The emphasis in media (and most of my sites) when talking about creative people is on those who are identified as artists, people often labeled by journalists and others as “creative types” – but what about the many other people who are in fact creative, but not professional artists?
The MacArthur Foundation has a mission to “support creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.”
It acknowledges there are many kinds of creators, awarding its renowned Fellowships (popularly known as “Genius Grants”) to a wide range of people: playwrights, novelists, dancers, botanists, economists, chemists, physicians, psychologists and many others.
In her article “Our Definition of Creativity is Killing Creativity,” Mehera Bonner writes,
“Being considered creative in the conventional sense usually means you paint, practice photography, love to collage in your free time, or are super-skilled at macaroni portraits –– but why restrict ‘creativity’ to only arts-related pursuits?”
(One problem with that restriction is the narrowing of our sense of identity and possibility.)
She notes: “Unfortunately, children tend fall into two restrictive categories as they develop their interests: creative or science-minded (shorthand for decidedly uncreative).
“And it’s kids who are deemed uncreative who are more likely to take on technology-based jobs –– which are, ironically, some of the most creative out there.
“There’s a perceived distance or mutual exclusivity between creativity and technology…
“Computer science and programming are often considered ‘nerdy,’ but they’re actually extremely creative jobs that require huge amounts of problem solving and quick thinking.”
The above excerpt is from one of many articles published by CreativeLive, which has free and paid online classes taught by top instructors in photography, video, design, business, audio, music, software, life skills.