The term "creativity" or "creative" was once connected solely with art. Now, both business and science have adopted this term as a way to cast themselves as innovative, relatable, lively and fun. Some even use "creativity" as a way to insinuate that they are progressive and efficient (though there is nothing efficient about being creative!). If business and science are adopting the term "creativity," does that then encourage artists to adopt the qualities of business and science? Does art need to justify itself or can art still be produced for art’s sake? Should creative be reserved only for the arts, or is the broadening usage of the term an exciting development?
Should it be "Who owns creativity?" – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
I think the world of science has always relied on creativity, more so than people realize. Likewise, there are definitely approaches and techniques to art that might be associated with science, like experimentation, formula, structure, etc... But maybe a specific definition of "creativity" would help. As a whole, it's hard to say that a word can only (or should only) be used to describe one form of expression. While a word does have a certain purpose, it doesn't have to have a certain application. I guess what I'm trying to say is it sounds like a great, engaging article - but the term "creativity" and its use might need to be very clearly defined in the intro. Maybe a history of the word itself? Where does it come from and how has it been used historically up till now? Look forward to reading it! – jrdino6 years ago
Creativity is vital to any human activity...doctors make new innovations when they become more creative...romantic relationships grow stronger when creativity is exercised to impress and excite another person...even politicians use creativity to solve problems...or create new and exciting ones...this is a great topic to explore further... – kmaxx1256 years ago