In reading about the sociology of creativity, a few things struck me as interesting. One was about the idea of fields of intermediaries (people) who decide what’s accepted or not. Could the field be wrong in not recognizing creative genius until after certain individuals are deceased? Sawyer says “Well, not really.” and goes on to describe that creative “geniuses” are actually typically recognized before or not long after death, after all. In other words, it may not be always obvious but they do tend to get it right. And a person’s reputation as a genius tends to persist and remain unchanged. The difficulty I have with this, which merits more cognitive exploration on my own part, is the idea that the identity of creativity is so seemingly narrowly pigeon-holed.
It’s also interesting to note the magnitude of influence of a creator’s audience. This gets back to what is an interesting tension between creativity and others influencing the creator. Creativity is not purely individualistic in a vacuum but also a sociological endeavor.