7 ms·

The Rise and Rise of Creativity

60 points by headalgorithm 6y ago

cryptica 6y ago
Having worked for multiple tech corporations, this idea that creativity levels are going up is ridiculous. Corporations suppress true creativity and only allow it to exist within a very narrow spectrum. Also, the people they hire are not creative. You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Free thinkers are contrarians for most of their lives because they are not swayed by the undulating rhetoric of the times. When society is sane, free thinkers appear sane, then society is insane, free thinkers appear insane (when in a group of insane people, those who are sane will be labeled as insane). Free thinkers are always sane with reference to the reality of the world around them but they can become unhinged from social and cultural norms when these norms start to diverge from observable reality.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Corporations suppress true creativity I think this point is summarized well by the blurb of a book i came across recently: “Everything you have been told about creativity is wrong From line managers, corporate CEOs, urban designers, teachers, politicians, mayors, advertisers and even our friends and family, the message is “be creative’. Creativity is heralded as the driving force of our contemporary society, celebrated as agile, progressive and liberating. It is the spring of the knowledge economy and shapes the cities we inhabit. It even defines our politics. What could possibly be wrong with this? In this brilliant, counter-intuitive blast, Oli Mould demands that we rethink the story we are being sold. Behind the novelty, he shows that creativity is a barely hidden form of neoliberal appropriation. It is a regime that prioritises individual success over collective flourishing. It refuses to recognise anything—job, place, person—that is not profitable. And it impacts on everything around us: the places where we work, the way we are managed, how we spend our leisure time. Is there an alternative? Mould offers a radical redefinition of creativity, one embedded in the idea of collective flourishing, outside the tyranny of profit. Bold, passionate and refreshing, Against Creativity, is a timely correction to the doctrine of our times.”
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Nowhere is this more clear than on platforms like YouTube where the tendrils of corporate control extend outside of the entity itself to ensnare another class of gig worker. Entertainers are now vapidly defined "Creators" who are working to provide entertainment such that it appeases "the algorithm" and grants them wealth.
    - bergstromm466 6y ago
      > working to provide entertainment such that it appeases "the algorithm" and grants them wealth nice framing. All hail the algorithm!
- auggierose 6y ago
  I understand where you are coming from, and it might indeed appear that way. But look at another link from HN: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54510363 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54510363 This is incredible creativity at work there at this dutch company. So creativity exists, it is well and flourishing, but still the overwhelming majority of people are not creative. Therefore, most people at Facebook, Google etc. are not creative. If you want to be creative, you need to be creative in carving out your own way of doing so also. It was always like that, and it will always be like that.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    > incredible creativity at work there at this dutch company I understand where you are coming from, and it might indeed appear that way. But the primary reason they are successful and have been able to make this step is because of the rich inheritance available to the researchers. Most jobs under Capitalism today are soul crushing and exploitative. In my journey of going upstream to try to seek to understand the root of this dysfunction, I came to see that it is due to 1) the Intellectual Property system that creates contrived/artificial scarcity due to outdated economics, and 2) the credit monopoly [the way we are forced to mediate our interactions through capitalist debt protocols/agreements ($, €, etc)]. Our current system is truly the elephant in the room. [1] I really don't think an Intellectual Property Monopoly is the only way creativity can happen. I think if we switched to FLOSS-everything we'd still have all the same tech. In fact I think we'd have more innovation than ever before. More chances for more people to work on things means more experimentation and results, could mean safer and more sustainable developments - and thus more sustainable technologies. Silicon Valley isn't special. I am on here with you other technology enthusiasts and experts because the discussions on innovation do happen here currently. But it's not because it's unique. It's because Silicon Valley and American investors exert power over everyone else in the world through through it's IP system and agreements like TRIPS, together with the US-based money system and US-influenced 'development' organizations like the IMF and the World Bank. [2] Imagine what the world would look like without IP? [1] https://prezi.com/xmzld_-wayho/new-economy-new-wealth/ https://prezi.com/xmzld_-wayho/new-economy-new-wealth/ [2] https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the-global-governance-system https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the...
- loopz 6y ago
  In the here and now, at all times, you are very much correct, as correct as a free thinker will claim to be anyway. Over the course of 400 years, creativity and freedoms of expression has indeed been on the rise. However, companies and human organisation still have the same needs to funnel the creative input, hopefully into something valuable with minimal externalized costs. So the balance is between personal creative freedoms and benefits, versus organisational control, exploitation and value extraction.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. If you want to be truly free thinking then suffer your whole life for your art/creation and die in obscurity only to be celebrated decades after your death. Contrarian is used as if it means; I can do what I want against a percieved opponent and get paid handsomely for it. The real contrarians are pushing data collection, adtech, outrage machines and using knowledge to control people. The power in being contrary is found in collective outrage movements, tech and religion instead. Thinkingly freely is part of the order now, as reliable and necessary as bread and butter. It is not contrary.
  - DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
    So the true modern day contrarian is the...conformist? I like it. Feels very 'fourth turning'.
  - danjac 6y ago
    > The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. News to Andy Warhol I'm sure, who lived until 1987.
    - friendlybus 6y ago
      His Marilyn peice in '62 was the nail in the coffin for the avant guarde. Being rebellious and contrary ended with his workman-like style and using commercial subjects to cash in on pop art. The desire to create paintings that have a revolutionary and contrary meaning to the establishment, has since faded away. We are seeing the fresh new ideas in video games instead and they were made to be saleable and agreeable products from day one. Its very difficult to get people to see a video game that truly challenges the status quo. We are yet to see a peice of art or media that really challenges the world, since the 60s. All the power is in the online platforms and data, that are used to target people with ourageous ideas. Art production has turned into a normal everyday machine, like the dishwasher or hot pockets.
      - watwut 6y ago
        Of course video gams are made saleable and agreeable, they are among the most expensive mediums to make. If you want unusual challenging or irritating, you need cheaper production then that. And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" - they play them because everyone plays them. That being said, how do you define "challenges world"? Because I am pretty sure I can find challenging pieces made after 1960 regardless of what your definition of challenging is. They are just not mainstream.
- jp555 6y ago
  Shannon said information value depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising. Can we say creative people are more attracted to, and produce more surprising information than non-creative people? Corporations are usually biased towards logic and statistics (finance & accounting), but through this they can become blind to the fact that predictable bits contain much less information than unpredictable bits, and they can even develop a kind of hidden disgust around creativity. For example, nobody gets fired for being "logical" and it not working out. But if you're make a creative mistake, well that's all on you and you're shown the door. This compounds and all you're left with are "Experts" in logic straightjackets.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    > Corporations are usually biased towards logic and statistics (finance & accounting) I would argue they're more biased towards metrics than logic.
    - jp555 6y ago
      sure, I meant more "logical thinking" than formal "logic".
- burntoutfire 6y ago
  > You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Why? You seem to have some limited definition of creativity.
  - volkk 6y ago
    i think theyre saying that to be creative, you need to think in a way that's not thought of by everybody, so that by definition makes you contrarian. its an interesting point, not sure how much i agree with it, but i think it definitely shows amongst people we define to be successful authors/painters, etc. the epic ones had always gone "against the grain"
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
      As a counterpoint, over history, countless of simple people were doing creative folk music. I don't think many of them were contrarians of any kind.
      - volkk 6y ago
        agreed, i really think theres a spectrum. some are more, others are less. but creativity is creativity. i do think that to be a household name posthumously, you need to be leaning heavily towards questioning everything
        burntoutfire 6y ago
        Were Mozart, Bach, Michelangelo, Balzac into questioning everything? I've read the biography of Balzac for example and it seem that his biggest dream was to be rich and accepted by aristocracy as a peer. And yet his work is immortal.
- tabtab 6y ago
  Re: You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Amen! "Shut up and go with the flow" is common advice I hear when I question the logic of various decisions in multiple organizations. If a corporation really wants creativity, they'll allow and REWARD asking "pesky questions" that may hurt egos of those with higher rank. Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" basically confirms this: you have to have a personal relationship to truly influence somebody, logic alone won't cut it. I hate that book, but it's speaks the ugly truth. Humans are not Vulcans. It's there if you want it, most orgs don't. I'm just the messenger. That being said, some contrarians gum up the works with low-quality questions and research. (Sometimes called "trolls".) There does need to be a systematic way to ask questions and make suggestions with a vetting process, but such requires a skill-set and training, which does require org resources and time.
wrnr 6y ago
I think you get "creative" when you discover or create a game with new rules, and then explore this landscape in an exhaustive fashion. For example: Like Miles Davis playing both cool jazz and jazz fusion. Cubism, paint on a flat surface all sides of a 3D object. Most people either do one or the other, thinking that just doing new things is enough to create something new but lacking the stamina to stick to it, or blindly follow the rules of an old tradition that has lost its relevance. A good artist actually know this theory and will seek to apply it. But I think its also where modern jazz and art lost its way, just as the corporates, is that they are to buzzy being creative todo the actual work of creating.
- cedex12 6y ago
  It's interesting that your description sounds a lot like (some aspect) of math (science) or say PLT: you develop a system and explore it (maybe both at the same time, maybe one after the other)
robertlagrant 6y ago
This articles is a bit silly. History includes the history of creation and discovery. It's possible that much less prominence was given to people who write about creativity than now, but that's just a great sign that enough useful stuff has been invented and developed (creatively) that our economies can support more people who write stuff online for a living.
cjfd 6y ago
People seem to be down on capitalism and corporations but really... Insofar as people are being creative 99% of such creativity is enable by capitalism. This whole thread sounds like a bunch of little princes and princesses who have no idea how priviledged they are.
- visiblink 6y ago
  I agree that a liberal society and the profit motive create an environment that fosters creativity. Freedom of movement between jurisdictions is important too. But people are down on corporations for good reason. They're a poorly-regulated entitlement.
- vcxy 6y ago
  Corporations can simultaneously be shitty, soul crushing places to work and also be the enabler of creativity outside the work place due to creating such a rich society. I don't think there is a contradiction here.
visiblink 6y ago
Past definitions of creation were more careful. Most "creation" in the past involved transforming matter. No one ever "created" matter (well, except God in their intellectual universe). It may be accurate to say that intellectual activity can be creative (though it's undoubtedly derivative most of the time), but in the physical world, creation is most likely to be an inaccurate term.
- willismichael 6y ago
  I like that, whenever I do something "creative", it feels more like arranging or discovering something, rather than creating.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
known 6y ago
But the Wealth created with Creativity is not trickled down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
- spongepoc 6y ago
  It trickles down by the fact that we all get to enjoy the fruits of technological advances without having to redo the hard work of inventing it. But there's no inherent reason why it should tricke down in income terms.
twright 6y ago
I think this is a good history of the idea of creativity and how it's been appropriated by the market or the state. I'm reminded of a Vonnegut quote: > “The kick of creation is the act of creating, not anything that happens afterward. [...] write a four line poem. Make it as good as you can. Don’t show it to anybody. Put it where nobody will find it. And you will discover that you have your reward.” That's creativity to me. In these months I've been exploring what I can make in Blender, mostly weird stuff, posting it nowhere. Nothing has been more satisfying.
- Pelic4n 6y ago
  As a fan of weird, poorly made surreal blender animation, I'm sad about your stuff I'll never get to see

60 points by headalgorithm 6y ago

Having worked for multiple tech corporations, this idea that creativity levels are going up is ridiculous. Corporations suppress true creativity and only allow it to exist within a very narrow spectrum. Also, the people they hire are not creative. You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Free thinkers are contrarians for most of their lives because they are not swayed by the undulating rhetoric of the times. When society is sane, free thinkers appear sane, then society is insane, free thinkers appear insane (when in a group of insane people, those who are sane will be labeled as insane). Free thinkers are always sane with reference to the reality of the world around them but they can become unhinged from social and cultural norms when these norms start to diverge from observable reality.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> Corporations suppress true creativity I think this point is summarized well by the blurb of a book i came across recently: “Everything you have been told about creativity is wrong From line managers, corporate CEOs, urban designers, teachers, politicians, mayors, advertisers and even our friends and family, the message is “be creative’. Creativity is heralded as the driving force of our contemporary society, celebrated as agile, progressive and liberating. It is the spring of the knowledge economy and shapes the cities we inhabit. It even defines our politics. What could possibly be wrong with this? In this brilliant, counter-intuitive blast, Oli Mould demands that we rethink the story we are being sold. Behind the novelty, he shows that creativity is a barely hidden form of neoliberal appropriation. It is a regime that prioritises individual success over collective flourishing. It refuses to recognise anything—job, place, person—that is not profitable. And it impacts on everything around us: the places where we work, the way we are managed, how we spend our leisure time. Is there an alternative? Mould offers a radical redefinition of creativity, one embedded in the idea of collective flourishing, outside the tyranny of profit. Bold, passionate and refreshing, Against Creativity, is a timely correction to the doctrine of our times.”
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Nowhere is this more clear than on platforms like YouTube where the tendrils of corporate control extend outside of the entity itself to ensnare another class of gig worker. Entertainers are now vapidly defined "Creators" who are working to provide entertainment such that it appeases "the algorithm" and grants them wealth.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    > working to provide entertainment such that it appeases "the algorithm" and grants them wealth nice framing. All hail the algorithm!
auggierose 6y ago
I understand where you are coming from, and it might indeed appear that way. But look at another link from HN: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54510363 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54510363 This is incredible creativity at work there at this dutch company. So creativity exists, it is well and flourishing, but still the overwhelming majority of people are not creative. Therefore, most people at Facebook, Google etc. are not creative. If you want to be creative, you need to be creative in carving out your own way of doing so also. It was always like that, and it will always be like that.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > incredible creativity at work there at this dutch company I understand where you are coming from, and it might indeed appear that way. But the primary reason they are successful and have been able to make this step is because of the rich inheritance available to the researchers. Most jobs under Capitalism today are soul crushing and exploitative. In my journey of going upstream to try to seek to understand the root of this dysfunction, I came to see that it is due to 1) the Intellectual Property system that creates contrived/artificial scarcity due to outdated economics, and 2) the credit monopoly [the way we are forced to mediate our interactions through capitalist debt protocols/agreements ($, €, etc)]. Our current system is truly the elephant in the room. [1] I really don't think an Intellectual Property Monopoly is the only way creativity can happen. I think if we switched to FLOSS-everything we'd still have all the same tech. In fact I think we'd have more innovation than ever before. More chances for more people to work on things means more experimentation and results, could mean safer and more sustainable developments - and thus more sustainable technologies. Silicon Valley isn't special. I am on here with you other technology enthusiasts and experts because the discussions on innovation do happen here currently. But it's not because it's unique. It's because Silicon Valley and American investors exert power over everyone else in the world through through it's IP system and agreements like TRIPS, together with the US-based money system and US-influenced 'development' organizations like the IMF and the World Bank. [2] Imagine what the world would look like without IP? [1] https://prezi.com/xmzld_-wayho/new-economy-new-wealth/ https://prezi.com/xmzld_-wayho/new-economy-new-wealth/ [2] https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the-global-governance-system https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the...
loopz 6y ago
In the here and now, at all times, you are very much correct, as correct as a free thinker will claim to be anyway. Over the course of 400 years, creativity and freedoms of expression has indeed been on the rise. However, companies and human organisation still have the same needs to funnel the creative input, hopefully into something valuable with minimal externalized costs. So the balance is between personal creative freedoms and benefits, versus organisational control, exploitation and value extraction.
friendlybus 6y ago
The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. If you want to be truly free thinking then suffer your whole life for your art/creation and die in obscurity only to be celebrated decades after your death. Contrarian is used as if it means; I can do what I want against a percieved opponent and get paid handsomely for it. The real contrarians are pushing data collection, adtech, outrage machines and using knowledge to control people. The power in being contrary is found in collective outrage movements, tech and religion instead. Thinkingly freely is part of the order now, as reliable and necessary as bread and butter. It is not contrary.
- DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  So the true modern day contrarian is the...conformist? I like it. Feels very 'fourth turning'.
- danjac 6y ago
  > The Advant Guarde died in the 1960s with Warhol. News to Andy Warhol I'm sure, who lived until 1987.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    His Marilyn peice in '62 was the nail in the coffin for the avant guarde. Being rebellious and contrary ended with his workman-like style and using commercial subjects to cash in on pop art. The desire to create paintings that have a revolutionary and contrary meaning to the establishment, has since faded away. We are seeing the fresh new ideas in video games instead and they were made to be saleable and agreeable products from day one. Its very difficult to get people to see a video game that truly challenges the status quo. We are yet to see a peice of art or media that really challenges the world, since the 60s. All the power is in the online platforms and data, that are used to target people with ourageous ideas. Art production has turned into a normal everyday machine, like the dishwasher or hot pockets.
    - watwut 6y ago
      Of course video gams are made saleable and agreeable, they are among the most expensive mediums to make. If you want unusual challenging or irritating, you need cheaper production then that. And people play them for completely different reasons then "being rebellious" - they play them because everyone plays them. That being said, how do you define "challenges world"? Because I am pretty sure I can find challenging pieces made after 1960 regardless of what your definition of challenging is. They are just not mainstream.
jp555 6y ago
Shannon said information value depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising. Can we say creative people are more attracted to, and produce more surprising information than non-creative people? Corporations are usually biased towards logic and statistics (finance & accounting), but through this they can become blind to the fact that predictable bits contain much less information than unpredictable bits, and they can even develop a kind of hidden disgust around creativity. For example, nobody gets fired for being "logical" and it not working out. But if you're make a creative mistake, well that's all on you and you're shown the door. This compounds and all you're left with are "Experts" in logic straightjackets.
- tolbish 6y ago
  > Corporations are usually biased towards logic and statistics (finance & accounting) I would argue they're more biased towards metrics than logic.
  - jp555 6y ago
    sure, I meant more "logical thinking" than formal "logic".
burntoutfire 6y ago
> You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Why? You seem to have some limited definition of creativity.
- volkk 6y ago
  i think theyre saying that to be creative, you need to think in a way that's not thought of by everybody, so that by definition makes you contrarian. its an interesting point, not sure how much i agree with it, but i think it definitely shows amongst people we define to be successful authors/painters, etc. the epic ones had always gone "against the grain"
  - burntoutfire 6y ago
    As a counterpoint, over history, countless of simple people were doing creative folk music. I don't think many of them were contrarians of any kind.
    - volkk 6y ago
      agreed, i really think theres a spectrum. some are more, others are less. but creativity is creativity. i do think that to be a household name posthumously, you need to be leaning heavily towards questioning everything
      - burntoutfire 6y ago
        Were Mozart, Bach, Michelangelo, Balzac into questioning everything? I've read the biography of Balzac for example and it seem that his biggest dream was to be rich and accepted by aristocracy as a peer. And yet his work is immortal.
tabtab 6y ago
Re: You cannot be creative without being a contrarian and corporations don't hire contrarians. Amen! "Shut up and go with the flow" is common advice I hear when I question the logic of various decisions in multiple organizations. If a corporation really wants creativity, they'll allow and REWARD asking "pesky questions" that may hurt egos of those with higher rank. Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" basically confirms this: you have to have a personal relationship to truly influence somebody, logic alone won't cut it. I hate that book, but it's speaks the ugly truth. Humans are not Vulcans. It's there if you want it, most orgs don't. I'm just the messenger. That being said, some contrarians gum up the works with low-quality questions and research. (Sometimes called "trolls".) There does need to be a systematic way to ask questions and make suggestions with a vetting process, but such requires a skill-set and training, which does require org resources and time.

wrnr 6y ago

I think you get "creative" when you discover or create a game with new rules, and then explore this landscape in an exhaustive fashion. For example: Like Miles Davis playing both cool jazz and jazz fusion. Cubism, paint on a flat surface all sides of a 3D object. Most people either do one or the other, thinking that just doing new things is enough to create something new but lacking the stamina to stick to it, or blindly follow the rules of an old tradition that has lost its relevance. A good artist actually know this theory and will seek to apply it. But I think its also where modern jazz and art lost its way, just as the corporates, is that they are to buzzy being creative todo the actual work of creating.

cedex12 6y ago
It's interesting that your description sounds a lot like (some aspect) of math (science) or say PLT: you develop a system and explore it (maybe both at the same time, maybe one after the other)

robertlagrant 6y ago

This articles is a bit silly. History includes the history of creation and discovery. It's possible that much less prominence was given to people who write about creativity than now, but that's just a great sign that enough useful stuff has been invented and developed (creatively) that our economies can support more people who write stuff online for a living.

cjfd 6y ago

People seem to be down on capitalism and corporations but really... Insofar as people are being creative 99% of such creativity is enable by capitalism. This whole thread sounds like a bunch of little princes and princesses who have no idea how priviledged they are.

visiblink 6y ago
I agree that a liberal society and the profit motive create an environment that fosters creativity. Freedom of movement between jurisdictions is important too. But people are down on corporations for good reason. They're a poorly-regulated entitlement.
vcxy 6y ago
Corporations can simultaneously be shitty, soul crushing places to work and also be the enabler of creativity outside the work place due to creating such a rich society. I don't think there is a contradiction here.

visiblink 6y ago

Past definitions of creation were more careful. Most "creation" in the past involved transforming matter. No one ever "created" matter (well, except God in their intellectual universe). It may be accurate to say that intellectual activity can be creative (though it's undoubtedly derivative most of the time), but in the physical world, creation is most likely to be an inaccurate term.

willismichael 6y ago
I like that, whenever I do something "creative", it feels more like arranging or discovering something, rather than creating.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

known 6y ago

But the Wealth created with Creativity is not trickled down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

spongepoc 6y ago
It trickles down by the fact that we all get to enjoy the fruits of technological advances without having to redo the hard work of inventing it. But there's no inherent reason why it should tricke down in income terms.

twright 6y ago

I think this is a good history of the idea of creativity and how it's been appropriated by the market or the state. I'm reminded of a Vonnegut quote: > “The kick of creation is the act of creating, not anything that happens afterward. [...] write a four line poem. Make it as good as you can. Don’t show it to anybody. Put it where nobody will find it. And you will discover that you have your reward.” That's creativity to me. In these months I've been exploring what I can make in Blender, mostly weird stuff, posting it nowhere. Nothing has been more satisfying.

Pelic4n 6y ago
As a fan of weird, poorly made surreal blender animation, I'm sad about your stuff I'll never get to see