These two words have over the years created a lot of heated discussion.If I would speak mathematically,then I would pose such a query as:Is age directly or indirectly proportional to creativity?
Many writers have given their take basing on their own forms of argument.Literary critics have also got a slice of the action much to their delight.Afterall,they would love to participate in matters as such and air their views fully.
Well,to be frank many of them have this notion that age does really impact a writer’s way of creativity.No.That is pretty mild.Actually,it impacts a writer’s qaulity of creativity,they say.And most of them conform to a rule that states with increasing age,creativity apparently deteriorates..not a nosedive,but a gradual process.Well,while that could be their take,others may not agree to it,given the fact that many old people are still presenting their works.
But the question is:Is it quality work?
Let’s pay attention to the general truths first.You may agree with me that poets can write for a lifetime contrary to novelists.Shifting focus to the intensity of creativity,who do you think,between the two,are more creative?I feel novelists have to travel so far in their minds,knock themselves here,ride there,drive here and stroll a long while until they come up with a fine well-created novel,as opposed to poets.And with increasing age,I doubt whether this can be possible.
We are born with a specific number of brain cells.Biologists have proven to us beyond doubt that these cells die off as age increases.The brain cells are of course the machines with which creativity operates.So if they reduce in number,then it is almost obvious that creativity would follow suit.
Another impressive research shows that decline in creativity starts when we enter school.This may not wash,or may be incredible but true it is.It goes further to state that at age 5,we have the capability of innovating quality,even if this had been done so previously by others.At age 12,our creative output declines to about 2% of our potential and stays there forever.This may be sad but is the case.
On the same note,when we live with others,probably at school or home,we qre obliged to follow the rules to be safe.And that’s what we precisely do.We don’t invent other ways of living with others.We want to obey what’s there and that’s that.Obedience is a virtue,but are we reinventing our worlds everyday?
Schools drill conformity in us,particularly.We learn of one way of thinking,one way of answering questions,one way of dealing with problems,and that this is what the teacher is having in mind.It all is one way.There is no variety.There is no divergent thinking.It becomes hackneyed.
The use of cliche`s may also fall in here.We use the same same linguistic devices and repetition becomes the order of the day.With this,what creativity are we anticipating?At the end of school life,we are very functional in the society,except that we can’t invent.It then means that with creativity,youths,probably aged between late twenties and below to early forties are streets ahead of the aged.It is,in my opinion,better off to be young and energetic,than old and experienced,as the former still has brilliant ideas to think of,while the latter is stripped of them and only struggles to appease the audience.