This was the challenge proposed to a bewildered group of grad students during my first night of this semester’s class, The Creative Process.  I know I am not the only student who arrived that night eager to spend a semester discussing advertising production processes and sharing war stories about creative departments and campaigns.  Turns out, the course strategy is ‘to read and discuss leading texts on the theory and practice of creativity in science and business.’

So, here I am in week five, writing a paper in support of the belief that creativity is process-oriented rather than talent-oriented, as exemplified in the book The Double Helix:  A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA.  Yep, you read that correctly - I’m learning about creativity via bioscience.  Yawn.  I am an absolute proponent of process and agree with the theory that there are steps we usually take (even if they are not consciously defined) to generate new ideas.  I just didn’t know that there are people out there who study creativity so thoroughly.  Or that I would ever read a book about DNA. 

More interesting are these definitions of ‘creativity,’ from my notes:

The ability to combine old elements in new ways.
It’s about making the familiar strange and the strange familiar.
It’s effective surprise.
When nothing is new except the arrangement.
It’s an anti-probability event.
Whatever makes more out of less.
One word:  Bioassociation

According to my professor, all creative types have something in common: They pay attention and they take notes.  That’s exactly what I am trying to do during class this semester – it’s keeping me awake. 

Creatively yours,
R~