Creatividad / Creativity El fluir y la psicologia del descubrimiento y la invencion / Flow a... Book

Creativity isn’t really a “how-to” book. Rather, it is an exploration of outstanding individuals who have impacted those around them such that they have influenced significant change within or understanding of the endeavors in which they work. It is not a quantitative investigation of those outstanding individuals, but a qualitative consideration of similarities and dissimilarities between those generally thought to be “genius” or “innovative.”

Csikszentmihalyi considers interdisciplinary environmentalist Barry Commoner, heroic polio vaccine discoverer Jonas Salk, young adult fantasy author Madeleine L’Engle, prolific biologist E. O. Wilson, Great Books editor Mortimer Adler, the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson, physicist and inventor Freeman Dyson, Nobel prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, and jazz pianist and composer extraordinaire Oscar Peterson (among others). These interviews provide plenty of insightful moments for the one who struggles through the roughly 600 pages of the text’s body (it is supplemented by an appendix with biographical information on the interviewees and an appendix which delineates the interview protocol used in the study (though the author admits that he didn’t follow the script by rote because he didn’t want to insult brilliant and creative people with whom he had great respect and, because of their heavy work schedules, less time than is available in some studies).

Even without the bulk of statistical analysis, Creativity’s interviews are sufficient to do some “myth-busting” on certain ideas about what incites creativity. One word of caution, however, note that Csikszentmihalyi isn’t really interested in personal creativity as much as “…the kind of creativity that leaves a trace in the cultural matrix.” (p. 79—but note that I was using a horizontal orientation to my eBook which almost doubles the page count) In order to cover that aspect of creativity, he sees creativity as the interrelations between a tripartite system: domain (symbolic rules and procedures), field (authorities who act as “gatekeepers” to the domain), and person (the individual who expresess a new idea or pattern while still using the symbols and methodologies of a given domain) (pp. 29, 82). Creativity certainly emphasizes both the need for mastering the foundational knowledge within a domain (“…memes must be learned before they can be changed: …” (p. 33)) and interdisciplinary/intercultural ferment (“…centers of creativity tend to be at the intersection of different cultures, where beliefs, lifestyles, and knowledge mingle and allow individuals to see new combinations of ideas with greater ease.” (p. 35)

One of the myths that is busted is the idea that one must have a privileged childhood in order to learn and experiment enough to be truly creative (p. 35 and especially, p. 446). While that may have some modicum of truth in it, there is also the fact that many people attribute their creativity to having had to go through devastating, sometimes tragic times. Csikszentmihalyi presents both sides in Creativity as he observes, “Creative individuals are remarkable for their ability to adapt to almost any situation and to make do with whatever is at hand to reach their goals.” (p. 143) Certainly, being born into a wealthy or sophisticated family offers a certain amount of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls “cultural capital,” but some individuals “fight” their way to the right schools and opportunities while more privileged peers stay behind (p. 149). To be honest, this was a chapter that I personally needed to read because I have often believed that I could have been more influential if I had been born with more “cultural capital.” Now, I just rejoice that I managed to get as far as I did (and it’s, of course, debatable how far that is).
Another myth that is busted would be the perpetually energized and vital creative individual. Actually, Creativity suggests that creative individuals are those with “…the ability to move from one extreme to the other as the occasion requires.” (p. 159) There does seem to be a great deal of physical energy involved, but the complexity of their personality balances that with times of quiet and rest.

Indeed, Freeman Dyson stated, “I am fooling around not doing anything, which probably means that this is a creative period, although of course you don’t know until afterward. I think it is very important to be idle.” (p. 269) This resonates with my limited personal experience (corresponding with my limited creativity), especially when one considers a later observation in the book: “Cognitive theorists believe that ideas, when deprived of conscious direction, follow simple laws of association. They combine more or less randomly, although seemingly irrelevant associations between ideas may occur as a result of a prior connection.” (p. 276) This was suggested another way when Csikszentmihalyi cited an old Italian saying, “Impara l’arte, e mettila da parte (learn the craft, then set it aside).” (p. 247)
One of the interesting aspects which Creativity points out is the need for strong parental support particularly when the family is not wealthy or privileged One of the most I decline in their later years, “…if anything, it increased in the later years.” (p. 550)

As for insights (some of which I had seen in other sources), I liked one of the respondents’ definition of creativity as consisting of anticipation and commitment (p. 213). I also liked the suggestion that the creative process usually takes five steps (although they may overlap): 1) period of preparation or immersion in the subject (pp. 218-219), 2) period of incubation (p. 219), 3) breakthrough of insight (the “Aha” or “Eureka” moment) (pp. 219-220), 4) evaluation as to whether the insight is worth pursuing (p. 220), and 5) elaboration (Thomas Edison’s “99 percent perspiration.”—p. 221).

Another insight I enjoyed was Csikszentmihalyi’s observation about a “muse” within the creative individual: “If the artist were not tricked by the mystery, he or she might never venture into the unexplored territory.” (p. 312) Or, did you ever assume that you could write, paint, or think better if you were just in a wonderful, natural space? Creativity assures us, “A great view does not act like a silver bullet, embedding a new idea in the mind. Rather, what seems to happen is that when persons with prepared minds find themselves in beautiful settings, they are more likely to find new connections among ideas, new perspectives on issues they are dealing with. But it is essential to have a ‘prepared mind.’” (p. 362) Another major point that I had never thought about was the awareness of how much biology has changed since the 1960s. There is a great line in the book that reads: “To paraphrase Karl Marx, the point of biology shifted from studying life to actually changing it.” (p. 693)

I told my wife that Creativity was some 600 pages long and I had some 200 pages worth of highlighted notes. This is a book that inspires me at the same time it reminds me of my failings. Let me close with Csikszentmihalyi’s warning about a purely scientific worldview: “With the glorious advance of science in the last few centuries, these intuitions of a network of causes and effects binding on individuals [ie. religion and morality] were discredited as superstition. The human species was seen as all-powerful, its actions above the laws of nature.” (pp. 809-810)

Or, maybe one should take away the wise words of Madeleine L’Engle: “Human beings are the only creatures who are allowed to fail. If an ant fails, it’s dead. But we’re allowed to learn from our mistakes and from our failures.” (p. 663) That’s one of the biggest takeaways from this book for me.