Over the years, we’ve had more than a few questions about the name Accidental Creative. Usually the responses go one of two ways: “What do you mean accidental? I’m very purposeful about what I do. I’m insulted and I shun anything else you have to say”…or “Hmm. Accidental, huh? That seems right. Please tell me more.”
So what does it mean to be an accidental creative?
Accidental Creative [ak-si-den-tl · kree-ey-tiv] –noun,
1. Person who structures their life so as to experience frequent creative insights (see also creative accidents), 2. A company that helps creatives do brilliant work.
The name The Accidental Creative actually has a dual meaning. First, many people who work with their minds every day didn’t set out to be a creative, yet they are required to create, invent, innovate, strategize and come up with solutions to problems on a daily basis. Whether or not they intended to be a creative, they are one. You might even say they are an accidental one.
But there is another meaning for the phrase that is the true reason behind the name of our company. That is this: creative insights are typically the culmination of lots of work and activity that result in a breakthrough – or a-ha – moment. We call these moments creative accidents, because it often feels like we are stumbling upon flashes of brilliance as we go about our work. In reality, however, these flashes of brilliance – or creative accidents – can be experienced more frequently if we are willing to structure our lives more purposefully by implementing practices that support the creative process.
In other words, if you want to have a brilliant idea, you need to begin far upstream from the moment you need that idea. You can’t just stumble through your work haphazardly, you must be purposeful and intentional about how you engage and the kinds of activity you build into your life so that you are increasing the likelihood of having breakthrough insights.
So you must be purposeful if you want to be accidental.
This notion of building structure and practice into the creative process is one that often raises eyebrows. Many people seem to believe that creativity is either something you have or something you don’t, and while we all subscribe to some extent to the idea that we’re all creative, we often don’t see the activities we engage in each day as creative activities.
When the word creative is introduced it usually elicits images of one of two things: either the lone artist slaving away in their loft torturously refining their latest work, or a SoHo ad exec flitting about in $500 designer jeans.
I believe that we’re due for a new definition of creativity. Creativity is the process of resolving dissonance in our environment, or bringing things into alignment. In other words, creativity is problem solving. A designer might solve a problem visually, and a manager might solve a problem by developing a new system or method for doing the work. Each of them are exercising their creative prowess to solve a problem, or to bring resolution to an area of dissonance.
They are looking for creative insight – a creative accident – to fill that gap. But the more problems they have to solve each day, the more it taxes their mind and the less poised they will be to tackle the next problem that comes along. This is the reason for establishing practices – they keep us fresh, poised and ready. Practices are the rhythm that undergirds all of our activity, no matter how frantic our work and personal life get.
So this is the meaning behind AC: We help people who have to be creative every day – even if they didn’t intend to be a creative – to do brilliant work by setting themselves up to experience more creative accidents.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Stitcher
iHeartRadio
In 1989, I established a small design/marketing communications company in Australia. Coming from a management training and being in pursuit of a creative career, attacked this issue of disciplined creativity head on. My findings would suggest a different experience to your new definition for creativity.
For example “Each of them are exercising their creative prowess to solve a problem, or to bring resolution to an area of dissonance.” I have to disagree here. If we are talking about a creative environment – let me first declare that “problem solving” is an impassioned process. To bring resolution out of dissonance in my experience with designers, meant they headed straight for plagiarism – not creativity.
In my view, to be creative is to create something new where it didn’t exist before. When you combine problem solving with an economic imperative and an artistic environment – you will get plagiarism. Not always – but mostly. When designers are allowed be truly creative – the resources required in my experience, generally outweigh the justification – so again – they opt to copy instead. I am a professional photographer now and have been for over 20 years. I see the same thing here. Photographers claiming to be creative and yet mostly just copying what has come before. Truly creative photography like any truly creative outcome, is of the highest order of life’s joys but quite rare.
Too often, I see the notion of creativity, confused with lateral thinking and problem solving/decision making. I’ve seen more true creativity in engineering fields than graphic design. Engineers are called upon often to use their technical expertise to create something new that didn’t exist before. Sure, so do a lot designers – but to call it creative when it is a wholesale borrowing (robbery) of other people’s design elements – that’s not creative.
This debate between my partner and I, ended the company after 7 years and we have never spoken since. He was a plagiarist and brought resolution to every area of dissonance before him – none were creative.
Rod, thanks for your well-thought out response and for sharing your experience. However, I’m not sure I understand where our point of disagreement is. Resolution of dissonance doesn’t equate to plagiarism, and applies perfectly to your scenario of the engineers. Please explain further how it is that you see my definition of creativity as suggesting plagiarism?
Hi Todd, I’m not saying your definition suggests plagiarism – but I just don’t think your definition is correct. Creativity is a very difficult thing to define. I felt your definition described it more as a function of problem solving, where I think it is something else altogether.
When Jackson Pollock sat down for 6 months contemplating what he was going to do with the canvas before him, he wasn’t problem solving – there was no problem. He was resolving his own mind set on how he was going to create something new in art. What resulted was pretty much the opposite of ordered or aligned – it was spontaneous and fluid. See Blue Poles – a painting which resides in the National Gallery of Australia and one I refer to every time I walk past it with my kids as “our old friend”. This painting was born out of the genius of pure creativity. At virtually every stage of modern art, an artist has influenced a change in art by creating something new.
Designers – I guess, across many fields, by virtue of their economic purpose and defined brief, are less inclined to be creative and more inclined to be prescriptive. They use tried and true elements of other people’s work, copy if you will. Plagiarize is the term most commonly used to describe people who take other people’s work and turn it into their own. That’s where I think your definition using words like “resolving dissonance in the environment and bringing things into alignment” – is perhaps a bit limiting and contrary to the notion of generating something new.
Not everything we do is creative – but the word should be limited to being used when there truly are creative acts in play. Creativity should be reserved like a truffle – rare, tasty and to be celebrated. Maybe I’m just thinking about it from a fine art perspective and that too – is too narrow. Maybe saying an engineer is creative is wrong too – maybe he/she is a lateral thinking problem solver using logic at its peak, rather than creativity.
Hmm…I see your point but I think there is just a fundamental disagreement about the nature and definition of creativity. I see any elegant solution that is novel + appropriate as being creative, whether it’s a work of fine art, an elegant mathematical proof or an engineering feat. I would argue that Pollock was, in fact, resolving dissonance as he was mulling over what to do with his canvas. He was wrestling through the options and looking for an insight. And in the end, no matter how original we think his work was, it was still the result of the combination of his experiences, training and natural gifting. All things – no matter how original we think they are in the moment – are derivative in some form or fashion. It’s just that some people are more capable of venturing into novelty while others stay closer to the shoreline. But still, there is an existing platform that allows for their expression.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Rod.
Interesting discussion. Given my introduction to this thread by a friend, comes without any background on yourself – I have contained my thoughts purely to the statements made here. It sounds like you might have a broader view about creativity which wasn’t reflected in your definition here.
I don’t see how you can assume Pollock was resolving dissonance unless you are drawing the long bow that the dissonance was in his own mind. If that’s the case, then I think you could use the assembly instructions of a dishwasher to define creativity.
I don’t intend to be mean spirited here, but as you can see by my declared background, this issue is dear to me. The one word you have just used here which I relate instantly to my past dispute, is “derivative”. While I cannot disagree that everything now tends to be a derivative of something else, it was the use of this very word in my graphic design studio which lead straight to plagiarism. The minute someone makes it ok to borrow/steal ideas/elements from others – the just do. All hope for any creativity evaporates.
Yes – it is commercially expedient to borrow/steal ideas and elements and the other cliche that nothing is new under the sun serves as motto for such behavior. All of this is fine I guess and we all do it to some extent – just don’t call it creative. I think we should reserve the word “creative” for that which truly is.
I agree with your notion that we are the sum of our experiences and training. These and a bunch of other influences will characterize our response to situations. We can choose to react creatively or we can choose to react with prescribed discipline. You can argue that both may be creative. Novelty may be one response but there infinite others. My beef is when people like photographers, graphic designers, feature film makers – reach for tried and true recipes to address the dissonance and call it creativity. Show me an original story, produced creatively out of Hollywood and I’ll show you a box office hit. I’d be happy with just an original story sometime in the next decade, personally.
I do feel I need to assert that not everything we do is creative – we all have to make a living and our clients do have there own perceptions about what they want. To stay in business, we do all have to respond to our market.
I do agree with you Todd in relation to putting one’s self in a position be creative. I wouldn’t call that an accident – I’d say that was quite a conscious decision. Nevertheless, in my experience with photography, if we give ourselves every opportunity to capture images with spontaneity, it increases the possibility for creativity. Well that’s if the opportunity is not being created to copy someone else’s idea.
So you can have your order out dissonance, problem solving and you can have your derivatives – but lets call it something other than a creative process. Let’s call it a design process.
Further thinking about this:
The word you should be using is “innovate” in place of “create”.
To derive something new from something established.
Try “Accidentally Innovative”
Rod, I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on this… but I appreciate the conversation. Yes, I believe the dissonance being resolved was in his own head. There was something he was trying to do, but he hadn’t settled on what that was.
I think you are right Todd – I appreciate that you have a position to protect. I congratulate you on receiving criticism and treating it as a civilized discussion – a healthy and admiral disposition. I will look forward hopefully, to a gradual change from creative to innovative in your speak. All the best – Rod.
Hmm…I see your point but I think there is just a fundamental disagreement about the nature and definition of creativity. I see any elegant solution that is novel + appropriate as being creative, whether it’s a work of fine art, an elegant mathematical proof or an engineering feat. I would argue that Pollock was, in fact, resolving dissonance as he was mulling over what to do with his canvas. He was wrestling through the options and looking for an insight. And in the end, no matter how original we think his work was, it was still the result of the combination of his experiences, training and natural gifting. All things – no matter how original we think they are in the moment – are derivative in some form or fashion. It’s just that some people are more capable of venturing into novelty while others stay closer to the shoreline. But still, there is an existing platform that allows for their expression.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Rod.