A quick question...
 

I have a difficulty. I am proofreading a press release for an event later in the year. The author has used the term "creatives" to describe the group of people who have been collaborating on a history/landscape project and every time I look at it it, it makes my toes curl.

I have never come across it before, but this is no reason to edit it out; is it already an accepted term in art/literary circles? The author is many years my junior and may well have the advantage of me here.

The collaboration involves visual artists (paint, collage, video...) and poets. Roughly half a dozen individuals.

I understand that the writer wants a one-word description that will cover the different disciplines involved and perhaps thinks "artists" (the term I would probably have used) is not broad enough to cover the wordsmiths in the group. She herself is a conceptual artist, working in several media.

My immediate perception is that "creatives" smacks of a kind of political correctness overlaid with a slightly superior smirk and I fear that readers of the release (potential bums-on-seats) might share that view.

Can I have a few informed opinions/gut reactions/alternative expressions?

Please, and thank you.

The term is used alot. It is annoying, as you suspect, to many. Except the people who call themselves creatives. Make it stop.

I agree.
I'm familiar with the word, but would never use it since it sounds patronising, implying that everybody else is not creative.
Artists sounds acceptable to me as an alternative; alternatively perhaps creators?

There has to be a better word. To my ear, mind, and heart the term has many negative connotations, one being that I can see it used in a dystopian world! :eek:

Yes, creatives sound a bit like they are cultured in tubes as well.

Cheers ,
John

Ditto. It's an adjective.... But mostly it's annoying.
My hunch is she is partial to the word "creatives" because it's "different".

Persuasion is your only recourse. Consider the audience that will read it. What would be more digestible to them? "Artists" more exactly defines the group as not only being creative (everyone is creative to a degree) but also having the ability to express that creativity through artistic expression. Convince her that to be called "artists" is more impressive than to be called "creatives". Because it is.

Another tact might be to ask the group of "creatives" themselves if they would prefer to be called that or "artists". I would think the latter. That will, if nothing else, produce some lively discussion : )

Or maybe they are a certain kind of "creatives"? Bohemians? Nah. "Compendium of creative minds"? Nope. "A collective of artists"? What?

Not everything "creative" is artistic...

Ann,

I think you've come to the right place to find people with conservative views on language, and perhaps if you asked elsewhere you'd get different responses.

But with that caveat, yes, I don't like it either, and I agree with David that it seems to imply that others are not. "artists" seems accurate and unproblematic. And "creatives" seems to strike me defining people solely in terms of their creativity (imagination and ideas - a Romantic notion almost) rather than also their craft, skill or discipline -- whereas "artist" seems to capture all of these.

Had a quick Google. The word seems to be business jargon. The OED gives, "informal: A person whose job involves creative work." The example they give is ‘the most important people in the mix will be creatives and direct marketing specialists’. And Cambridge gives, "a person whose job involves producing original ideas or doing artistic work" with the example, "Several leading creatives are involved in the advertising campaign". And MacMillan gives, "someone whose job is to have new ideas, especially in advertising". So that's another good reason not to use it.

Matt

Hi Ann,

Are they insistent on a single word? I can't see what would be wrong with 'writers and artists'. I share the distaste of 'creatives' as a term. I associate it with the business jargon of advertising, where any creativity is a means to an end (selling a product) rather than the end itself (with any financial reward as a happy bonus!)

I think Mark has it right. There's not only no need for a single word but, since the project is in part concerned with history, "writers" would seem a useful addition to "artists". Indeed a differentiated list would seem to be a much better way of indicating the diversity of approaches involved.

If you want a really nasty word to match the contested term, one could say that the use of the word "creatives" is part of a process of "commodification". Yuk!

The word is creatives and it is almost always used by people who could not really be described as such. I associate it with careerism and as you say "a slightly superior smirk." Think of it as Artist™.

Apparently I am the odd person out; I don't have the aversion to the term "creatives" that everyone else here seems to. Perhaps I have simply seen more jargon in general that the rest of you, and I don't claim that's an advantage.

But it seems to me that the word would be suited to an audience and a context having to do with advertising or marketing projects. Anything else, not so much.

Although I'm sure I could find exceptions, for the most part I find that people who call themselves "creative" rarely are. I hear it mostly in the context of crafts or cooking or knitting or needlework, often used in a self-congratulatory manner.

Roger, I think the usage of the plural "creatives" is a different thing. I've only seen it used by middle-management types who are overseeing groups including idea people and technical people (and money people, and blah de blah). It seems to be useful for distinguishing one group from another.

Ann's suggested "writers and artists" works fine if it actually covers everybody involved, but I would want to check about that.

Phil Connors the Weatherman, on hearing he's staying in a bed & breakfast while everyone else is in a cheap hotel: "You know, I think this is one of the traits of a really good producer. Keep the talent happy."
[...]
Larry the Cameraman: "Did he just refer to himself as 'the talent'?"
--Groundhog Day

I know I'm being too talkative on this thread, but Julie has just reminded me of something, a thing I know because my better half is an avid participant on discussion boards of sound technicians--people who record singers and instrumentalists or who run the sound boards for their concerts.

She's reminded me that the phrase "the talent" is often used sarcastically among everybody-other-than-"the talent." The same might be true of "creatives" sometimes. Another possible reason to avoid it.

Thanks to all who have offered help, reasons and examples. I shall try to pull the dreadful dystopian word from the general press release and replace it with "writers and artists" (Thank you, Mark). I shall now sit and compose my reply to the young colleague, being as gentle as possible. She has a qualification in Arts Administration so I must tread kindly and carefully.

Compassion is probably a good thing when dealing with Arts Administration.

Cheers,
John

Not attractive. In my mind, it is part of advertising jargon.

Perhaps I'm being too proudly humble but it irks me as lacking modesty when people refer to themselves as "poet."
Just do it.

All your help and advice has paid off in the following brief email that just arrived from my young colleague.

"Thank you Ann - I'll make these changes, very helpful."

Bless you all.

Why not simply "collaborators"?

It would be hard to write "creative types" without sounding faintly sarcastic.

I agree that "writers and artists" or "artists and writers" is much better. "Creatives" demands a modifier like "self-involved" or "self-proclaimed" or similar.