Creative insight

A silly term that is growing in popularity again.

Creativity, in so much as I have practiced it professionally, or sold it personally, requires no definition. The end-result of creativity can neither be confirmed nor denied as creative. Which is to say; what you make, doesn’t need to be anything more than what others appreciate. In other words, what I make is valuable to you, for your own reasons. Marketing and communications struggle to prove and qualify creativity and ideas all the time. Their approach to solving this is very creative—with a goal designed to communicate complex ideas, products, or services—marketing’s challenge, while experienced on a mass level, is still only experienced on a personal level.

One likes it, or they don’t.
They perceive it to work, or they don’t get it.

The definition we use generally implies someone is pitching or selling creativity. Which is not an unbiased response to creativity. True creativity exists only in contrast to something else. Otherwise, a person can learn an entirely new set of systems having not been trained within the context of another system. Validating the need for a specific type of creativity (an expression visually, typographically, kinetics, colors, touching, experiencing, seeing) is as old as the Form over Function debates.

Creativity does not need to be used, liked, or otherwise enjoyed or experienced. Creativity has nothing to do with disruption, subversion or surprise. Those are possible end-results that we infer could happen as someone experiences creativity. And in fact, those responses only exist in contrast to something else. Otherwise, you could say that something is unnoticeable, mundane or trite.

We compete with what has been done before–unfortunately finding ourselves scaling back to meet the requirements of the mass majority versus the few. Intuitive or not, the market itself rarely sees anything truly new. They see a combination of familiar and progressive.

Marketers wouldn’t know how to sell new, and people wouldn’t know what to do with it. The history of the technology sector is full of failed products due to this. Without using statistics from something that was created before this new creativity, people would not know how to receive the new.

Creativity may appear more pragmatic in what it seeks to achieve. Relevance to creativity and its respective objectives lie within its ability to solve problems by creating obvious or understated cues between new and old contexts in order to make something familiar out of them. (combining things previously considered unrelated)

Creativity is subject to what has been done before and what we want to achieve tomorrow.

You can only evaluate work based on work you’ve experienced previously→

This is where the challenge will start, and end, simultaneously.


I recently tried to present this at a PKN event. I didn’t do so well and frankly, it wasn’t the right venue for discussion/debate or tomato-tossers. PKN= 20 slides, each slide presented in 20 seconds… No fuss.

Chris Wodja and Kellie Osgood put this little shin-dig on and have successfully completed 2-out-the-4 meet-ups required by PKN.

Tonight, while writing this post, I received a ping from Paul Isakson’s blog. Once I followed, I noticed a recent post containing a presentation that compliments mine in various ways. It seems that everyone is starting to see the same things happen. Actually, its been happening for a while, some just refused to admit/embrace it.

Please keep in-mind, I was talking through portions of this to keep pace, so slides may disconnect conceptually. Feedback is always appreciated!