Sorry to those on twitter who couldn’t get to the linkedin post. Here’s most of what I said there:
…I saw this on twitter last week. After reading the article, it occurred to me that the creativity literature the author (Thomas Frank) was critical about need not be the creativity research literature that scholars and academics have published. That seemed a useful distinction to make given the tone of blame: research publications on creativity, or authors who are trying to popularise creativity to a broader audience. If the author has an issue with the social consensus definition of creativity then he is not alone, but it didn’t seem that was the main focus of the article: more a request for thoughtful and current references rather than the lazy banality well described in the article.