Great Art Feels Dangerous (and That’s the Point)
Creativity is one of those words everybody loves… until it shows up in a form they don’t recognize.
A few days ago I recorded a long talk on creativity—philosophical, abstract, probably a little too deep for what people expect when they hear the word creative. Then I listened back and realized: it actually wasn’t a mess. It was just operating at the level the subject demands.
Because if you’re talking about creativity in art, music, writing, invention, or even entrepreneurship, you’re talking about foundations:
What are we trying to accomplish?
Are the means more important than the ends?
Are they equal?
What do we sacrifice when we optimize for one over the other?
So here’s Part 2: the pieces I didn’t say last time—especially the parts that matter for creatives and for people who work with creatives.
The purpose of art isn’t to make you happy
A lot of people assume the job of art is to entertain, uplift, or make life pleasant.
Art can do that. Music can heal you. A novel can change you. A movie can give you a new emotional vocabulary.
But here’s the real question:
What makes you assume the purpose of art is to make you happy?
Art can also:
- disturb you
- shock you
- scare you
- disgust you
- confront you
- force you to see something you’d rather not see
In other words, art can move you—not necessarily comfort you.
And if you want a simple way to tell the difference between real art and something else: real art tends to expand your perception, while propaganda tends to shrink it.
Art vs. propaganda: the “particular contains the universal”
One of the best ideas I’ve ever borrowed is this:
True art contains the universal inside the particular.
You take something limited—a poem, a painting, a film, a symphony—and somehow it contains the world. It holds multiple forces at once. It doesn’t just argue a point. It reveals complexity.
That’s why propaganda is the shadow version of art.
Propaganda uses the same tools—narrative, rhythm, imagery, symbolism—but for one goal:
to support one ideology, one frame, one side.
Propaganda simplifies. Art deepens.
And here’s a practical tip you can use immediately:
If something never presents the strongest version of the other side, it’s not exploring reality—it’s selling you a conclusion.
Creativity can’t be graded (and that creates constant conflict)
This is one of the most important things to understand about creative people:
Creativity almost can’t be graded—because grading requires a rubric, and creativity creates new rubrics.
A “grade” implies a pre-existing standard. But creative work often breaks standards—or builds new ones.
So when a creative person gets evaluated inside a rigid system, conflict is inevitable.
The FedEx story (why this matters)
Fred Smith (founder of FedEx) wrote a paper outlining the FedEx logistics concept while in school. He reportedly got a C.
Why? Because the professor graded it against the current model of logistics—the current rubric.
That doesn’t mean the professor was evil or incompetent. It means the system can’t reliably recognize what hasn’t been standardized yet.
This is a huge reason why:
- schools often fail to identify innovators
- organizations reject breakthrough ideas
- creatives feel misunderstood
- evaluators feel creatives are “undisciplined”
They’re speaking different languages.
Creativity comes from the same place as destruction
This part makes people uncomfortable, but it’s true:
Creativity and destruction come from the same source: the unknown.
To create something new, you have to go beyond what you know. But beyond what you know is also where:
- you can get lost
- you can fail catastrophically
- you can encounter ideas that change you
- you can encounter darkness
That’s why creativity feels risky. Because it is.
Think of the known world as a small village. Safe. Familiar. Structured.
And outside the village is a jungle: danger, parasites, chaos… but also discovery, resources, new alliances, new tools, new food, new medicine.
No tribe survives without leaving the village sometimes.
Why people reject new art first
I recently saw a post about a Yamaha experiment: sensors on a person’s body triggering piano sounds through movement.
And the comments were predictable:
- “That’s not music.”
- “That’s noise.”
- “That doesn’t count.”
Saying “I don’t like it” is fair.
Saying “that isn’t art” is different. That’s not preference. That’s denial.
When people are confronted with something that challenges their categories, they often go through something like a grief cycle. Their old definition is dying.
And most people don’t realize they’re grieving a worldview.
Education often trains the wrong thing: protecting rubrics instead of creating them
Here’s a strange modern example:
Some schools spend massive effort and money preventing students from using phones during tests.
But ask the deeper question:
What is the test for?
To prove they know material.
Why learn material?
To function in society.
Why function?
To solve real problems.
Now name one modern job environment where people won’t have access to the internet.
So maybe the real skill isn’t “memorize under isolation.”
Maybe the real skill is:
- finding information
- evaluating it
- integrating it
- using it well
Some people are dramatically better at search than others. That’s not trivial. That’s leverage.
Education changes last, and it changes least—because it worships the rubric more than the process that created the rubric.
Advice for creatives: stop trying to measure yourself with someone else’s yardstick
If you’re a creative person, here’s a hard truth and a comforting truth:
Hard truth
If your creative dream is superstardom, the odds are brutal. It can feel like the lottery.
Comforting truth
You can still build a meaningful, respected, financially stable life without being a global outlier.
A better strategy is:
- keep your creative output alive (you need an outlet)
- build other options alongside it
- don’t confuse “being creative” with “being recognized”
A practical way to ground yourself is to ask:
What have I produced?
Not what you feel. Not what you could do. What you’ve actually made.
This is imperfect—because again, you can’t fully grade creativity—but it gives you a reality check.
A modern problem: the “global small town”
In a small town, being “one in ten” creatively makes you stand out.
In New York, being “one in a million” still means there are many people like you.
Online, you’re always a few clicks away from someone 10x more skilled, 10x more productive, or 10x more famous.
That can be heartbreaking if you don’t understand what’s happening psychologically.
So don’t let the internet turn your gift into self-hatred.
Measure yourself by your output, your improvement, and your ability to bring value—not by the loudest leaderboard.
Advice for people who work with creatives: stop demanding “maximum structure” without trade-offs
Creative people are essential. Not because they’re “fun,” but because they explore the unknown.
But you can’t demand creativity and also demand perfect compliance with rigid systems—without paying a price.
There’s always a trade-off:
- more structure can improve reliability
- but too much structure can sterilize breakthrough
- constraints can fuel creativity, but over-control can kill it
The best leaders build environments where:
- creatives can explore
- builders can implement
- both sides respect the other side
- and translation happens between worlds
That overlap—between art and engineering, between imagination and execution—is often where the magic is.
Steve Jobs is an obvious example: someone who could communicate across those parallel universes.
The closing point: we need both sides
Creatives and non-creatives are not enemies. They are complementary forces.
We need:
- people who protect systems
- people who improve systems
- people who invent new systems
- people who implement the invention
If you’re a creative type: I feel for you. It’s hard. It’s unstable. It’s often thankless. And it’s difficult to make a living purely from it.
So be smart:
- keep your creative fire alive
- build options
- aim for meaning and usefulness, not just recognition
And if you work with creatives:
- don’t treat them like broken employees
- treat them like explorers
- and give them a structure that supports exploration without suffocation
That’s the balance. That’s the point.
If you’re building something creative and need structure without killing the spark, reach out: [email protected] or book a call with me:
If this topic is useful, you’ll probably like the rest of my essays under the Meaning knowledge branch: https://gabebautista.com/essays/meaning/
