Yesterday evening, I attended the Creative Thinking & Idea Generation lecture. It was hot and stuffy; I could barely see the lecturer from a distance, having myself located in the middle of a sea of students. Instead of sticking my neck out to take a look or fanning my face, I slumped in my seat and read a library book while I listened to the assignment briefing until I heard, may I roughly quote, "A creative person is interested in.. fields that are not yours.. everything."
I gave it a thought and questioned whether I was a creative person. My career interest has always been varied, having had wanted to be, among all, psychologist, designer, and writer. Now that I am here in the media field, what makes me, or the writer in me, creative? I think I understand why I should be interested in "everything," after all, what would a writer be without his knowledge? I could still be a psychologist or a designer through writing as a consultant or a critic. However, having done taking interest in everything, 'all becomes one' and thus, a creative person is not interested in "everything."
For example, engineering and law. There is no "everything" where everything IS one - everything can be reverse-engineered and everything will be governed by the laws. Perhaps that is why engineers and lawyers have never been on top of the list when you think of a "creative person" because there are too many rules. In other words, even art is not creative because there are rules such as colour sense, rule of third, and more. Possibly the artist who "think out of the box" was trying to tell us rules are meant to be broken. However, that makes the no-rule rule a rule, what we wanted to avoid in the first place. It should be aptly rephrased, a creative person is interested in nothing.
