Trying to define creativity
Creativity is not an objective category, but rather something that takes a different shape for each person. When the researchers are trying to define it, they often bring up the concept of divergent thinking, which in everyday language could be translated as originality. For an idea to be creative, it needs to have elements of novelty, to stand out from the crowd.
However, not every original idea is a good one. For something to be considered creative or innovative, it also has to be meaningful to someone. That meaning can come from its usefulness (as is the case with technological innovations), or it can be purely emotional, as in art.
This largely depends on the context: if you tie your shoes with cooked spaghetti and try to walk in them, that would be an extremely bad idea. On the other hand, if you do it as a clown, it might be seen as creative and funny, exactly because it’s not functional. Moreover, there are ways in which you could do the same thing and put it in a gallery for people to enjoy as a piece of art. There are plenty of factors that decide how your work is perceived. Things like: how it is presented, its title, even the political context of your country, will all be impactful. In other words, how something is perceived depends not only on the creator but also on the audience and the context in which it is presented.
To make your work meaningful to people, generally, you have to apply some level of knowledge, skill, and discipline to create the final product. The cognitive process behind this part is, in scientific terms, called convergent thinking. We can describe it in this way: if someone asks you a question, you can use divergent thinking to find an unusual answer. You can also use convergent thinking to find the correct answer. And if your answer is both original and true, that’s when the magic happens.
People working in the creative fields often notice the complexity of it in practice. Regardless of the field, art requires not only openness to new ideas but endless hours of practice, trials, and corrections. Coming up with an idea for a song is an essential part of the creative process for a singer, but for it to become a worldwide hit, they have to compose the music, write the lyrics, and go through several recordings, singing the same song for hours. That is why some experienced artists say that, while they love their work, they notice it is more boring than it looks from the outside.
This is why the creative process is often described as a cycle of thinking freely and originally, but then applying rigour, discipline, and critical thinking to perfect your idea. These two processes might seem contradictory, but they are actually two sides of the same coin. While there are different theories on how they interact with each other, they are both necessary elements of the creative work.
The potential in every person
Thankfully, as people, we are all capable of both ways of thinking. While it seems like different people apply them in different proportions, there is not a single person in the world who would lack one of them completely. In the words of Hans Eysenck, one of the most renowned personality theorists:
“Even the most creative [person] must have a modicum of basic knowledge and rigour in his or her thinking; even the most orthodox and rigorous must use some degree of creative intuition to solve the complex formulae that confronts him or her.”
What does it mean in practice for someone starting their artistic career? Because of the subjective nature of creative work, there is no one right answer on how to balance originality with discipline and hard work. What is important is to find the proportions that work for you, so that you can be effective, but also find a place for originality and joy. This is important not only to achieve success, but most importantly to cultivate a sense of meaning and balance that, hopefully, will let you stay creative for many years and never lose the passion for your field.
References:
Eymann, V., Beck, A.-K., Lachmann, T., Jaarsveld, S., & Czernochowski, D. (2026). Reconsidering Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Creativity – a Neurophysiological Index for the Convergence-Divergence Continuum. Creativity Research Journal, 38(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2419751
Eysenck, H. J. (2003). Creativity, personality and the convergent-divergent continuum. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes (pp. 95–114). Hampton Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Teaching Creativity: Current Findings, Trends, and Controversies in the Psychology of Creativity. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450444