining example. Many will say they have a fixed, certain belief, "I love God. I accept Christ as my Savior. I strive to be more Spiritual." Yet what do you do about it? How, specifically do you put religion into action? Most find, that aside from mentally setting themselves apart, they don't actually change beyond arriving at a certain smug satisfaction that they actually believe something.

Third Principle: Sensazione (Sensation). Picture a time, hopefully recently, when you felt vibrant, alert and vital. Chances are your senses were heightened by a new, and possibly unusual, or highly anticipated experience. Leonardo practiced cultivation of this experience constantly, so that he lived in a perpetual state of high alertness and sensitivity. Think of a trip to an unfamiliar place, or take an unfamiliar route, and observe everything new. Put yourself into unexpected or unanticipated situations on purpose. Take a left where you would turn right. Throw back the usual brand of peanut butter and grab the most unfamiliar jar on the shelf. Put yourself into situations where you have no previous connotations or connections. Challenge yourself to see familiar routines without prejudice as though seeing it for the first time. The average person, "looks, without seeing, listens without hearing, touches without feeling, eats without tasting, moves without physical awareness, inhales without awareness of odour of fragrance, and talks without thinking." (Leonardo). Take taste as an example. Slow down. Chew slowly as you eat. Become aware of how little you are aware. Discover where your appreciation, your attention lies. Show your appreciation. Move it into other areas.

For instance, your work environment. Is it sterile? Do you even notice? Do you notice the effect it has on you? What stimulates you? Learning effectiveness and efficiencies are at once relaxing but mentally stimulating. Pop, rap, heavy metal and the like actually distract and destroy concentration. Perhaps silence while you create is best.

Fourth Principle: Sfumato. Seeing on just such a level, as though for the first time can be confusing, but think of a child, trying to understand how moving a switch on the wall makes a light overhead appear or disappear. Embrace ordinary circumstances with curiosity. The more it makes no conscious sense, the more interesting and vital it is to ponder. Guide yourself to be more at home with this unsettled feeling, although most pop psychology preaches it as unpractical. It isn't practical. Our desire here isn't to be comfortable, but rather to be transformed. Creativity is not necessarily comfortable, but it is fulfilling, rewarding. Like climbing a mountain, it is hard work to get to the summit. Learn to enjoy the climb. To challenge the expected and the accepted is to challenge yourself. Learn from mistakes. Analyze experience. You can change conclusions at any time. It's ok to feel two ways about something, or even ambivalent, but know why you're feeling ambivalent.

As he learned more about everything Leonardo sunk deeper into ambiguity. Remember it is only the conscious mind that demands organized and logical answers that fit within the framework of current societal, economic, scientific, familial and cultural situations. Current Science tackles problems now knowing it needs to rely on that ambiguity and uncertainty, rather than stamping an arbitrary rule on top of a Universe we know so little of. An example of this is the Paradox that Light can be measured and defined as either a Wave or a Particle.

Fifth Principle: Arte Scienza (Art and Science). Our lips pay service to the balance of Arts and Science, the importance of Cultural Arts. The truth is we value the "factual" or "practical" education more. We gear our teaching and learning to the "right" answer. We learn to deliver "what the boss likes." Da Vinci intensely believed in, and vividly illustrated in his life, that we should not limit our pursuits to one course or the other, or even to one medium or the other. Moreover, we should learn to think and see not "Art" or "Science;" but "Arte Scienza," an interconnectedness of things that draws us into both worlds through the exploration of either. Even if we have no real practical experience in one, the other or either, the pursuit and exploration alone will make us more creative in our lives. Think about someone, maybe in school or elsewhere in life, who had outrageous answers and "off-the-wall" insights. Kids are like this. They will draw something that looks to us like a duck and call it a fire engine. They'll come up with outrageous explanations for what makes thunder and lightning. They do not "know" art and they do not "know" science. They see beauty where we cannot, and rationalize processes that we leave up to science. The result is an expanded openness that helps to break down our preconceptions of ourselves and our own abilities as much as it does our view of the world.

Sixth Principle: Corporalite. One of da Vinci's observations and peeves about the world was the rather clumsy and oafish lack of awareness people had for their own physical presence. "...They move through a room without any notion of themselves in space or moving through a space..." Imagine how he would feel today. To da Vinci, we are instruments of God. He took that literally to mean that not only was our whole body a kind of sense/awareness organ, but that we owed our maker an awareness at all levels of our being. Why should we not cultivate a graceful gesture as we reach for the salt instead of absently grabbing it. On some level, da Vinci is promoting a living dance with the awareness of not just a dancer, but that of a creative athlete. On top of feeling better, being more alert, which would in turn make us more open and receptive to being creative, we would begin to interact with others and our surroundings with an enhanced degree of consciousness and appreciation.

Seventh Principle: Connessione. The Recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena. This principle is at once defining of da Vinci and all that he accomplished and believed in. We see this principle echoed as an underlying point in almost every great creative thinker. It is a humility and acknowledgment of an Intelligence governing the Universe. It is at once both a spiritual and a scientific belief; a philosophy of Unity, where All is One and One is All. Leonardo felt he could hardly be an artist without properly studying anatomy, botany, architecture and such. While studying birds and beetles he would be inspired to conceive airplanes, parachutes and siege engines. At a smaller level, Leonardo felt one could hardly create a single element of something without understanding that it was part of a larger organization. For instance, a sculpture doesn't exist on its own, it is going to be placed somewhere, and that space affects the architecture and form of the sculpture, and vice versa. Dr. Candace Pert, author of Molecules Of Emotion (1997), says that the brain is so integrated with the rest of the body that every second a massive information exchange is occurring within us. If we could "...Imagine if each [exchange of information] had a tone, a signature note, rising and falling..." we would instantly perceive ourselves to be a massive concert within an even larger concert."

In modern parlay, to inject a topical reference of larger proportions, Leonardo couldn't conceive of taking action on an issue such as healthcare, social security, aid to a foreign country, etc., without considering the whole of the interconnected action: both the parties involved and the affected "systems" would be considered (i.e. treasury, taxes, benefits). Again, as an analogy, a Universe is like a living organism. The earth or a star may be like a fingernail on the whole, but it is still part of the whole. Likewise, hemispheres, nations, states, and individuals are each part of a greater organism as well as part of a smaller unit. A company or corporation, or even a small business is in itself an organism that exists independently but as part of a larger organism called society.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

In Their Own Words...A Collection Of Useful & Interesting Quotes...

"The next thing we know, the symphony is half over and we never heard it. ...And you think, 'What a waste of time.' But in that thinking, your mind begins to travel from one thing to another and all of a sudden you're inspired by the music, by the emotion, and from that I will get some of my very best ideas." (Charles Schultz)

"I wanted a greater, richer life, but not at the expense of others..." "After many rejections, I got back to the simple abracadabra, the straw that makes the bricks, the crude sketch... I described in simple words how it felt to take my mother's hand and walk across the sunlit fields, how it felt to see Joey and Tony rushing toward me with arms open, their faces beaming with joy. I put one brick upon another like an honest brick-layer. Something of a vertical nature was happening—not blades of grass shooting up, but something structural, something planned. I didn't strain myself to finish it; I stopped when I had said all I could. I read it over quietly, what I had written. I was so moved that the tears came to my eyes. It wasn't something to show an editor; it was something to put away in a drawer, to keep as a reminder of natural processes, as a promise of fulfillment. Every day we slaughter our finest impulses...tender shoots which we stifled because we lacked the faith to believe in our own powers, our own criterion of truth and beauty. Every man, when he gets quiet, when he becomes desperately honest with himself, is capable of uttering profound truths. We all derive from the same source. There is no mystery about the origin of things. We are all part of creation, all kings, all poets, all musicians; we have only to open up, only to discover what is already there." (Henry James, author)

"I love being alone with myself, and thinking. But I can be alone only among people. I can think only if I'm pushed and shoved, surrounded by difficulties, with questions to answer, problems to solve, wild beasts to tame."

"You always need an excuse to set off on a journey. A creator always needs excuses. Creators should almost be forced to create. It would be a good idea to have a state organization that would make artists work without respite form morning till night."

"Be what you are, that is, discover yourself, in order to love life." (Frederico Fellini, Italian Film Director)

"If the Angel [of inspiration] condescends to come, it will be because you have persuaded him, not with your tears, but by your humbled decision always to start afresh..." (Rainer Maria Rilke, Austrian poet)

When we think of the Creative mind we must think of an open mind, one able to create a space within itself for something new, constantly opening itself to the internal and external world. The opened mind can wander playfully into areas others do not take seriously, and return with creations that must be approached in all seriousness. The journey can be so scary and so strange that we want to run back to safety, or to cover up our discovery." (Barron, Creators On Creating)

"The idea seems absurd, but I can find no flaw in it." (Johannes Kepler, astronomer/scientist)

"One must 'wander'. When one becomes too goal-oriented, single-minded, pursuing one foot in front of the other, I might as well be a robot or a computer. Humanity fades; joy is gone. There's an art to wandering. You can have a plan, but you must not fix a destination. Or you can have a destination, but no plan. Without a plan you are rambling, but not 'wandering'. Too often we fix our destination in order to relieve our fears, but we have no plan. The fear of the unknown must be overcome in order to be creative." (Cathy Johnson, naturalist author)

"Anyone who begins to look at the capabilities of the human mind is forced to admit that we humans limit ourselves far greater than [can be] comfortably believed." (Willis Harman, Ph.D, research psychologist)

"I'm the only person I know who goes into a poster session [at a scientific meeting] and stops at the first poster that I have no idea what it's about. Find the poster you don't know anything about and look at it for a long time, and you might learn something totally different." (Kary Mullis, molecular biologist, on being curious)

"People are not creative in a medium with which they have no contact." (J.G. Bennet, mystic and philosopher.)

"If I had eight hours to chop a tree, I'd spend six sharpening my axe." (Abe Lincoln)

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts." (Einstein)

"Let's all be composers! You can be a 'video composer' a 'choreography composer' a 'social engineering composer'... If you can think design you can execute design—it's only a bunch of air molecules being pushed around.

Just follow these simple Instructions:

1. Declare your intention to create a "composition."
2. Start a piece at some time.
3. Cause something to happen over a period of time (it doesn't matter what happens in your 'time hole'—we have critics to tell us whether it's any good or not, so we won't worry about that part).
4. End the piece at some time (or keep it going, telling the audience it is a 'work in progress.'
5. "Get a part-time job so you can continue to do stuff like this." (Frank Zappa, rock musician, composer)

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Part III
Discussion

It seems clear that creativity is all about "seeing" in a figurative sense. It's about being able to get a new perspective. In Harper Lee's fictional/biographical classic, To Kill A Mockingbird (1991), Atticus Finch cautions his children not to judge others until "you've walked around in their shoes" for a bit. This seems to perfectly illustrate both the desired goal of unlocking creativity as well as the way to get there. Now, as to whose shoes you choose to walk in, and how far and which direction...well, analogy can only go so far.

For those of us seeking to be more creative, we must indeed "choose to refuse" many beloved and cherished notions, for most of those things seem to us "who we are." In the course of writing this paper, assembling the information and research, the writer had many interesting real life experiences that seemed to pop out of the material being reviewed and written about. At one point, with realization and a bit of sadness, I overheard a mother in a checkout line telling the checker all about her little boy, who seemed to be about pre-school age. As she discussed his likes, his dislikes, his interests and his predispositions it was as though a framework was closing around the little boy, defining and shaping him into a preconceived product. The child will obviously hear and respond to these notions. Even if it is a rebellious response, still his own character and perceptions are being shaped and imposed upon him. It was hard to imagine that a few short years of life could already begin to impose such limits on our openness to the grand wonders of infinite possibilities.

This writer, like almost all of us, was undoubtedly much like that young boy. We all carry labels that we accept as definitions of ourselves. Even the labels that we reject in some way define us. The point must be to disregard all such labels and find our true originality, our own unique perspective and expression. As an actor, I have had the opportunity to learn much about adopting other perspectives and finding new ways to see things. Indeed, it is somewhat of a disappointment that practically none of the books on creativity even mention acting as a strategy for breaking through barriers and teaching ourselves to see things differently, when, in fact, a classically trained actor is "trained" to do precisely that: to adopt the perspective of a complete stranger. In order to play Richard III, one cannot condemn him, one must sympathize with him, understand his point of view. There is probably no greater expander of the imagination than to find a way to see through the eyes of a man who, at least according to Shakespeare's play, ruthlessly kills rivals and children alike with the utmost justification.

When adopting such a role, one experiences at first reluctance, then detached interest. Through the analyzing of motives and portraying of certain acts, one is forced to incessantly ask questions and to consider possibilities. It is perhaps an artificial exercise, but a valuable one. For a given period of time one is forced to utterly abandon one's own sensibilities and adopt another's. It is not easy, but it does get easier with practice.

Here is another element from the actor's handbook of practical experience. "Practice" by wearing different clothing. If you usually dress in jeans, try putting on formal wear and going to the grocery store, or to the bank. Observe how you feel, how you behave differently, and so on. Also quite telling is how you are perceived changes, especially if, along with the clothes, you adopt the fiction of being someone else. Shoes, especially (as Atticus mentions figuratively) are an interesting aid. Purchasing a few second hand shoes at a thrift store in a size, shape or style completely unlike one's own usual choices makes for interesting perspective shifts. As you walk around in those shoes, feel them and feel the ground underneath. Feel the way your gait and rhythm change. Don't try to preserve your own. Let the shoes or the clothes stimulate something new. It's fascinating how such little details can help train us to shift out of our own preconceptions and acceptances of a fixed reality.

Though not included in the book lists of research conducted specifically for this paper, I would include here the books by Michael Checkhov (An Actor Prepares) and any of the books by Constantin Stanislavsky. Also, Viola Spolin created a series of exercises and wrote on Improvisation for the Theater. The Improvisation exercises and theories have been used extensively in schools as part of an educational curriculum to stimulate creative thinking. They are valuable not only to actors, but to all who seek an opportunity to break out of their comfort zone.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Conclusion

The whole of the works on creativity add up to interesting notions and nothing more, unless they are practiced. Even when an inspired quote or insight makes us sigh with sudden insight or appreciation, it does nothing more unless we try to adopt what it teaches us. As mentioned in almost every work, questions are critical. Why do we like a certain thing, or like to do a certain thing a certain way? "Just because..." is not an answer that will carry you very far. Such questions, even about the most mundane aspects of our life, are often oddly uncomfortable. One might not expect the odd emotional rises produced by such explorations, so be cautioned. It is a life changing process, and change is never comfortable.

My final comment on the subject of unlocking creativity is this: take risks. Small risks, big risks, it doesn't matter. Force yourself to do different things, and to do things differently. Write with your opposite hand, wear different shoes, let the server choose your course from the menu and don't ask what it is. Shop at a different store for a change and notice how you are suddenly alert when you don't know exactly where everything is. Travel to a country where they don't speak English. Try it all and keep trying. If you find yourself saying, "No" with some justification, then you're on the wrong track and missing the point. You can't get the best deal, keep to the comfort food, save money, get to work in the shortest amount of time, etc... if you want to experience change. You already know how to do all those things. If you want to learn to do something else, if you want to have a better relationship, more fun at work, a more vivid life, you're going to have to adventure. Life is the ultimate creative act, so dive in!

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Creativity Exercises

1. Examine a problem situation that you have experienced in the past or are experiencing now. Review the events and the conversation, the actions and reactions that transpired. Now, imagine someone else, a celebrity or famous personality you admire taking your role and see how it transpires.
2. Spend a day trying to do everything with your opposite hand. If you keep forgetting, try bandaging your predominate hand or putting it in a sling. Notice how much more thoughtful your actions become about your daily events. Make note of any impressions or insights that come from seemingly inconsequential things; for instance, how long you leave the water running when you brush your teeth, how you notice what's actually in the third shelf on your medicine cabinet when you have to reach across, etc... Think about anything that occurs to you to do differently as a result.
3. Buy a child's watercolor set or a book of construction paper and some child's scissors. Spend an afternoon painting or doing a craft project (if this is unusual for you). Go to the park or a museum and practice drawing or painting just for fun and without judgment. Do you find yourself noticing more detail or forming new or different impressions about a tree or a painting or sculpture.
4. Do a predrawing (one in which you are unconcerned about the ultimate outcome or the realistic resemblance to the object). Draw one of a person, one of a hand and one of an object like a chair or table. Write on the back how you felt about them and put them away. Now, draw the object upside down. Change the way you see it. When you're finished turn the drawing around and look at it. What do you see? You'll probably find that you are interfering by trying to draw what you think instead of what you see. When you don't easily recognize the object by taking it out of its context and form, your thinking can't produce an association and you "see" the lines, curves, edits, and shapes as they are. This exercise is bound to make you feel irritated and uncomfortable as your perception doesn't want to let go...it wants things in boxes, so to speak. It is disorienting, but this is precisely what we need to learn to do...not process the complete information because we categorize and label it instead of truly seeing or experiencing it.
5. As rapidly as possible, list the uses for an ordinary brick in one minute. Now spend three minutes drawing the same object with an ordinary pencil. If possible, perform this exercise along with a child, or get a child to perform the same exercise. Compare the two results and reflect on the information it gives you about your own perception and imagination.
6. Take a sheet of white paper and cover it completely with soft, graphite pencil. Now look at a simple object and attempt to erase out the parts that aren't there. Note what you feel, what you observe and what the outcome is.
7. Collect a group of as many signatures as possible, both from people you know and from people you don't know (get some friends to help you in this). Look at all the signatures as a type of drawing, and see what it tells you about the person. For signatures of people you know...does it illustrate and confirm your perception of the person? Does it reveal anything new? For those of people you don't know, write down your feelings and intuitions about the person who made the signature. First talk to friends, then try to meet the person in order to verify your perception or to invalidate any assumptions you might have made. Ask yourself, where assumptions were either wrong or correct, what led you in the right, or wrong, direction.
8. Set aside a day where you are going to perform a particular act of "ordinary" creative problem solving, such as, "I am going to spend the day getting rid of every household maintenance problem." It will be essential to ask specific and detailed questions. It is a place to start in terms of looking at the everyday routine and preconceived notions, examining the problem(s) as part of a larger system of life activity.
9. Plan a holiday for yourself to a foreign country you've never visited. Research the prices of airfares, hotels, and in-country travel. Find items of interest to visit and plan itineraries. If a visa is needed, go so far as to write a letter to the embassy asking for details and times and costs of obtaining the proper visa. Find exchange rates, research foods and local specialties. Go online and find authentic recipes from the area and try one out, or visit a specialty restaurant. Seek out a native of the country and ask questions. Legitimately plan and see your trip as though you were actually going to take the holiday. Pay attention to real details, like who would feed the pets, how much time you could take from work, could you creatively negotiate advance pay or tie the trip into your work or educational program and receive assistance or educational benefit? Is there a courier service that needs someone to deliver a package who might subsidize part of the air fare? How does the trip make you feel? Is there a sense of anticipation? Have you fostered any new interests or appreciations that weren't there before? Even though you might not actually take the trip, absorb the refreshing essence of the journey as if you did. New places, new people and experiences foster creative energies.
10. Undertake a foreign language course...preferably an immersion class that involves attending classes with other people. Notice any shared interests or new interests that occur. Pay particular attention to any new perceptions as a result of communicating in a different language.
11. Enroll in an acting class with a legitimate professional teacher, or offer to be a non-speaking performer in a nearby metropolitan opera or stage production.

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>

Bibliography

Adams, James L. 1986
The Care And Feeding Of Ideas. Addison-Wesley; Menlo Park, CA

Arana, Marie, Ed. 2003
The Writing Life: Writers On How They Think And Work. Perseus Books Group; Cambridge, MA

Barron, Frank, Alfonso Montuori and Anthea Barron, Eds. 1997
Creators On Creating. G.P.Putnam's Sons; NY

Brown, Joy, Ph.D 2002
Getting Unstuck. Hay House, Inc.; Carlsbad, CA

Cameron, Julia 1992
The Artist's Way. Penguin Putnam; NY

Darnton, John, Ed. 2001
Writers [On Writing]: Collected Essays. Henry Holt and Co., LLC; NY

Edwards, Betty 1986
Drawing On The Right Side of the Brain. Simon & Schuster; NY

Edwards, Betty 1987
Drawing On The Artist Within. Simon & Schuster; NY

Fritz, Robert 1991
Creating. Fawcett Columbine; NY

Gelb, Michael J. 1998
How To Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci. Delacorte Press; NY

Grudin, Robert 1990
The Grace Of Great Things: Creativity And Innovation. Ticknor & Fields; NY

Harman, Willis, Ph.D and Howard Rhiengold 1984
Higher Creativity: Liberating The Unconscious For Breakthrough Insights. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.; LA (dist. bySt. Martin's Press; NY)

Harper Lee 1991
To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper & Row; NY

Levesque, Lynne C. 2001
Breakthrough Creativity. Davies-Black Publishing; Palo Alto, CA

May, Rollo 1994
The Courage To Create. W.W. Norton; NY

McCoy, Charles 1980
Why Didn't I Think of That? Fawcett Columbine; NY

Pert, Candance, Ph.D 1997
Molecules of Emotion: Why you feel the way you feel. Simon & Schuster; NY

Sartre, Jean-Paul 1948
The Psychology Of Imagination. Philosophical Library, Inc.; NY

Tharp, Twyla 2003
The Creative Habit. Simon & Schuster; NY

Thorpe, Scott 2000
How To Think Like Einstein. Sourcebooks, Inc.; Naperville, IL

Wilbur, Ken 1977
The Spectrum Of Consciousness. Theosophical Publishing House; Wheaton, IL

Unlocking Creativity & Imagination: Index >>