One man thought so.

It turns out that author William Elliot Hazelgrove has managed to live out, to what some may be, a literary fantasy: he writes his novels in Ernst Hemmingway’s attic.

It was a serendipitous thing, born of luck, ability and perhaps an element of writer’s block. Hazelgrove was trying to find inspiration in a coffee shop having abandoned his attempts to write in his own home given the recent arrival of his new baby. It wasn’t working and he gave up, disheartened.

On the way home he passed the white Victorian house in which Hemmingway was born in 1899. He entered the house and asked the elderly lady who had turned the old house into a museum if it would be possible for him to find a place to write inside the house.

At first she was reluctant, but perhaps remembering that Hemmingway once described the suburb as “a village of broad lawns and narrow minds”, she succumbed.

Hazelgrove’s strange ‘ritual of ascending stairs to a musty old attic’ was born.

Perhaps we should all consider the impact that our workspace has on our creative output and perhaps we should also think of how we use rituals and routines to achieve more of what we want in our creative life.

Here are his own thoughts from his website.

“It is a complicated thing where one chooses to write. I have written in store rooms, basements, bedrooms, attics, spaces over garages, cottages, buttonhole apartments and just about every coffee house in America. Maybe criteria would be as simple as a place where one can be lost and no one will notice the man in the corner scribbling or typing or reading or just staring into blank space. There is nothing holy about one space over another but there must be some sort of anonymity of the sort that allows the writer to become whoever he or she wants for that time.

“While I write in other places as well — I do have an office over a garage that I share with the exhaust and the occasional field mouse — the attic is a touchstone, a place where one gets a glimmer of another time, maybe a simpler time, I don’t know. But certainly, once I am there and settled into my stiff-backed chair and I hear the squirrels chattering in the eaves and stare at the church in the distanced over the rooftops — I am very far away, at least for an hour or two.”

Why is some art considered better than others and what does this evaluation do to our own creative output?

I recently read an article which argued that classical music was better than other types of music. Here is the author’s point of view:

“I disagree with the notion that popular music is on par with classical, that it’s all just a matter of personal preference. Embedded in that mindset is hostility to the idea that discriminating judgments can be made in art, that hierarchies of value exist, or, indeed, that there is such a thing as objective truth.”

How to Enjoy “The Quintessence of Life”.

Is the author right? Is some art better than others? When it comes to creative output is there such a thing as ‘Objective Truth’?

Whilst I do not doubt that ‘discriminating judgments can be made in art’ I believe the notion of objective truth in art to be meaningless. Art cannot exist independently to human thought or feelings – without an emotional connection there is no art.

Furthermore, because ‘better’ is a relative term we surely need a criteria for comparison – better at what? If we were in the business of evaluating art then these are some criteria that we might use:

• ‘artist’s expression’;
• ‘artist’s technique’;
• ‘elicited emotional response’;
• ‘immunity to the test of time’;
• ‘investment potential’;
  
• ‘originality’.

There are many others and I am sure your own list would be more to your liking.

When it comes to the creative arts we all have a view on the ‘quality’ question and often it boils down to the following:

“I like what I like.  If you don’t like what I like because it seems somehow ‘low brow’ then you are either a snob or else you just don’t ‘get it’. If you don’t like what I like because it seems too ‘high brow’ then you are a moron.”

We can jazz this argument up with all sorts of justification but this is essentially it.

This type of thinking is dangerous as it can stop us being creative and prevent us becoming artists. We just become critics.

Why is this argument so common? Consider these two points:

1) We are trained to be critics – all through our education we are taught to evaluate, compare and contrast. We might need to unlearn this if we are to get anywhere interesting creatively.

2) We are programmed to belong and the best way to belong to one group is to collectively point at another (we like this and not that).

The seductive thing about the quality argument is that at the extremes it is obviously true: by most normal measures Shostakovich would be considered better than The Smurfs. But what about Gershwin, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane (add your own favourite here……)?

When the difference in quality is not clear cut we enter a debate and the discriminating judgments are more probably formed by subjective taste than objective truth.

Life is not that black and white, the joy comes in the spectrum of colours between the extremes.

I happen to get a stronger emotional response to some 80s pop than I do to some classical music and I doubt that Franck or Rachmaninoff could have communicated to me, or the average British teenager, quite as effectively as Robert Smith or Morrisey did at that time. This says nothing about the quality of the music, of course, but, against this one criterion at least, ‘popular music is on par with classical’

I suspect many people can relate to my emotional attachment to pop; as Noel Coward said, ‘extraordinary how potent cheap music is.’

Of course, if we have these emotional anchors to art we are perhaps less able to make ‘discriminating judgements’ about the quality of the art. We integrate the work into our world and it doesn’t become the focus, but a condiment. In the case of music, it becomes the soundtrack to the life we are living.

The context is important.

We would almost certainly have a different opinion of the quality of Rothko’s work if we were to sit quietly in the Rothko Chapel knowing something about the artist’s intentions than if we simply walked by a print of his work hanging on an accountant’s office wall.

‘Would you know world class if you saw it?’

The context is important and we perhaps need to know how to experience art if we are to fully appreciate it (and evaluate it, if we so desire). This is where the post I am referring to strikes a chord. It encourages us to learn how to appreciate this fine music – even providing links. In the author’s words:

“Fortunately, appreciating classical music is a skill that can be cultivated. By learning something about composition, we can more thoroughly understand and enjoy great music. All it requires is your attention, some imagination and a bit of abstract thinking.”

But beware: this is a lesson in becoming a critic, not in becoming an artist. Fine, if that is what you want, just be clear on your goals.

If you are not an artist then what are you? Take the quiz to find out what holds you back?

]]> http://www.creative-steps.com/?feed=rss2&p=399 0 http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=353 http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=353#comments Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:10:48 +0000 Adrian http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=353 On the Creative Steps programme we speak about the importance of ‘framing’. When we talk about framing we are speaking about using contexts and perspectives so that we can assign different meanings to certain events in our lives – so we can see them through ‘a different frame.’

We do this because the meaning we automatically assign to an event might not support our creative intentions. In cases like this it can be useful to change the frame so that we better serve ourselves.

Framing is a popular technique used by NLP practitioners and creativity coaches.

Viktor Frankl was a hugely influential psychiatrist who led what became known as The Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy. He survived three grim years at Auschwitz and other Nazi prisons only to gain freedom and learn that almost his entire family had been wiped out.

Frankl’s school of Psychotherapy made use of the technique of framing. In his own words, [his approach] “makes the concept of man into a whole…and focuses its attention upon mankind’s groping for a higher meaning in life.”

His ability to positively influence a person’s frame helped countless patients and his writing continues to help people today.

It is worth pondering how our creative lives would be improved if we could live as ‘activists’.

“The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life actively [the activist] is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the full. What will it matter to him if he notices that he is growing old? Has he any reason to envy the young people whom he sees or wax nostalgic over his own lost youth? What reasons has he to envy a young person? For the possibilities that a young person has, the future that is in store for him? ‘No, thank you,’ he will think. ‘Instead of possibilities, I have realities in my past, not only the reality of work done and of love loved, but of suffering suffered.”

Viktor Frankl: Man’s Search for Meaning

It is good to remind ourselves that our work captures a moment in time, a record of our journey. It is worth remembering that our work, in itself, isn’t the destination on our journey.

Custom Search

Mid-January is a great time to let those New Year’s resolutions fall by the wayside. You’ve tried; it didn’t work out, nevermind.

This might seem like failing – it isn’t, just call it feedback. It might be an opportunity to learn more about your values.

Do creative people need goals anyway?

When we are truly motivated by something it is likely to appeal in some way to our core values, so when our motivation falls away it is worth asking ‘would achieving this goal cause me to lose something that I currently value?’

This is one criterion for a well-defined goal, click here for the others.

It can be hard to make progress when our goals somehow conflict with our values. For this reason it is worth finding out a little more about your own values.

Getting clear on your values is also a great way to make sure you don’t end up another highly successful but essentially miserable person...you know the type of person I am talking about, they have got everything they said they wanted but found that it doesn’t actually cut it – it isn’t really the thing they valued.

There are lots of ways to get clearer on your values. Indeed, I have a few values exercises in the members’ area. However, if you want to do something quick and easy try this:

Step 1: Imagining you have walked in to a funeral. After a moment you look around the room and notice that it is full of your friends and family members and when you look into the open casket you realise that this is your funeral. This is your opportunity to find out what people are saying about you.

Step 2: Imagine talking to people that you actually know now (real people like close friends, relatives, colleagues) and try to imagine what they would say about you.

This exercise requires that you use specific comments that can be backed up by evidence – you need to collect the ‘because’ as well as the comment.

Imagine everything the people at your funeral would really say about you – and then think about how their words make you feel. (Even though this is a funeral imagine that the people are being honest and not just polite)

For example:

Your friend says you were special to them as you always had time for them. You feel good.

A colleague says you didn’t always follow through with your commitments and left work unfinished. This makes you feel slightly frustrated or embarrassed.

Step 3: In this exercise the comments that don’t make you feel good are the nuggets of gold. These are the ones that tell you in which areas of life you are not honouring your values.

For each statement that doesn’t make you feel good you need to ask yourself ‘what would I want this person to be saying about me?’

If you can answer this question you have probably identified one of your core values.

For example, you may prefer your colleagues to say that you always did what you said you would do. In this case, it might be that one of our values is accountability, or thoroughness. Play with it until you find an expression that makes you feel good. Then you will be getting closer to the value.

Turn the negatives into positives:

• Negative Statement: “He got it all too easy.”
• Positive Statement: “He made it look easy, although I could see the effort he put in.”
• Core Value: “Stoicism.”

And don’t be afraid to use your imagination when building a positive statement, add achievements you would like to hear people say about you as this might tell you the values you need to honour more:

• Negative Statement: “She struggled to make ends meet.”
• Positive Statement: “She worked on a tight budget for a while and then became a great success and died a very wealthy lady.”
• Core Value: “financial success is an important aspect to me.”

Talk with lots of people at the funeral; aim to find at last ten values . Ensure that these values cover all areas of your life, not just health, wealth and creativity. It is important to consider all of the major areas in your life.

Step 4: Write down your values.

How does it feel? Play with the words until you are comfortable. You will probably feel inspired and motivated by the words you have chosen.

If you made a New Year’s resolution can you see which value it honours? Can you identify any conflicts?

Remember: setting goals that conflict with your values can be de-motivational.

Use this exercise to help you move from values to motivation.

From motivation to values

Can you learn anything about your values by looking at what you find motivating?

I have selected three short motivational videos that appeal to different values. Which video inspires you most and what can you learn about your values?

Custom Search

We know there is a difference between the novels of a self-expressed writer and those of the author who produces fiction according to a prescribed formula; we know when music is manufactured to meet the needs of the market; we can tell the difference between a great film and a manufactured movie, even if we cannot always articulate what the difference is.

Take Sting. He knows when something isn’t genuine and it gets him quite worked up.

“The X Factor is a preposterous show and you have judges who have no recognisable talent apart from self-promotion, advising them what to wear and how to look. It is appalling”

Not only does he lambast the judges, he also believes that the X Factor has “put music back decades. Television is very cynical.” Take a look at the article.

Simon Cowell is often accused of being cynical; do you remember the uproar associated with his successful marketing of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah through his X Factor platform?

“Perhaps Cowell actually thinks the song is about him. After all, a key line is “you don’t really care for music, do ya?””

Perhaps the root of the issue with Cowell is money: he owned the rights to Hallelujah and was reputedly making over £250,000 per day as different versions of the song took the top two slots in last Christmas’ UK single chart.

Perhaps it is money; perhaps it is because we know when something isn’t genuine.

For the past four years the winner of Britain’s reality TV show X Factor has gone on to become the Christmas number one. This year the battle is on again, but this time it is Cowell who is slamming the opposition as ‘cynical’.

An internet campaign has been launched by a disgruntled British couple with the aim of preventing this year’s X Factor winner Joe McElderry from reaching the UK Christmas number 1 slot.

They are asking those who are bored with Cowell’s brand of music to lodge a protest by buying Rage Against The Machine’s rock/rap protest anthem Killing In The Name (complete with the festive refrain “F*ck you, I won’t do what you tell me”).

In an interview with BBC 6 music Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello calls the bid to get his song to Christmas number one as a “little dose of anarchy“.

“This is a grass roots effort. It’s nothing against the candidates or the guy that runs the show… I don’t think there is anything cynical about it. In the spirit of great rebel music, and all the best music is rebel music, they are taking up the torch for music in the UK. That top spot doesn’t belong to anybody – any TV show or any ’90s political rock band. Let the people decide.“

Cheryl Cole doesn’t see it that way. The Girls Aloud star has criticised the “mean campaign” threatening to keep her protégé, Joe McElderry, out of the Christmas No 1 spot.

She said: “I would be devastated to see Joe lose possibly the best thing that could happen to him in his life. Every aspiring pop star dreams of a No 1 record.“

Cheryl Cole doesn’t seem to understand that it is not a campaign against Joe McElderry; any one of a number of identikits could be in his place today.

We know when something isn’t genuine.

There is a difference between creativity and expression. The person generating creative output to meet the perceived needs of the market is probably being creative, but they may not be self-expressed. Self-expression has nothing to do with meeting the expectations or perceived desires of another group of people it is about reflecting your own existence.

Writers churning out genre fiction are creative but not particularly self-expressed; neither are the karaoke stars of reality TV.

When we find our own voice the ‘light leaps out’ and magical things can happen; this is when are able to do the work that only we can do; when we become who we are meant to be.

Of course, doing this isn’t easy. It takes time and effort, trial and error, disappointment and the determination.

But the first step towards is getting started. And, it doesn’t really matter where Joe finishes in this year’s Christmas chart, at least he is out there and doing his thing. How many of the critics that slam his lack of originality have released a piece of creative work this year?

Furthermore, I doubt that getting a Christmas number one really is the ‘best thing that could happen to him in his life’ and this seems to say more about Cheryl Cole’s values than it does the importance of a Christmas Number 1.

Wouldn’t it be better if Joe actually managed to truly find his own voice and went on to leave the days of the X Factor behind to become a creative artist with genuine expression?

Ezra Pound as Creative Ally to T.S. Eliot

In the early part of the last century T.S. Eliot was an unknown poet and author. He had written some poems, most of which were simply lying unread in a drawer like so many unfinished creative manuscripts. Then he met Ezra Pound.

Click here to learn about the weight of unfinished creative plans.

In 1915 Ezra Pound was acting as overseas editor of Poetry magazine; he recommended to Harriet Monroe, the magazine’s founder, that she publish “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock“.

It was clear to Pound that Eliot had talent. Indeed, he was so convinced that Eliot was already a great poet that he refused to let Monroe liaise directly with Eliot unless she ‘insulted’ him by suggesting alterations to his work.

Ezra Pound’s belief in Eliot’s quality was cemented in 1921 when Eliot left the manuscript of The Waste Land with him; he read it and immediately considered it to be a masterpiece.

At this time Eliot was working as a clerk in Lloyd’s Bank of London and the quantity of his creative output had reduced as he was unable to dedicate sufficient time to his writing. Pound recognised this waste and decided to ‘free’ him by attempting to establish a subscription plan called ‘Bel Espirit’, in which up to thirty people would each donate fifty dollars to help support Eliot. Pound himself gave money, as did Hemmingway and Aldington and others.

Despite Pound’s endeavours he was unable to find enough subscribers to allow Eliot to quit his job and dedicate himself to poetry. However, the publicity may have helped raise Eliot’s profile and, indeed, in 1922 Eliot was awarded the $2,000 Dial prize.

All or Nothing Thinking

Eliot did not leave employment to dedicate himself wholly to poetry, but he did continue to write. In 1925, he left Lloyds to join the publishing firm Faber and Gwyer (later Faber and Faber) where he remained for the rest of his career, eventually becoming a director.

Eliot avoided the common ‘all or nothing thinking’ trap by framing success as a poet in his own way:

“My reputation in London is built upon one small volume of verse, and is kept up by printing two or three more poems in a year. The only thing that matters is that these should be perfect in their kind, so that each should be an event.”

(Eliot, T. S. “Letter to J. H. Woods, April 21 1919.” The Letters of T. S. Eliot, vol. I. Valerie Eliot, ed. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 285.)

Your Creative Allies

On your creative journey you will meet various types of travelling companion, some of them are allies and some of them turn out to be destructive to your creativity, the most subversive of these negative characters are the shadows and the most destructive are the shape-shifters.

Recognising the allies and guides, shape shifters and shadows can be difficult, but they define your journey. Are you aware of how the people in your life are shaping your creative destiny?

Learn more about how to recognise these people and how to interact with them to help your progress your own creative journey.

Sign up for the Information-Packed, Multi-Media, Online Creativity Coaching Course

Further Instances of Pound as Creative Ally

Pound was a tireless ally to many of the creative heavyweights of his day. When W.B. Yeats introduced Ezra Pound to the early writing of James Joyce, Pound became arranged for The Egoist to print A Portrait of the Artist, both serially and in book form.

Later when Joyce was writing Ulysses, Pound attempted to give the young artist more time to dedicate to his work by sending him money and clothing at his own expense (and anonymously) and also persuading other patrons of the arts to do the same. For instance, at Pound’s persuasion, Yates successfully lobbied the Royal Literary Fund for substantial grant. Pound also got the Society of Authors to send Joyce a bursary covering at least three months of expenses.

Your Creative Allies

You may think it was easy for Ezra Pound to see that Eliot was ‘unique and valuable’ and ‘had something unique to contribute’, after all he is one of the greats, but would you be able to recognise world class?

Rather than worry or wonder who your creative allies are, why not try and be an ally to someone else? Are you able to ‘recognise, acknowledge and safeguard the potential’ within someone else? Could you be a creative coach to somebody?

It seems to me that seeing the potential in others enables you to acknowledge the potential within yourself, too.

]]> http://www.creative-steps.com/?feed=rss2&p=292 0 http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=284 http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=284#comments Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:16:45 +0000 Adrian http://www.creative-steps.com/?p=284 We are all looking for ways to silence the inner critic. Some of us never manage this and we abandon our creative journeys far too soon, committing ourselves to an almost certain future of drudgery, boredom and dissatisfaction.

Whether you are an amateur attempting to cross a creative project off your life list, a more seasoned artist, writer or musician faced with a creative block, or a creative entrepreneur attempting to bring your ideas to life, if you evaluate your ideas and creative output too early you might be prevented from finishing at all.

Allen Ginsberg, who often seems to act as the creative spokesmen for a generation of beat artists, advocated continuous ’stream of consciousness’ writing as a way to silence the critic:

“The parts that embarrass you the most are usually the most interesting poetically, are usually the most naked of all, the rawest, the goofiest, the strangest and most eccentric and at the same time, the most representative, most universal…That was something I learned from Kerouac, which was spontaneous writing could be embarrassing…The cure for that is to write things down which you know will not be published and you won’t show people. To write secretly….so you can actually be free to say anything you want…

It means abandoning being a poet, abandoning your careerism, abandoning even the idea of writing poetry, really abandoning, giving up as hopeless, – abandoning the possibility of really expressing yourself to the nations of the world. Abandoning the  idea of being a prophet with honour and dignity, and abandoning the glory of poetry and just settling down in the muck of your own mind…You really have to make a resolution just to write for yourself, but just writing what your self is saying.”

In her book The Artists Way, Julia Cameron recommends a practice of writing three (A4) pages of longhand stream of consciousness writing each morning before doing anything else. This writing is not intended to be creative output; it is not profound, or artistic or even coherent. It is probably just nonsense, but it gives you the opportunity to clear all the internal dialogue that is silencing the real you.

As Julia Cameron says, “It is impossible to write morning pages for any extended period of time without coming into contact with an unexpected inner power… the pages are a pathway to a strong sense of self. They are a trail we follow into our own interior…“

In the online creativity coaching course, Creative Steps, How to Coach yourself to Increasing Creativity, I encourage you to engage in daily, ’stream of consciousness’ writing – it is a great a way to silence the inner critic and has worked for countless creative people struggling to overcome creative block.

Is your inner critic dominating you?

Recently the course has been free in return for feedback.  This has not only given me the chance to refine the training course and evaluate what is working and what is not, but also I have got to work with interesting people from around the world, including an Australian musician, two American painters, an Indian entrepreneur and a number of other creative people from the UK.  This has been a stimulating and rewarding experience for me and for this reason I am extending the offer:

In return for feedback on the site you get free access to the site and 5 free, 45 minute coaching coaching sessions.

Contact me if this is of interest and I will forward a coaching intake pack that give more details of this service. I am particularly interested in hearing from writers or creative entrepreneurs who are looking to take their work to the next level.

Surely the answer to this question is yes. How else do we learn; from trial and error and always starting at first principals? This is just not possible; we are always building on what has gone before. As American Astronomer and Writer Dr. Carl Sagan points out “If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.”

So how do we learn from other people? If I wanted to write songs like Bob Dylan should I learn my craft by studying his albums, which is precisely what so many people try and do?

Hear what Bob Dylan, himself, says:

“No, no, no. It is only natural to pattern yourself after someone. If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there’s Frank Gehry. But you can’t just copy someone. If you like someone’s work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster.”

(taken from an Interview with Robert Hilburn in The LA Times, April 2004).

Learning from others is sometimes called modelling behaviour. It is described as the “process of discerning the relevant states, behaviours and their sequencing and the thinking that enable someone to accomplish a task or to be a certain way.”

The key point is that we can’t just focus on output; we need to understand process – for Bob Dylan this included the things that a person has been exposed to.

In understanding another’s process it might be necessary to understand all aspects of their approach, for example:

• their behaviours and the environments in which they work;
• their capabilities;
• their values;
• their beliefs;
• and their sense of self.

The art of modelling is to know what the key pieces are – the difference that makes the difference.

What else does that interview teach us about Bob Dylan’s process?

There is certainly something in it about his sense of self and beliefs. Take this excerpt:

“I always admired true artists who were dedicated, so I learned from them. Popular culture usually comes to an end very quickly. It gets thrown into a grave. I wanted to do something that stood alongside Rembrandt’s paintings.”

Similarly, here, he talks about the spiritual dimension.

“It is like a ghost is writing a song like that. It gives you the song and it goes away, it goes away. You don’t know what it means. Except the ghost picked me to write the song.”

In the interview Dylan also talks about noticing the creative stimulation in the everyday. How he learnt to Pay Attention

“Chuck Berry wrote amazing songs that spun words together in a remarkably complex way. Buddy Holly’s songs were much more simplified, but what I got out of Buddy was that you can take influences from anywhere. Like his ‘That’ll Be the Day.’ I read somewhere that it was a line he heard in a movie, and I started realizing you can take things from everyday life that you hear people say. That I still find true. You can go anywhere in daily life and have your ears open and hear something, either something someone says to you or something you hear across the room. If it has resonance, you can use it in a song.”

Finally, we learn that Bob Dylan is not afraid to ‘Stand on the Shoulders of Giants’:

“Well you have to understand that I’m not a melodist. My songs are either based on old Protestant hymns or Carter Family songs or variations of the blues form. What happens is, I’ll take a song and simply start playing it in my head. That’s the way I meditate.”

“I wrote ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ in 10 minutes, just put words to an old spiritual, probably something I learned from Carter Family records. That’s the folk music tradition – you use what has been handed down. ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ is probably from an old Scottish folk Song.”

When asked about ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’ he says, “It’s from Chuck Berry, a bit of ‘Too Much Monkey Business” and some of the scat songs of the ‘40s’“

Creative Steps is dedicated to helping people become more creative and more fully self-expressed. It is your online creativity coach, mentor and guide; a single practical resource to help you take your creative project from concept to completion.

Creative Steps combines a course in creativity with online coaching. It is intended to instruct, inspire and motivate. It is designed to provide you with the tools you need to coach yourself on your creative journey.

One of our rules of the road is about learning from others:

Rule 8: You can improve your own performance by learning how others achieve.

Learn the other rules of the road for your Creative Journey here.

Although this looks like a spam post to me, it is a valid point and has some lessons for coaching, especially if we are looking to coach ourselves to increasing creativity.

The question, as I posed it in the post, is a classic example of a bogus dilemma; that is a logical fallacy in which the range of choices is much greater than we are making out and we indulge in the drama of dilemma when none really exists. For example;

“You could be an actor or get yourself a real job and be happy.”

“If you are not the best you are just another wannabe.”

“Art is for the lazy.”

This type of thinking is discussed in Module 5 of the multimedia training course Creative Steps; How to coach yourself to increasing creativity. In the course we call it All or Nothing Thinking.

All or Nothing Thinking is a classic creative block and a major barrier to fulfilling our creative potential. It:

• Obscures choices
• Focuses our attention on the ultimate output and takes away our enthusiasm for practice.
• Overlooks the fact that a first draft may not be great but it might be the seed of something great.
• Makes the achievements of others appear overwhelming.
• Overlooks the vagaries of taste and opinion.

If your aim is to coach yourself to increasing creativity then you need to learn how to avoid All or Nothing Thinking. Here are some tips:

1) Be alert to all-or-nothing words like ‘always’, ‘never’, ‘everything’, and ‘nothing’, ‘either’, ‘or’.

2) When you hear yourself say these words (or when they are said to you) check to examine if more choices are available to you.

3) Try re-adjusting all or nothing phrases to more realistic words like ‘often’, ‘for now’ or ‘this time’.

For example:

“I’ll have to give up work or I’ll never finish writing my novel” can be adjusted to “I need to find a little more time somehow.”

4) Practice finding the middle ground. List all the options available to you outside of the dilemma presented. How can you find more time? How can you get some feedback on a recording

5) Think of more than one perspective on the issue. What would others think? What would a wise friend, a tutor or a guardian angel say about the issue?

An example:

For example: You might think, “I’m never going to be any good – I might as well give up.”

A wise friend might say, “Do you enjoy the doing?”

A guardian angel might that many people who were ultimately successful had failures at the beginning, too”.

Most important is to be alert to when you are being influenced by all or nothing thinking and know that there are often a myriad of choices available.

I’m going to sell my house and put all the equity on ‘red’, if I loose I can really start to suffer and then I can write my symphony, but if I win I’ll rid myself of worry and knuckle-down and write that symphony.

A Final Thought: If the post was random spam it shows that how ‘random association’ exercises can add sparks to dry tinder and get the ball rolling. Of course, this is a good example of a mixed metaphor……more on that in the members area, too.

Elizabeth Gilbert (author of Eat, Pray, Love) talks about some of the challenges of the creative life.

She suggests that instead of regarding an exceptionally creative individual as “being” a genius we should adopt a ’safer psychological construct’ and say that these people “have” a genius.

She suggests that each of us has a genius.

Is this really a radical idea?

In my opinion she appears to be using the same ’safe psychological construct’ as Julia Cameron did in The Artists Way (or books like ‘The Secret’, seem to do) – that is a re-framing at the spiritual dimension – that logical level above self.

What do you think of this approach? Could it work for you?