Society rejects creativity

By Connor de Bruler
debrulerc@mytjnow.com

It is my opinion that society (a largely ethereal concept really) is not doing enough to foster creativity. 

There are several “givens” in my argument, the first one being that creativity is not only the most impressive aspect of the human species but also the most fundamental ingredient for our happiness and self-esteem. The second is that occupations that do not allow enough, if any, creativity are so taxing on the human psyche that they are dangerous to not only an individual but also an entire society.  

I worked a crappy job this past summer. My boss was very young and very kind. My coworkers were especially jovial, and my pay was above minimum wage. I thought those crucial things would make that job fulfilling, but I was wrong. I have no passion for the restaurant business, and, though I’m good at it, I have even less interest in washing dishes. That was my job. I mopped the floor. I bussed tables. I washed dishes. I was thankful to have found a job and very happy with my pay, yet I dreaded going to work. 

I get paid very little to do this Johnsonian gig, and I don’t always feel respected in the workplace. Writing, however, is something I have a passion for. I’d be doing it even if I wasn’t being paid, which is often the case when I write freelance. 

What keeps me going is the creative element. 

Sir Ken Robinson, a former Ivy league professor from Great Britain who now lives and works in Los Angeles, has been giving public lectures and publishing books on the subject of creativity for years. I really love listening to his ideas. He believes that the school systems across the world trample on people’s natural ability to be creative. He thinks an emphasis on creativity can save our education system. 

I would like to take that idea a little further and suggest that emphasizing and fostering people’s natural ability to be creative will save society. 

Some of my fellow students and even some faculty members share the opinion that capitalism is a detriment to humanity. I disagree. Whether we are communist or socialist or capitalist, exploitation and human suffering will always be a possibility. 

It’s not the system we use, but it’s how we approach it. 

We can all learn a lot from art. Society has always romanticized artists. I think part of that comes from our envy. Artists seem to have great lives. They get up in the morning and do something they love. Art is a business that needs creativity. A musician creates a beautiful song that he puts an honest amount of effort into. The consumer then delights in the artists effort. Both parties win. 

This is the ideal business model for a society that operates on creativity. 

A good example of exploitation would be Philippine children making T-shirts. Their spirits are crushed doing meaningless, meticulous work that the rest of the world takes for granted. No one really loves the shirts. They just wear them because they’re cheap. 

I submit to you that creativity is not relegated only to art, but in each and every discipline man has ever created. By making creativity the highest priority in our lives and in our educational systems, everything will become art: science, mathematics, medicine, agriculture. If everything is an art form, more human beings will have a voice. 

That is what most people today are lacking. 

My next column will be a continuation of these ideas and why I think art is in trouble with mainstream culture.