Is Technology Killing Creativity?

 

Is Technology Killing Creativity?  

Technology will never be able to suffocate creativity. Technology is always preceded by creativity. The fear that technology would suffocate creativity is akin to the fear that a tree will suffocate the sun. Technology is propelled by the energy of creativity.

What is creativity?

Common definition: the ability to create something new, whether it's a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new creative piece or shape, through imaginative skill. The term is used to describe a wide range of ideas and creative thinking. Don't worry if you're having trouble digesting everything. I was unable to do so as well. Many definitions of creativity exist, many of which are sophisticated and wordy, but I believe Einstein expressed it best. "Creativity is the ability to see what no one else has seen and to think what no one else has thought." In a nutshell, that is creativity. (In Creativity, Design, and Business Performance, Einstein is quoted.)

Perceptions of the creative type

When the term "creative" is used to a person, it usually conjures up images of artists such as writers, musicians, and painters. On the other hand, it is sometimes considered that an engineer, businessman, or scientist is not creative, however, this is not always the case. It is more often than not the successful individual who is creative, rather than a specific type of person, in my experience. When you look at the definition of creativity, you'll notice that it's not about being able to draw well or having long hair; it's about being able to create something new, whether it's a song, a better business model, or a safer car. All of these advancements are the result of innovative thinking.

Creativity is defined as the ability to solve problems in novel ways, and it is not exclusive to the arts. The fine arts are more about self-expression than they are about addressing problems. In any event, technology has enormously strengthened and liberated creativity in expression and problem-solving.

Creativity always precedes technology

When the man realized that a sharp stick could kill an animal or be used to pick his teeth, he was transitioning from observation to creativity. Someone had to come up with the notion of utilizing a log as a roller before it was really done. Then there was the Roller 2.0, also known as the Wheel 1.0, depending on who you ask. The point is that innovation did not end with the wheel; creativity brought us the wooden wheel, then the wagon wheel, then the bicycle tire, and finally the vehicle tire...

The apparent loss of Creativity

People may bemoan the loss of creativity, but this is merely a perception of a loss of creativity. People love to point to the Internet's availability of awful books, unoriginal art, crappy films, and terrible tunes, but they're wrong. Today, more people than ever before are expressing their creativity. Quality should not be confused with abundance or creative expression. Furthermore, while it may appear that the quality of creative output has declined significantly, this is not the case. Because there are so many individuals expressing themselves creatively, and because we have access to it all, it appears that there is nothing but a mound of garbage out there. In my opinion, there is far more high-quality creative output available today than ever before.

Creativity needs inspiration

That is something we have a lot of right now. We can discover inspiration in the form of books, blogs, images, movies, music, art, photographs, and so on, 24 hours a day. Inspiration is critical to creativity, and despite the abundance of technological inspiration available, I see a risk of technology stifling creativity in this area.

The importance of hands-on experience in the development of creativity cannot be overstated. Unless you've experienced a pounding rainforest downpour, the feeling of passing by an abandoned house alone at night, or the smell of a gas station bathroom, you can't accurately describe them. You can't get all of the smells, feelings, sensations, and other things that make you a better creator by sitting in front of a screen. Inspiration is the fuel of artistic creativity, while knowledge and experience are the components of inspiration. We have access to a tremendous amount of information.

All we have to do now is make sure we have a lot of real-world experience. The loss of inspiration can reduce creativity, but this is a case of technology diverting our attention away from tangible sources of inspiration, not of creativity being replaced or destroyed.  

Will technology replace the artist?

Technology will not (at least not in the near future) replace artists or creative people; in fact, it will require more of us. A programmer can develop increasingly intricate and polished code that performs a variety of basic jobs, including replicating creativity, but this ability to imitate is nothing more than programmed instructions, and there is a limit to what they can accomplish. A program cannot make the leaps and jumps that real human ingenuity can.

There are applications that, for example, can take a photo and make it look like a hand-drawn portrait, and they may be extremely convincing. These applications are excellent illustrations of technology's limitations. Regardless of how good the software is, a human will make many different judgments, whereas the computer will carry out all of its instructions, in the same way, every time. It's a mechanical process, not a creative one, that's being coded. In the sketch programs, an artist sat next to a programmer and the two of them looked at photos together. The artist stated to the programmer that he would sketch or draw various characteristics and elements of an image in a specific way.

He could go on and on about hundreds of factors and how they affect shadow and light. The code for analyzing lights and darks, contrast, colors, and even focus and depth of detail was then written by the programmer. When a succession of photographs is sent through it, however, the program will constantly tackle the assignment in the same manner, whereas an artist will always do something different. They might be in a good or terrible mood that day, or they might be predisposed towards eyes rather than lips, or they might struggle to draw nostrils, or the picture might elicit a certain reaction, not to mention the artist's schooling and personal background. All of this adds to the piece's individuality.

Creativity is being accelerated by technology, not stifled

Photoshop and Word are both pieces of software that make creation easier and faster, with tools that can help us with some of the mechanical work, but they can not replace creativity. Artists have advanced beyond scraping dirt and ash on cave walls to using tablets and touch screens, just as Leonardo Da Vinci employed the best tools and skills of his day. Technology evolves, but creativity remains constant.

We are losing the arts

An ancient oil painting or vintage book evokes a strong emotional response in me, and I lament their decline in the modern world. But those are technological losses, not creative losses.

Our procedures are being refined. I don't want the dark chamber to go the way of the phone booth. I remember the mood of working in a dark room, but it is all personal and sentimental. Furthermore, there will always be hardcore traditionalists who will preserve the old ways, just as there are still some who enjoy handcrafting wood, leather, and participating in other archaic processes for the enjoyment of it and to preserve the ancient ways. I'm not suggesting that processes dying out is a good thing; on the contrary, it's a bad thing. I believe it is critical to preserve traditional procedures for a variety of reasons. However, there are numerous advantages to the advancement of these processes.

Almost any creative project now has a lower cost and accessibility barrier. Technology has made it cheap, if not free, to express oneself through writing, art, music, and photography.

I'm not sure what the environmental impact was, but all of the chemicals used in the dark room were frequently flushed down the toilet. Even when computers and email attachments were first introduced, publishers still expected submitting authors to print their manuscripts and mail them to them. That took days and hundreds of dollars, which is absurd to consider in today's world. My most recent novel was read and edited by a number of people all across the world, and the cover was designed by an artist who lives far away from me. I was able to publish a professional-quality novel quickly and inexpensively.

Although the original substance, or my manifestation of creativity, is debatable, all other components of the novel were done as well as, if not better than, any publisher could have done. This was unthinkable only a few years ago, and I didn't use any paper, shipping, ink, or anything else.

It's not simply a question of cost and accessibility; it's also a question of audience. To get a book published recently, you had to persuade a publisher that you had a large readership. You can now self-publish a book or write for a specific audience. In some circles, How to Wash Your Llama can be popular.   

So, while our technologies make the task easier, do they necessitate less skill? No, and since there is such a large need for content, there are so many less capable artists in circulation. However, this is fantastic news for artists. Artists no longer have to be a hungry artist. You can work from anywhere in the world as an artist, whether you're a writer, artist, designer, musician, or voice-over talent. You may sell your artwork online, be hired to do odd jobs, and even use your success to help others succeed.

I remember cameras that utilized film, black-and-white televisions, phones that were tethered to the wall, and even worse, phones that could only be used as phones. And I recall what it was like to try to have a book published. People who got published weren't necessarily the best authors; rather, they were the best at dealing with a mind-numbingly difficult and tedious task that may take years and result in nothing. Self-publishing was also a joke.

Even if you had thousands of dollars to spend on a tiny print run, you'd only touched the surface of how to market, distribute, and sell a book. Many aspiring authors found themselves with a garage full of novels they couldn't sell.

Except for one - the ability to actually create the book - today's companies like Create Space have removed practically every obstacle to writing and distributing a book that existed in the past. It is now infinitely faster and less expensive to have a book beta read, edited, and a cover prepared before it is made available for purchase all over the world. In my pursuit to publish my own works, I've met with authors who have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars marketing a book with little to no results. I've also spoken with a few people who have just released their book and have seen an increase in sales as a result of word of mouth and positive reviews.

One, in particular, has a story that sounds eerily similar to me. He spent twenty years hearing "no thanks" from publishers and agencies.

They all had reasons not to publish him, and most of them were inconsistent. It's either too lengthy, too short, or there aren't enough characters. He began self-publishing roughly five years ago and has now abandoned his job to devote himself entirely to writing. People adore his works, which all the "experts" predicted would never be published. And, ironically, the same publishers have contacted him again, requesting the rights to publish his work. "No," he replied.

Why would he sign away his rights and receive a small percentage of book sales in order for a publisher to profit? Almost no promotion is required with an excellent book, but this is the exception, not the rule. However, in this new world, even the worst book can make money. To be fair to the publisher, printing a book is extremely expensive, so they had to choose winners, novels that would sell a significant number of copies.

I've appreciated a couple of truly terrible, strange, or stupid books. Maybe I was laughing at them because they were so awful, but I paid, and the author got compensated. There are books created in such a way that only 400 people will ever read them, yet they would never have seen the light of day before and would have never, ever made a penny. However, today, a ludicrously funny book can be enjoyed by a few hundred people and earn the author a few dollars. Furthermore, the world now has access to a small, one-of-a-kind book that it would not otherwise have.

Since the 1700s, we have been living in a Renaissance unlike any other. Many of our favorite things were born during the Renaissance: the novel, female writers, and so on. Software, computers, and technology are all tools, and creative individuals always use them more creatively than others. If a piece of software that does seemingly creative work is released, and everyone can do it, the creative and gifted person will use the tool more effectively and to a better purpose than the majority. 

Because I understood that traditionally educated artists weren't harnessing the full potential of available technology, and self-taught artists who learned on the computer lacked basic art abilities, I came up with the idea for my most successful book. To genuinely excel, you'll need both.