Creativity and Evil - Berys Gaut lecture at University of York 19th May 2010

I attended the lecture of Berys Gaut intrigued by the title, Creativity and Evil. The relationship between the two have never entered my thought process before but I came away having learnt not only this but also other aspects of the term 'creativity' I have not considered before.

Part 1.

The definition of creativity:

Creativity is the capacity to produce things that are (a) original (saliently new) and (b) valuable.

First of all, Gaunt reflected on the definition of creativity then began to question what was meant by value. He used the example of a Diamond. Diamonds are all unique therefore original. They have a high value, and they have been produced by the creator- a volcano. However, the volcano is not classed, in standard terms, as creative.

It was then suggested that creativity is a PROCESS that is a SKILL and not purely an accident. The process and creativity is the attribute of an agent. The process includes the judgement, design, thought process etc by the agent. For this reason the volcano that produced the diamond is not creative.

Gaut also stated the question whether the winner of the Turner Prize in 2001, Martin Creed had produced a creative piece that was awarded: The Lights On and Off. When asked the meaning of the at piece Mr Creed was reported to have said that it had no intentional meaning and it was up to the viewer to decide. This rules out the notion of creativity as ruled by the official definition and also by Gaut's expansion on the meaning. If the agent had no process then surely the piece is not creative.

I always believed there was a definite meaning of 'creativity', well, at least I had a definite definition in my own head. Now I will question the said creativity of an object, a piece of art, and advert etc.

And how does this apply to me as a Creative Advertiser? Well, what if I made an advert that I just thought of off the top of my head. I suddenly thought of it and there it was, apart from the fact I had to 'Photoshop' it up. Where would be the creativity. There would be no process as i didn't research, assess, develop the idea etc.

Also, if I entered this advert as a part of my work for a degree how would it be assessed? I wouldn't have a folder of research, I would have nothing to write in the rationale. It may be a great advert but where was the proof of my creativity?

Part 2.

Gaut's second part of the lecture focused on the relationship between creativity and evil. He question the acts of 9/11. Were the attackers being creative? Some may say that rewarding the devastating and murderous minds and motions of the attackers with the term 'creative' would somehow promote, condone or maybe just make them appear acceptable in that term.

Yet Gaut described the process used by the attackers is in definition terms a creative one. They developed a plan using technique, skill and definitely s process. They acted the attack with a process also. So surely they were being creative.

One naturally would not wish to admit or think so. Gaut then stated that if the attacks had never took place and instead a film writer wrote the exact event of 9/11 and made it into a film, the writer would be awarded on his creative thinking.

Another example Gaut used was a torture device named the Spanish Donkey that stretches a persons body by weight on their feet, while a blade cut the stomach the more they resisted. He stated the device is a product of creativity. It was designed with skill and thought; a process with an execution (sorry for the pun).

All very interesting.