It’s a myth. Or, perhaps, a misnomer at worse. Creativity through conceptual conflict is more appropriate. Does X fit with A, if not, how can I make it fit—*
With this said, the only constraint or conflict that exists unilaterally for everyone is; people who approve or disapprove of the creative expression. Individuals’ who posit that they’re experts in knowing what creativity is and how it applies to the problem—ugh. You know the types. They see something new, but can’t process its relative association. So they find deprecated statistics, conflate correlation from the old thing with the new thing, and then systematically attenuate the new to be more like the old (they’re being creative, too!). Some do it deliberately—other’s, a result of their education and personal experience.
We all demonstrate creative thinking, daily, hourly, minute-by-minute. The commercial and industrial world loves to tout this as a selling point to garner new business from prospects. In a sense, we’ve allowed pundits and self-appointed arbiters to propagate their narrowed field of perception amongst us all.
Creativity is the combining of two or more elements in order to synthesize something new.
We do not judge this new thing, whether it’s a good or bad expression of creativity, but we accept that this expression has resulted in a familiar likeness with this new thing. By accepting it, the technically capable begin accentuating the expression into something emotionally and mentally approachable.
With this said; many people and companies presume that there is a process; something repeatable; learnable on a mass scale—predicated on the industrial model, to consistently produce and express creativity with identical success each time.
Unfortunately “creative process**” is an oxymoron. Creativity is idiosyncratic, rarely pragmatic, and often a result of informed ignorance (another oxymoron). Technique is making a perfect mistake—an unintended discovery, while having honed the technical skills to refine and shape the mistake (or discovery) into something familiar. Technique is what defines the expression of creativity into something useful; acceptable; beautiful, ugly, useless, abstract—
We should also be clear and isolate creativity from art, or art-forms. You do not need to be an artist to express creativity. But artists (in all fields/art-forms) are generally more receptive to receiving external input and thinking, translating it through an art-form, yielding a form of creative expression (writing, music, design, art, sculpting, architecture, fashion, industrial design). Show me anything in the modern world that wasn’t created by someone (nature excluded)—regardless of their job title or function, artistic ability or skill. The world around us has been shaped and refined through creative-human-expression
, for better or worse.
Implying constraints or limitations provoke creative thinking is a self-induced allusion and another creative attempt at expressing—expression. It generally depends on the individual and their ability to receive; interpret; translate; and express their creativity within the external world.
How badly do you want to express something, and how hard are you willing to work for others to understand it?
Many people incubate, many rapidly iterate, many work methodically—linearly. But under no circumstances does everyone work in the same exact way. That would be the antithesis of creativity. And limit the diversity of thought and expressions of culture and humanity as a whole. We’d all be a bunch of self-replicating, unaware bots.
Many people can and do work in teams, but rarely do you ever see one head, and many wrists. If you do, it’s because many of the concepts and creative forms have already been decided or expressed in such a way that other’s are simply copying a defined technique, not engaging in a creative process.
*This implies that creativity is a result of a specific problem or task, but creativity is not dependent on the need to purposefully solve or complete a task
**I forget where, or from who this term originated—