Last updated 2/21/99
Link back to course Welcome

Private Vs Public in Creativity

There has been a lot of interest in this topic in the Creativity class, although not expressed in exactly this way. But, can only public contributions to a culture be recognized as creative? What about something that is only known within a family, such as the innovative actions of parents raising children with a restricted income? Can this be recognized as creative? More importantly, can it give the type of satisfaction that is supposed to come with creativity?

First, virtually all of the people we are reading about who make public contributions to a culture (Einstein, Picasso, and the others in Creating Minds, and the much larger number of people that Csikszentmihalyi used as the basis for Creativity) produce their creative works in private. When they write about their satisfaction with their work, this is the phase that is most satisfying to them -- creating a new work that solves the problem they were facing, both completely and appropriately. This most satisfying phase of work does not require public acceptance or knowledge, and so can be experienced even by those work work within a family or any other type of small or mid-range group. The field, the domain and even the public are not necessary for this type of satisfaction.

Is there any payoff, then, for making the extra effort to go public? Why not just write some poems and keep them in a trunk or file folder somewhere? First of all, there can be no "ought" or "one size fits all" answer here. People who want to write just for themselves should feel free to do so. Second, the benefits for working in the public sphere described below are potential benefits, not guaranteed for everyone. My guess is that people find the balance that is most satisfying for them, on an individual basis.

Potential benefits for creative working in the public sphere:

• Potentially, getting to do it full-time as part of your job, rather than after-hours on your own. If you find the creative work that you love to do, in order to do it full-time, you pretty much have to work in the public sphere. You must get your books published, your paintings sold, your scientific advances recognized, and make your innovative product into a business, or find that job that will let you do what you love. Not only do you get to do this work that you love all of the time, but the greater opportunity (or necessity) for practicing enables you to do better work. Many creative individuals who started their work as a sideline have written about the decision to quit their "day job" and carry on their work full-time, in just these terms.
• You also get other people's approval, in addition to your own. People buy your book, your paintings, your ideas or your innovation. Probably they won't love it as much as you do, but others will demonstrate that they value it. Most likely, you will have all of the opportunity you want to talk with your admirers. Talking about the work you love is OK on its own, but your admirers will also express their admiration.
• The criticism from the field will improve your work. In most fields, strong, objective criticism is the way things work. Everyone is competing for the approval of the field. Accepting criticism is difficult, even when it is correct. Worse, sometimes criticism is only partially correct, and then you must find the part that is correct yourself, and accept it. But this is the way to improve the quality of your work, and generally this will both increase your own satisfaction with your work, but also its public acceptance. And really, the criticism itself is a sign that your work is important. After all, someone else examined it and found it important enough to write or speak about. You will also get support from the field, in addition to the criticism. Approval and support from these others in the field, who love the area of work as much as you do, is, person for person, more satisfying than the approval from your admirers outside the field, who after all, are not as knowledgeable.