Theories of Creativity
In the latest instalment of Future Imperfect, Sven Johnson has been trying to unearth the roots of a creativity myth.
Why is it that we tend to see the creative professions as the province of the young, when there’s so much evidence to the contrary?
***
I spend a fair amount of time on design-related forums and, as a relatively senior designer, tend to answer quite a few questions posted by relatively young people considering a design profession. As it turns out - since so few “digital natives” seem to understand what “Search” means - many questions are repeats. One particular repeat goes something like this:
“I’m 27 years old and figure I’m too old to enter a creative profession, but can’t imagine being a [insert profession here] for the rest of my life; is there any chance I could become a [insert creative professional title here]?“
Most repeat questions are irritating, but I’ve read that one so many times it’s now become a source of bewilderment.
I can understand parents steering their children to “safe” careers (even though it seems as if such careers are dwindling in number), but what I don’t understand is something altogether different: the outdated and unsubstantiated belief that creativity - and, by extension, traditionally creative occupations - are for the young. Maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t see a definitive and exclusive connection.
Truth be told - considering some of the uncreative stuff I see in the portfolios of young, newly graduating designers - I can’t imagine how this creative myth ever gained traction. There are plenty of youngsters that seem to me to be so creatively challenged I’m not sure age, experience or a paint-by-numbers set is going to help them.
Furthermore, this bias seems especially odd considering a) it has nothing to do with financial security, b) many people looking to move into such careers often already have “safe” college degrees, and c) there are so many examples disproving it. Consider the following:
- Pablo Picasso’s amazing “Guernica” was painted when he was in his 50’s.
- Édouard Manet’s well-known “A Bar at the Folies-Bergère” was painted when he was 50.
- Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” was started when he was 59 years of age (and is so massive it took him eight years to complete).
- Catalan architect Antonio Gaudi’s “Casa Milà” was started when he was a youthful 53.
- Auguste Rodin’s “The Thinker”, “The Burghers of Calais” and “Balzac” were all sculpted after the artist’s 40th birthday.
- Industrial designer Raymond Loewy didn’t design his first streamlined locomotive until he was in his 40’s; the amazingly forward-thinking Avanti automobile came later … when he was a spry 68.
- Oscar-winning film director Ridley Scott was born in 1937 and the films for which he is best known all came after his 40th birthday: Alien, 1979 (42); Blade Runner, 1982 (45); Thelma & Louise, 1991 (54); Gladiator, 2000 (63); Black Hawk Down, 2001 (64).
No diminished creative capacity among that group of not-so-young visual artists. What about writers?
- Leo Tolstoy was 41 when War and Peace was published in 1869; Anna Karenina followed eight years later.
- J.R.R. Tolkien was in his 30’s when he wrote The Hobbit, and began writing The Lord of the Rings when he was 45.
- Ayn Rand was 38 when The Fountainhead was published in 1943, and 52 when Atlas Shrugged hit the stands.
- Philip K. Dick was 34 when the Hugo award-winning The Man in the High Castle was published, and 41 when Ubik was released.
- William Gibson’s seminal Neuromancer was published in 1984, when he was 36.
- Neal Stephenson was 33 when Snow Crash was published in 1992 (and that effort is arguably eclipsed by his later works).
No creative problems among the “aging” literary community, then - and I’ve little doubt that the music world is similarly populated (but I’ll leave that for you to investigate). So what gives?
Considering just the above examples it’s difficult for me to understand how a crowd of 27 year-olds comes to the conclusion they’re too old to consider a creative career; that they’ve exhausted some mystical supply of creative bio-juice and their adult bodies won’t generate any more. None of it makes any sense to me. It’s as if they’ve bought into some widely distributed theory published by… I don’t know… young people hoping to corner the creativity market? businessmen seeking to justify the firing of older, higher-salaried designers? a secret society of angry geriatrics?
That’s what I now find so bewildering: From where did the link between age and creativity originate? Who came up with the theory creativity diminishes with age? And why? The lack of empirical evidence supporting this bias speaks for itself. Was there some diabolical purpose behind this campaign of misinformation? And how does this theory survive? It’s so pervasive it must have been spawned long, long ago by some close-knit cabal. Was the Industrial Revolution their backdrop? the Renaissance? The Dark Ages?
I don’t know, but I’ll be relieved when 27 year-old designer wannabes stop posting irritating repeat questions regarding this non-issue. If they don’t, I may join the conspiracy.
For anyone interested in this issue, I surfed through a few interesting sites while reading about this topic:
- Marc Andreessen: “Age and the entrepreneur, part 1: Some data“
- Wired: “What Kind of Genius Are You? “
- New York Times: “Exploring the Past: Creativity in Old Age“
- CreatingMinds.org: “Age and creativity“
***
Sven Johnson is an unrooted freelance designer increasingly working at the intersection of tangible and virtual goods. His background is varied and includes a fair amount of travel, a pair of undergraduate degrees and a stint with the U.S. military. He’s a passionate wannabe filmmaker, a once-upon-a-time underground comix creator, and - when facilities are available - an enthusiastic ceramicist who is currently attempting to assemble a transmedia, transreality open-source narrative in what remains of his lifetime.
[Future Imperfect header based on an image by Kaunokainen.]
August 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Aha, but you see, it’s not about creativity or lack thereof. Here, I’ll translate it for you:
“I’m 27 years old and figure I’m too old to enter a creative profession , but can’t imagine being a [insert boring but well-paid profession that has made me comfortable and got me used to just buying things when I want it here] for the rest of my life; is there any chance I could become a [insert creative professional title, entering at a higher grade somehow, preserving my social life, hobbies and tech doohickie fetish here. Because I'm too old to live the life of a sub-20 grand newbie art director, don'tcherknow.]?“
August 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Maybe it has something to do with creativity being a province of children? In a general sense, children are more receptive to their environment and to crazy ideas, making them more likely to be creative, and the older you get the harder it is to get back there. It comes easily to children, whereas adults have to work at it. I can understand how someone would make the erroneous assumption that, just like creativity, creative careers are for the young.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I think you might be on to something there, Dave. Personally my suspicion is that the media “cult of youth” certainly has a hand in this matter; creative success is frequently portrayed as the province of the young and attractive. Maybe Sven’s right, and there’s a conspiracy at work…
August 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That’s strange. I’m young–a few months past 22–and I’m totally under the impression that my chances of “making it” before I’m 30, are incredibly slim. I mean, I think part of it is that finding success as a creative *maker* takes a lot more work and pratice than we’re willing to admit, even with the internet and all of the great technology that makes this easier, I think 10-20 years isn’t *that* long… But then what do I know, I’m just a kid. heh.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
thank you! that list is highly motivational!!!