★★★★★ 3
instructive but limited
The testimonies of creative people that give this book its flesh and blood provide fascinating examples of creative people at work. That said, if a journalist had written the book, it would be more readable, and I don't think any less of an intellectual contribution. Moreover, the definition of creativity is elitist and stunts the topic (as observed by other reviewers): "Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one. And the definition of a creative person is: someone whose thoughts or actions change a domain, or establish a new domain. It is important to remember, however, that a domain cannot be changed without the explicit or implicit consent of a field responsible for it." Given the people interviewed, much more needs to be said about the function of social institutions in promoting creativity. Many of the accomplishments lauded in this book would never have happened without grant-making agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH, HHMI) or non-profit employers like research universities and hospitals. To offer just one obvious example of the difference made by one's institutional context, the author had advanced students to help him do his research for this book. The elitism of the definition is even clearer in the role that marketplace plays as a judge of creativity. None of us buys books from amazon.com because some official group validated amazon.com as a good idea. We didn't wait for computer programers to affirm and certify it. Amazon.com is not deemed successful because it impressed its peers. It is successful because millions of us purchase goods through it. Similarly, auto-executives did not make the minivan a successful idea, millions of shoppers did. (Obviously I don't think the marketplace fits into the author's definition of creativity. If 300 million American consumers comprise a domain with 300 million judges, then the word no longer has any useful meaning.) The definition also precludes that countless ephemeral acts of creativity that take place daily. I think instantly of two women I have worked with who were great at holidays. Their clever costumes or decorations brightened my day, adding a little element of surprise and delight. Their acts of creativity don't meet the definitions of this book. The way that creativity is defined in this book is simply a filtering mechanism by which the author selected the people he would interview. It is not a definition of creativity. It is only a description of a subsection of creativity, the kind where institutions provide paychecks to highly practiced individuals to work hard at what they love. I also found little new to take away and apply to my own social existence inside the organization where I work. Perhaps I can summarize my dissatisfaction by observing that the subtitle sets out an agenda for the psychology of creativity, but the definitional filter is intrinsically social. This disconnection sets the book up to fail. So, count this as a negative review, yes, but I did enjoy reading the testimonies of the people interviewed, and the author adds some value in the generalizations he draws. Still, much, much more could have been said.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 30, 2012
