Is Technology Limiting Creativity? (nah, let’s unpack the irony)
As they say, the only constant is change. We see this with technology especially, which is exponential. But one question still needs a little unpacking: is technology limiting creativity?
(or is it enhancing our creative capabilities?)
This post is brief, but explores these questions by looking at the irony of the idea and the cycle of innovation.
So let’s kick things off with why the idea of technology limiting creativity is ironic.
Let’s get it.
Is Technology Limiting Creativity? (nope – here’s the irony)
The idea that technology is limiting creativity is an ironic question to pose.
Because even if technology is restricting or reducing our current definition or use case of creativity, it’s a question that falls apart on itself. Here’s why:
Putting limits on creativity is in itself one of the best ways to enhance creativity.
Put another way, limits make us more creative.
And there’s a lot of research and examples to back up this artistic fact.
For example, Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham was written with the challenge of word restrictions (only 50), Miles Davis wrote a whole album (Kind of Blue) without any chords and the whole mantra of “less is more” is built into our vernacular.
So the question of whether technology will limit creativity is a bit silly.
Because if it does, then this should actually foster more creativity and outside-of-the-box thinking and novelty.
It’s the nature of creativity.
Why Technology Won’t Limit Creativity (the cycle of innovation)
Innovation, technology and creativity are interconnected, constantly bouncing off each other – being all synergistic and stuff.
But there’s a cycle to this madness. An order to the perceived chaos.
It’s called the cycle of innovation, and it looks something like this (in my humble view):
→ 1. Some new technology is introduced, which challenges the status quo
↳ 2. Some time passes as people learn it, avoid it, debate it, yell at it and test it
↳ 3. A new normal is created if/once the new tech is ultimately adopted
I suppose we’re in between stage 2 and 3 right now (as I write this post). We’re in the midst of a great debate between AI and the artist.
But why? I mean, I get it – but let’s really unpack things (objectively and logically).
Some New Technology…
Technology is always changing, evolving and disrupting industries and creative pursuits.
For example, using sound libraries and automations in music production is normal now, but it probably felt like “cheating” when the technology first came out.
Similarly, streaming platforms made music universally free and open access – getting rid of CDs and all that jazz.
But how did musicians fare? I suppose that depends.
If an artist adopted the new opportunities and the new technology, then things were better for them.
I argue this because there are no gatekeepers now, and we have more monetization and career opportunities than ever before (thanks to the internet).
But if you stayed exclusively in the old models of in-person, grassroots, CD-driven, trading-your-time-for-money-and-exposure efforts – then things probably look a bit more bleak now.
Some New Normal…(the next creative wave)
Our current technological creative shift is just another tick of the creative-technological clock.
AI is arguably making creativity and the whole ideation process more efficient and streamlined.
We can do more, in less time. We can automate boring tasks and standard processes.
So many examples of new creative greatness may have yet to be realized. We just needed the right tech.
Different tech (different input) = different creativity (different output).
But ultimately, we’re still the maestros pulling all the strings.
We’re still coming up with unique concepts from the personal stories we experience as humans.
We’re still making the final decisions and customizing things to suit our brand and vision.
AI is another tool to add to the box.
We’ll be more creative – but things may just look or feel different, at least for a little while.
Want More? Check Out These Sweet Reads!
