Synergy and Strife

Creativity, like milk, has a used-by date.

The life span of the Beatles was 10 years, from 1960 to 1970. Nirvana lasted seven years, between 1987 and 1994. Led Zeppelin was active for 12 years, from 1968 to 1980. The Rolling Stones, in contrast, formed in 1962 and are still active over 60 years later. U2 and Aerosmith still perform after 40 years, though with some changes in membership.

The music industry estimates the average life span of a commercially successful band at around five to 10 years, with outliers at both ends.

Most Popular Stories

Most Popular

It appears that those bands that achieve commercial success last longer than those who don’t—but the pressure of success often leads to burnout, disputes over musical direction and creative vision, and other personal conflicts.

Intimate relationships, too, tend to have a “good to” date.

The typical first marriage in the United States lasts around eight years, while second marriages have a slightly shorter average duration of about seven years. The typical cohabitating relationship in the United States lasts around one to three years, with about half of these relationships transitioning to marriage or ending in separation within five years.

Factors that commonly predict the length of a relationship include age, education and socioeconomic status, and relationship quality, with factors that shorten a bond’s duration and longevity including communication problems, infidelity, conflict and domestic violence, and the strength or weakness of the couples’ support systems.

Peak creativity in various academic fields also tends to vary. While there are notable exceptions, the general pattern is that mathematicians and theoretical physicists peak earlier in their careers, whereas humanists often continue to produce significant work well into middle age and beyond.

It is generally observed that the peak period of creativity for mathematicians and theoretical physicists is often shorter and occurs earlier in their careers (typically in the 20s and 30s) compared to humanists. Notable examples include Isaac Newton, who formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation in his mid-20s; Albert Einstein, who published the theory of special relativity at age 26 and the general theory of relativity at 36; and John von Neumann, who made foundational contributions to quantum mechanics, functional analysis and computer science in his 20s and 30s.

Why is this the case? It appears that some cognitive abilities, like abstract reasoning and problem-solving skills, peak during early adulthood. Also, the structured and cumulative nature of education in mathematics and sciences means that individuals are often well prepared to make significant contributions by the time they complete their advanced studies. Also, younger mathematicians and physicists may be more open to unconventional ideas and less bound by existing paradigms, allowing them to make revolutionary contributions.

Artists and humanists, in contrast, often experience a longer period of creative productivity that extends well into middle age and beyond. Immanuel Kant published his most influential work, The Critique of Pure Reason, at age 57. Leo Tolstoy wrote some of his greatest works, including Anna Karenina and War and Peace, in his 40s and 50s.

Some attribute the extended creativity of artists and humanists to the benefit of accumulated knowledge and experience and a richer understanding of human nature, society and culture. Also, the skills required for work in the arts and humanities, such as critical thinking, deep reflection and analysis, and the synthesis of complex ideas may not decline as rapidly with age as the abstract reasoning skills crucial for mathematics and sciences.

I recently attended a performance of Stereophonic, a play written by David Adjmi with music composed by Will Butler of the indie rock band Arcade Fire. This play looks at the behind-the-scenes process through which a fictional band, modeled loosely on Fleetwood Mac, struggles to produce a cohesive, compelling, commercially viable collection of songs that reflects a distinctive artistic vision and that will meet their fans’ and critics’ expectations.

The play explores the issues, obstacles and challenges faced by the band, including their creative differences and personality clashes, as well as creative blocks, perfectionism, the disagreements over roles and contributions, and the various technological and production issues that the group encounters.

Reviewers quite rightly describe the play as “a compelling tragedy on power, art-making and the derided women propping up male ‘geniuses’” and “the Icarian cost of ‘making it.’”

It is meant to offer a “fly-on-the-wall” glimpse into the creative process—the tension-filled, marijuana- and cocaine-fueled, sleep-deprived collaboration between four high-strung artists whose relationships with one another tend toward the toxic.

The band’s leader is portrayed as “tyrannical and abusive” and an “unrelenting narcissist; the lead singer as anxious, fragile, neurotic and insecure; the bass player as self-pitying and philosophic; the keyboardist as wry, aloof and conciliatory; the drummer as “the designated group ‘dad,’” trying, with only partial success, to keep the all-night sessions on track.

A hyperbolic, over-the-top review in The New York Times described the performance as “a fiery family drama, as electrifying as any since ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.’”

I enjoyed the play, especially the lead singer’s bluesy voice, but what struck me most was what Stereophonic was what it revealed about the painstaking collaborative creative process.

First, there’s the synergy of collaboration, with each band member contributing their unique strengths, skills and perspectives to produce something better than they could on their own.

The interplay of these diverse talents produces a sum that is richer and more complex than its parts.

Then there are the creative sparks that emerge from conflict. Creative tension is what leads to innovative breakthroughs. Disagreements push the band members to think outside their comfort zones and explore new ideas. Managing and harnessing conflict leads to unexpected and groundbreaking results.

There’s also the role of vulnerability and trust in the collaborative process. A creative partnership requires deep emotional honesty and vulnerability. Band members must be willing to share their raw ideas and emotions.

The portrayal of drug use shows how substances can both fuel and hinder creativity, providing temporary inspiration, but often leading to long-term complications and dysfunction.

The play reveals the duality of drugs as both a muse and a destructive force within the creative process. It also examines how external pressures such as deadlines, commercial expectations and public image can significantly impact the creative process, shaping the band’s dynamics, decision-making and the authenticity of their work.

Creativity is an iterative process involving numerous revisions, rejections and refinements. Initial ideas evolve significantly through collaboration. Initial concepts are transformed through collective input and iterative refinement, revealing the nonlinear nature of creativity. The play also stresses the role of serendipity in creativity, with mistakes, accidents and spontaneous moments leading to unexpected and valuable discoveries, illustrating the importance of openness and flexibility.

In addition, the play explores the role of conflicting egos, personalities and group dynamics in the creative process. Creative individuals often have strong personalities, which can both drive and derail collaboration. The play explores the tension between individual egos and the collective good and the negative impact of overlooking or dismissing contributions.

Above all, the play underscores the cathartic power of creation. The creative process can be a powerful outlet for emotional expression, allowing individuals to process and articulate complex feelings. The play shows how music and artistic creation provide a means for the band members to cope with personal struggles and find emotional release. Creating music together builds camaraderie and forges deep bonds between band members as they share in the intense emotional journey of bringing their art to life.

The phrase “stronger together”—the idea that collaboration can produce something extraordinary—has become a cultural cliché. But conflict can generate creativity. The challenge is to harness tension to fuel artistry.

Stereophonic illustrates the complexity, challenges and profound potential of collaborative creativity, highlighting how tension, discord and partnership can lead to extraordinary artistic achievements.

Creativity thrives in the space between collaboration and conflict. When we envision the act of creation, we often picture a lone individual—an artist, a scientist, a writer—working in isolation to produce something entirely new. This romanticized notion of the solitary genius has been deeply ingrained in our cultural narrative. However, this view overlooks a fundamental truth: much of creativity is, in fact, the product of collaboration.

This is especially true in workplaces. There, the creative process is generally a collective endeavor, where diverse minds come together to produce work that surpasses what any single individual could achieve alone.

If we want our students to become more creative, we need to let them see that creativity is not simply a solo act. They must learn that collaboration is an art that requires balancing egos, managing disagreements, navigating conflicts and achieving a fusion of ideas.

Many of the greatest breakthroughs in science and technology—but also in the arts—are the product of collaboration. For example, the discovery of the structure of DNA was a collaborative effort between James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. The development of the iPhone involved the coordinated efforts of engineers, designers and marketers working together. Productions in theater and film are inherently collaborative, requiring the input of directors, actors, writers, set designers and countless others.

The creative synergy among diverse contributors is essential to the final product.

Successful collaborations are typically the product of a shared vision and an iterative process that involves the exchange of ideas and ongoing feedback, revisions and refinements.

Collaborative endeavors often encounter creative differences. These conflicts, while challenging, can also be a source of creative friction that drives innovation. Issues of ego and ownership can arise in collaborative settings. Individuals may feel undervalued or overshadowed by their peers, leading to resentment and conflict. Effective collaboration requires role clarity and effectively managing these dynamics.

In the typical college classroom, especially in the humanities, professors expect students to produce work all by themselves. But since creativity in the real world is often a collaborative process involving teams, partnerships and give-and-take, we need to educate our students about the value of creative partnerships and make learning more collaborative. Here are some strategies for encouraging collaboration while sustaining individual accountability.

Brainstorming

Build collective brainstorming into your college classes to enhance students’ collaboration skills. Here are a number of ways to structure brainstorming to make it more successful.

1. Silent ideation followed by idea sharing. Have students write down their ideas individually and then sharing them with the group.
2. A round robin. Have each student share one idea in turn.
3. Mind mapping. Have a group of students visually organize and connect ideas on a whiteboard, blackboard, computer screen or sheet of paper.
4. A SWOT analysis. Divide students into groups, with each group focusing on one aspect of a SWOT framework, identifying a project’s or idea’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
5. Use a collaborative whiteboard to facilitate brainstorming. Platforms like Google Docs, Padlet, Miro or Jamboard allow students to contribute ideas in real time and build on each other’s input.
6. The SCAMPER technique. Have students generate fresh perspectives and innovative solutions to a problem or idea by viewing it from seven different perspectives. Have student ask the following questions about an existing idea, concept, practice or approach:

• What can we substitute for an existing idea or approach?
• How can we combine existing ideas or approaches to make our response more effective?
• What can we adapt from some other existing theory, approach or solution?
• What elements can we modify to improve an existing idea or approach?
• What existing idea, theory or approach can we put to another use?
• What can we eliminate to make an existing approach more efficient?
• What if we reverse our existing ideas or approach?

Project-Based Learning

This approach asks teams of students to explore a real-world problem or challenge. Project-based learning can take various forms:

• Problem-solving projects tackle a real-world challenge.
• Service learning projects tackle an identified community need.
• An entrepreneurial project might involve developing a business plan for a start-up, including market research, financial planning and product development.
• Other possibilities might involve writing and staging an original play or musical or testing various alternative policy options.

If project-based learning is to be successful, the process must be carefully structured. The students must first identify the central question or problem and outline the project’s goals and objectives. They must then develop a detailed project plan, including timelines, resources needed and roles and responsibilities. As they implement the project, they must monitor progress and give and receive feedback. Then they must present the project to peers and reflect on their learning the project process.

An Interdisciplinary Approach

Here, the goal is to draw on the knowledge and skills that students have acquired in their area of concentration. The topic that the students will address must be complex enough to require insights from different fields of study. Thus, for a collaborative project organized around the theme of inequality:

• Economics majors might analyze income data and economic policies.
• Sociology majors might conduct surveys or interviews to understand social attitudes and experiences.
• Public health majors might examine health disparities and access to health care.
• Education majors might investigate educational disparities and outcomes.
• Political science majors might examine policy options and their impact.

In an environmental impact study, students majoring in biology, chemistry and environmental science might collaborate to assess the environmental impact of a local industry and propose mitigation strategies.

To address a current health issue, public health, marketing and communication majors might develop a health-awareness campaign, incorporating scientific research, strategic planning and media design.

At the conclusion of such projects, students should write a reflective essay on what they learned from integrating different perspectives.

Leverage Digital Collaboration Platforms and Tools

Technology tools can be used to promote collaboration, allowing students to collaborate in real time, annotating a text, sharing research notes, drafting a document or report, editing a spreadsheet, engaging in data visualization, or creating a presentation. The goal is to collaborate in a structured way.

Thus, project management tools like Asana, Discord or Trello make it relatively easy to assign tasks, set deadlines, discuss problems, share resources and track progress. Virtual meeting tools like Microsoft Teams and Zoom support videoconferencing, screen sharing and breakout rooms.

Brainstorming and mind-mapping tools like MindMeister or Miro provide collaborative whiteboards where students can brainstorm ideas, create mind maps organize ideas, visualize a project or an essay’s structure and plan projects together in real time. Social annotation tools like Hypothes.is and Perusall allow students to collaboratively annotate readings and documents.

Several tools, including Edmodo, Kahoot!, Quizizz, Quizlet and Socrative, plus Google and Microsoft Forms, allow students to create quizzes, surveys, flashcards and study sets, which can then be analyzed collectively. Other tools, like Padlet, provide an online bulletin board where students can post notes, images, links and videos. Flipgrid offers a platform where students can record and share short videos.

There are a number of data-visualization and analysis tools ranging from beginner-friendly options, like Microsoft Excel and Google Sheets, to more advanced platforms suited for in-depth analysis, like Tableau Public, Microsoft Power BI, Plotly, SAS and SPSS. Canva and Infogram allow users to create interactive charts, infographics and other visual content.

Collaboration is a key to creativity, even though it often involves creative friction and group tensions. Only rarely is the path to innovation solitary. Rather, it is through the dynamic interplay of diverse ideas and perspectives that true creativity flourishes. Only by introducing our students to the challenges of teamwork in our courses can we unlock their ability to work with others in creative partnership.