We are not short on forces that are bruising to creativity.
Despite often being loud and convincing, most are well within our control. This newsletter was started to write about the avoidable things that kill creativity and what teams and individuals can do to keep it alive.
And then, there’s one limiting force which, for many people, will be seen as being anything but in their control: the resources and money available to pursue the creative act. This is the most common “if only…”
If only the client had more budget.
If only we could hire a bigger crew to make the film.
If only I could buy that one piece of equipment/software.
And on it goes. Whether you’re in the earlier or veteran years of professional creative life, regardless of the project, there is always an “if only.”
There are two psychological attributes commonly associated with this, and they are helpful to remind ourselves of in order to notice their influence.
One could argue these are good things. They raise ambition.
But this is the case only if they are applied post-creative act. After completing a project, looking at the work and achievements of others and noting how the reference group has evolved can inspire us to aim higher next time.
However, if these two things dominate the mindset during the build-up to a creative act, they can be stifling. They lead to procrastination and project abandonment.
The question is not whether creativity can thrive while having fewer resources than desired. Otherwise, nothing would ever get made. The question is for how many people and how frequently the “if only” makes creativity not happen at all. How often do people wait for ‘enough’ to begin? Before we know it, this becomes a horizon that’s never reached, and we are trapped in an Escherian illusion.
Every creative person has a vision of what their next project should look like and accomplish. To achieve that ideal, we create an inventory of resources needed to pull it off. This is partly formed by experience but primarily by external factors.
When resources are limited, and the inventory isn’t attainable, creative people might feel that continuing the pursuit will either be fruitless because the desired quality cannot be achieved or, more commonly but less discussed, that even if the quality is achieved, it would be in a way that somehow ‘cheated’ the creative process.
For example, if you see someone you admire make a project with a degree of success you aspire towards for £10 million, a psychological barrier is made. This barrier comes from a belief in the integrity of the creative process. Creative people might struggle with the thought of achieving similar outcomes on a smaller budget, fearing it might be perceived as somehow using a shortcut and therefore undermining or devaluing the creative act.
Neither is true.
Every creative person is making things with less money than desired. It stands to reason that every creative project you admire has endured in the face of concern over quality and that either everyone is cheating or no one is.
If you find yourself stalling due to a resource limitation, follow these questions:
If the answer to question two is “no”, then reassess before moving on, changing the reference group as needed.
If the answer to question three is “no”, find a way to make the thing with what you have. Making it under the pressure of being economical will be a lesser burden than watching the moment pass. If the answer is “yes”, then prioritise attaining this missing resource without allowing your time limit to slip.
Attain the resource, make the thing, or move on.
Finally, we can take inspiration from four-time Academy Award winner Nick Park.
In 1999, Aardman Animations struck a five-film distribution deal with American movie studio DreamWorks. The new partnership, one of the biggest deals to be achieved by a British studio, tied them exclusively to DreamWorks for their animated feature productions.
The deal meant Aardman could tell stories with radically increased budgets. The first film, Chicken Run (2000), directed by Nick Park and Peter Lord, had a budget of $45 million. The two previous films Nick had directed were reportedly budgeted at £1.3 million and £0.5 million, respectively.
This is an excerpt from an interview I had with Nick in 2012:
“You never, ever feel like there’s tons of money to play with. It just goes up more because you have to do more, or there’s more story to tell. Even now, after all the success, we have to think about how can we write more economically. It is always a struggle, there has never been an open purse to do what we want. Even in the pre-recession days with DreamWorks, it was always a case of, ‘How can we get this done for as little money as possible?’
Jeffrey Katzenberg used to say, “Pick out your five money scenes, and don’t spend any money on the bits in between!”
There’s always a belief, both within Aardman and myself, that creative solutions often come from being forced to think economically. I know you need some money for some things, but as artists, we can be so set in our ways of thinking. We have a great idea that seems unachievable and we want to blame it on the world outside.
Really what we need to do is look inside, and check our own ideas; can they be done differently?
If you’ve got it in you, you’ll do it.
You’ll find a way."
Ian
