In the book Making is Creating the author, David Gauntlett, seems to use the word "creativity" to refer to the act of creating anything. The example is given that it is creative to make one's own gloves instead of buy them. This sounded strange to me as I would not normally think a person fashioning a pair of gloves for themselves would be creative.
I consulted some dictionaries and google has the following definition for creativity:
the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.
This seems to not include fashioning one's own gloves as it doesn't include imagination or an original idea. Does this mean that all arguments in the book are wrong as it contains an invalid premise? Or is there no problem as this is just an operational definition?
When is it that operational definitions become necessary? In words such as "creativity" there is a well agreed upon meaning already. Is it that dictionaries only contain the most basic understanding of words and word usages are often stretched?
Quote from page 19
Whilst they struggle with ‘real’ issues such as government regulation of broadcasting, or something to do with political parties, I am enthusing about everyday people making nice objects or clever little videos, which may be pleasant but is an irrelevance in terms of political or social concerns. If it’s any kind of issue at all, it’s a ‘cultural’ one: and who cares really if people watch silly entertainment on television, or if they make their own silly entertainment; if they grow their own fl owers, make their own toys or gloves, or buy them from a supermarket; or if people write their own songs, or buy someone else’s.
He doesn't explicitly say making gloves is creative however the focus of the section is on the definition of creativity and it seems that he includes gloves as an example.