Yesterday evening, I read the "How to be creative" book of Hugh MacLeod, which I mentioned yesterday. It's really worth reading, his experience with the business card cartoons (lots of them in the book) is interesting - how the idea came for drawing on such small pieces. Hugh also gives loads of tips, mostly based on his experience, illustrated with stories and pictures.
Many of the things are supported by what Mihaly Csiskzentmihaly writes in his book on Creativity, which is still in my reading list (I had to return it to the library, but now decided to order it and now waiting for it to be delivered). For example, it is hard work (Hugh: "Put the hours in"). Creativity doesn't come suddenly out of the air, it comes when there is a base (of expertise, knowledge) and you are able to see connections. Or, find your own style (in drawing, writing).
Which brings me to the question I have, and didn't find an answer on yet: the relation of creativity and originality. Can you be creative without being original, or does it have to be original what you do in order to be creative?
To give an example. Last year I saw Picasso's work in the Barcelona Picasso museum, things he painted from his younger years till his death. A really impressive collection. When he was young, his work was (technically) very good, you can see how talented he is, but it is not what you would call "original". The paintings could have been made by someone else as well. Later he develops the style he is famous for, which makes him original in my view. But was he only then creative? This is where I'm in doubt.
In the case of Hugh MacLeod, his creativity is not only in the business card format (which is a very original idea, but can be copied easily), also in his style of drawing cartoons. You can recognise the drawings are his.
So my (vague) feeling is then more that it is the personal style what makes someone original or creative. In writing, drawing, maybe even managing. In addition to the book of Hugh MacLeod: Tip 27: Develop your own style.
Comments