The History Of Creativity
It may be surprising for you to learn that the term “creativity” has undergone several transformations in meaning throughout human history.
I know it was a revelation for me to learn that our modern interpretation of creativity as a self-emanating tool for individual success is a relatively recent phenomenon for which influential thinkers from the past– think Plato, or even Shakespeare– would not recognize.
Reading up on its history, I was struck by how the predominant understanding of creativity in any given era informed who and what was able to create. In the time of Plato in ancient Greece, for example, artists were considered to be imitators of nature, and not makers. Art was adherent to laws established by nature, and therefore not “created” by an artist.
The Romans differed in that they considered imagination to be a critical feature of the visual arts, putting forth the idea that artists could be inspired to make what they wanted. Even so, the concept of the artist as a creator had a long way to go and met significant resistance in religious circles; Christians believed that creation was limited to God and not bestowed upon humans.
In early Christianity and the Middle Ages, art was not seen as a product of creativity since the idea of creation, taken from the Latin word “creatio”, was closely associated with God’s act of “creatio ex nihilo”, or creation from nothing. The artist was a maker who had to follow rules to produce art and therefore wasn’t working from nothing in the way of divinity.
The Renaissance and Enlightenment were transformational in shifting society’s view of artists in a multitude of ways. First, da Vinci and Michaelangelo, among others, posited that art could be made outside the confines of nature. Later, thinkers like Hobbes and Locke argued during the Enlightenment that societal progress could be achieved through creativity and not simply adherence to religious dogma.
The word “creativity” was only added to the English dictionary in 1875, a fact that exemplifies the difficulty society has had in pegging down its meaning. The realization that a term that feels so ubiquitous in the human experience has only been around for 150 years can shed some light on the elusive nature of the word.
In today’s society, we’re urged to “be creative” to accomplish any number of tasks, from interior design to landscaping and everything in between. Even with the prevalence of the word encompassing so much in our modern world, a sharp delineation exists between our inherent capacity as humans to be creative and those who are labeled as “creatives”.
Even if we’re all capable of creativity, I have seen a hesitancy by fellow artists and creators to label themselves as such due in part to an uncertainty that their practice or ideas meets the threshold of “being creative”. (As if such a thing exists). I believe this self-doubt occurs because history has had so much trouble defining creativity and our modern understanding of it closely associates “creative” with “genius” in a way to establish who is most entitled to the word.
The fickle nature of the term over time underscores that you should embrace the creative label for yourself even if you don’t feel worthy compared to the supposed creative geniuses of our time. If you’re a writer but you’re not Stephen King, are you not creative? Too often I’ve seen and heard artists resist the creative label for themselves because their work may seem comparatively minor relative to the “geniuses” in their field. This doubt causes many artists to move away from making art and deny themselves the full actualization of their abilities.
You shouldn’t rely on our modern fascination with “creatives” to decide whether or not you are worthy of practicing creativity. If you’re an artist reading this who is struggling to dive deeper into your practice because you feel creatively limited and therefore unjustified in your pursuit, realize that you are falling victim to an understanding of the word which is bound to change.
History has been unable to clearly define who and what is creative, so allow yourself to define the word on your own in order to instill a stronger belief in your work than you’ve previously been granted.
A Brief History of Creativity
For the ancient Greeks, making art was a practice reliant on rule-following and obedience to laws (since nature is perfect and art was considered merely an imitation of nature). Despite the Greeks not having a word for “create” during their time, they certainly would not have considered visual arts to be a creative field. It was only the poet who was then considered to be a “maker” since they was not bound by laws.
This concept shifted in the Roman era. Art was granted “imagination” as a central facet of it being made and therefore put in on the level of poetry.
The Christian era argued that “creatio” was a divine function and limited to God. “Creatio ex nihilo” - “creation from nothing”. Humans made, they did not create. “Creatio ex nihilo” lays the groundwork for how we understand creativity today.
The Renaissance, as I’m sure you can imagine, began to change the game. Artists such as da Vinci and Michaelangelo argued that artists made work that went beyond the confines of nature and that their ideas were internally derived.
Post-Enlightenment, the Christian view of creation deriving exclusively from God shifted to include humans since we are said to be made in his image and could therefore create as well. Progress (as emphasized by Hobbes and Locke etc.) was made through human ingenuity in science and arts as religious adherence was no longer seen as the primary mode of advancement. Craftspeople/scientists/philosophers were now considered to be creative.
From this era we made the declaration that humanity, not God, was making something from nothing. And yet, in this era (17th Century-ish) arts and music would not have been seen as emanating from the highest sources of culture or representing genius, but instead as a result of a craftsman contributing to everyday society.
However, Enlightenment doctrines that argued for competition as a means to progress set the stage for culture becoming an element of society hoarded by the wealthy (who were growing wealthier in a colonialist system). Wage disparity grew with the rise of theories such as social Darwinism and rich people took the best resources for themselves (such as money, land, and culture) and elevated the arts by making them less accessible and granting the creators higher acclaim.
Popular culture did become more accessible with the Industrial Revolution, but that only created a stark divide between the kind of arts that could be consumed by the masses (thanks to the printing press and eventually photographs and movies) and the expensive artwork that could only be possessed by a select few. That, in turn, gave rise to the “creativity” being seen as an attribute of high art creators, I.e. painters/sculptors
Creativity starts as divine power, then it transitions into a feature of common society, before it takes on a characteristic of the esteemed individual using it to social climb.