I’ve had mixed feelings about the theoretical readings provided in ALL705 including “The Production of Creativity” by Daniel Allington, 2011.

At times I get a sense of being understood, of validation.

Other times I think these writers have too much spare time and must live in a kind of echo chamber – it all seems a bit macro in the micro minutiae and “really???”

So let’s go: the concept of creativity as an “illusion. 

I like this concept. It feels less hierarchical than the current mainstream perception that “other people do that – they are good at it – and I can’t do that”. So many people say that to me and not just about writing. All areas of remunerated human activity have become “specialised” unless a person claims the title of a “renaissance wo/man”. 

It seems to me that creativity is a natural human behaviour rather than a commodity. 

As for the comparison of ‘creativity’ in the arts with ‘discovery’ in the sciences.

I appreciate this and I hope it’s widely accepted in the arts.

Are all artists as humble as “don’t call me Dr” and “all these books behind me are speaking though me”?

Do some artists fall for the hype around them or are they mim?

Does it cause me to rethink my own creative work? 

It gives me a lot more optimism about my capacity to claim “creative work”.

I feel like the way I’ve been wanting to approach creativity is valid and that I’m not just an impersonator or mimic. 

ALL705 Vision and Revision – Short Stories Now at Deakin University

Dr Gregory Day

Professor David Mccooey

The Production of ‘Creativity in Creativity in Language and Literature: The State of the Art. Chapter by Daniel Allington. 2011.