Thursday 17 August 2006

The Breakdown of Idols 2: On Creativity

I have met quite a few people devoted to spreading the reputation of others. ‘Uhu, uhu, that man (or woman), you will see, is a real talent, yeh… a prominent person who everyone should be glad to be with…huh… What he (or she) has done is really great, yeh, really great,’ they say so with a mysterious face and their index finger pointing upwards. The funny thing is whenever I ask, ‘What has he (or she) really done and did that matter?,’ the reply is always a mysterious smile and some slight shakes of their head. Sometimes the answer I get might be more than that with a few words repeating that that man (or woman) has done a lot of great things. And that is all I get, at best.

I am convinced that there is a big chasm between being “good” and being “talented”. “Good” means  “efficient”. You are efficient when you are intelligent and able to fulfill your job. You are intelligent when you command a large amount of useful knowledge, learn quickly, have good memory, prove to be a professional in your work, and can react quickly whenever required. But “good” I think is too far from “talented”, the quality I set my own standards to assess. Being “talented” requires you to be 1, creative, and 2, able to give strength to others.

By that I mean I have seen scores of intelligent people around me, but found almost none of them talented.

(More on this later)