>But maybe creativity exists precisely within boundaries, because they define the space in which our ideas can play with one another.

This, so much: boundaries are the origin of creativity!

If I say "fill this blank page with something", the least creative person in the world can do so. But if I say "fill it with a picture of a crow fighting a snail" or "fill it with an essay justifying the right to free speech", that is when the creativity will come out.

This is why I find it so frustrating when TV/movie writers for established franchises feel the need to get "creative" and completely change their work from the original. No, you are not "creative" for making something that doesn't play by the (meta-)rules of that show/universe! (Star Trek Discovery, I'm looking at you.)

To the contrary, you lacked the creativity to make fun new material to watch ... while staying within the boundaries of what made people like the show/movie in the first place.

There are some occupations (artist, author, founder, scientist, etc.) that are popular forms of escapism because they look so self-actualized. From the outside, it looks like:

1. They only work on what they like.

2. Their work exists for its own sake, not to accomplish some other motive (e.g. the painter's paintings exist to be enjoyed as paintings. It's not graphic design, which exists to sell something else.)

In practice, that's usually not true. A founder deals with compliance forms, a novelist only writes a vampire book because that's what the market wants, and the scientist applied for 27 research grants this year.

When it comes to work, humans seem to need to believe that perfection exists, that there is a situation in which all of our problems would be solved.

I've been lucky enough to have had multiple situations where I reached the exact career goal I set a few years prior. The career that seemed like the situation where all problems would be solved. I was (and continue to be) happy with my career, but as soon as you live in yesteryear's idealized reality, you realize that even within that exist some annoying things and you idealize the next thing.

The most interesting creative decisions happen within a tight set of constraints.

Side note, I also had to expand my definition of "creativity" early in my career. I grew up and was educated as an artist. Even received a Bachelor of Fine Art Painting. Never took a single class on anything to do with computer science. As I was transitioning my career towards programming, I was worried that I would lose my creativity. It took me a while to realize that programming was intensely creative, just as much as being an artist. They simply have different aesthetics.

Not much discussion here, but this is a good observation about not just incorporating something like creativity into your life, but how much emphasis we all put on incorporating pleasure into our work lives. That transition happened sometime in the 80's.

I'll step up to the mic and give my opinion:

There was a time when most jobs were physically demanding in one way or another. Working on a factory production line doesn't allow much opportunity for adding creativity into your work. The answer: avocations.

My dad was a machinist--which can be a very creative job--but he always preached to me the need to have activities (creative or otherwise) outside of work. He played music, built projects in the garage, and played around with drawing and painting at home.

We are likely transitioning away (once again) from a majority of jobs that include opportunities for creativity to a majority of jobs that are just plain "work." So it's a good idea to remember that time outside of work can be the opportunity to be creative.

I can hear the comments already about no time outside of work: family, commute, etc. But remember, if you want something bad enough, you will make time for it.

I'm just as likely to neglect this fact as anyone else: we only get one chance to live. If it’s important, then make time for it.

I yield the floor.

Small thing but makes a big difference

Surely the researcher has way more constraints and is thus less creative in their job?

I'm all for finding the joy in things, but the author starts with the comparison and then uses the ability to find creativity with it being a requisite part of the job.

Surely the person with more pertage of trdious work has a more tedious and less creative job.

Imagine if someone made this argument about dollars per hour, and the exec said they work overtime often so the valet has no right to complain about pay since they can look harder for tips.