Why Three Decades of Advice Still Can't Fix What We Keep Breaking
John Cleese, Sir Ken Robinson, and Rick Rubin diagnosed the same problem across 35 years, but we're still not listening.
There's a peculiar ritual that happens in organisations desperate for innovation. Someone, usually in a position of considerable seniority, announces that "we need to be more creative." Heads nod. Workshops are scheduled. Perhaps a beanbag or two appears in a meeting room optimistically renamed "The Ideas Lab." And then, approximately three weeks later, everyone goes back to doing exactly what they were doing before, except now with the nagging guilt that they're somehow failing at creativity.
If this sounds familiar, you're not alone. In fact, you're part of a pattern that stretches back at least to 1991, when John Cleese stood before an audience at Video Arts and delivered one of the most intellectually honest talks about creativity ever recorded. His opening gambit? "What I have to tell you tonight about how you can all become more creative is a complete waste of time."
He was joking, of course. But only partly.
Thirty-five years on, we've accumulated an entire library of creativity frameworks, from Sir Ken Robinson's passionate 2006 TED talk indicating that schools disrupt creativity; "Creativity is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.", to Rick Rubin's 2023 meditation on creativity as "a way of being." We've had the advice. We've seen the data. We understand the diagnosis.
So why are we still having the same conversation?
The Uncomfortable Truth About Creative Advice
Let's start with what makes Cleese's contribution so enduring, and so uncomfortable. He didn't offer a technique. He offered a reflection. His central thesis was deceptively simple: creativity is not a talent you either possess or lack. It's a way of operating. More specifically, it's about being able to switch between two distinct mental modes, what he called "open mode" and "closed mode."
The closed mode is where most of us spend most of our working lives. It's purposeful, slightly anxious, impatient, and very effective at getting things done. It's also where creativity goes to die. The open mode, by contrast, is relaxed, expansive, curious, and playful. It's where ideas actually form. The trick, and Cleese was clear about this, is not to abandon closed mode, but to learn to move deliberately between the two.
Here's the problem: nearly everything about modern work has been optimised to keep you locked in closed mode. In 1991, Cleese worried about people becoming "addicted to the adrenaline that they get from reacting to events on an hour-by-hour basis." Imagine what John from 1991 would make of scrolling social media, instant messaging, and the expectation that you'll respond to emails within minutes rather than hours. Or trying to keep pace with the content engagement algorithm on Linkedin, simply to remain visible.
We've built systems that demand constant reactivity, then expressed surprise when nobody produces anything original.
The Structural Breakdown of "Just Be Creative"
If Cleese diagnosed the mode problem, Ken Robinson identified the systemic breakdown. His 2006 TED talk became one of the most-watched in the platform's history not because he said something particularly radical, but because he articulated something many people had felt but never quite named: that education systems actively discipline the very qualities they claim to develop.
Robinson's argument was architectural. He pointed out that virtually every education system on Earth operates with the same hierarchy: mathematics and languages at the top, then humanities, and the arts firmly at the bottom. Even within the arts, there's a pecking order, music and visual art get more respect than drama and dance. The message to children is clear and consistent: your creative capacities are optional extras, not core competencies.
But Robinson went further. He argued that this hierarchy doesn't reflect some neutral assessment of what's valuable. It reflects the needs of 19th-century industrialism, when education systems were designed to produce a reliable workforce for factories and offices. The tragedy is that we're still running that system in a world where its original purpose has become obsolete. If you look at photos of a classroom from the 19th century to a modern day classroom in 2026, you will notice that nothing has fundamentally changed.
His most quoted line, "we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it", stands out because it's observably true. Children will "have a go" at almost anything. Most adults won't, because they've learned that being wrong is shameful, and anything original is, by definition, a risk.
This is beautifully demonstrated by an anecdote he used to tell a lot, about a girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this girl hardly ever paid attention, but in this drawing lesson, she did. The teacher was fascinated. She went over to her and said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will, in a minute."
The practical lesson here is harsh: you cannot demand creativity from people while simultaneously disciplining them for the behaviours creativity requires. You cannot ask for original thinking in an environment where the first mistake means looking foolish in front of your peers, or missing a performance metric, or getting a lower grade.
Robinson understood that creativity is disrupted by structure, by incentive design, and by the quiet accumulation of small moments where taking a chance felt risky and playing it safe felt smart.
The Attention Economy Meets the Creativity Crisis
Fast forward to 2023, and Rick Rubin arrives with a book that feels, at first, like it shouldn't work. The Creative Act: A Way of Being is written by a music producer. It's structured as a series of short, almost aphoristic chapters. It reads more like philosophy than practical advice. And yet it's become one of the most widely cited texts on creativity in recent years.
Why?
Because Rubin diagnosed the newest version of the problem: we're drowning in options and starving for attention. The modern challenge isn't that we lack tools or techniques or access to information. It's that we've lost the capacity to notice what actually matters.
Rubin's framing is deceptively simple: "before you can make something good, you need to develop your ability to perceive what good feels like". This isn't mystical nonsense. It's a trainable skill, but it requires something that has become almost impossibly rare, sustained, quiet, focused attention.
His book is full of instructions that sound obvious until you try them. Pay attention to what draws you in. Notice your resistance. Reduce the noise. Follow what feels alive. These aren't productivity hacks. They're invitations to rebuild a relationship with your own perception.
Here's where Rubin's contribution becomes urgent: generative AI has made it cheaper than ever to produce something. You can now generate a thousand options in the time it used to take to draft one. But options are not the same as meaning. The scarce resource is no longer the ability to generate ideas, it's the ability to recognise which ones matter, and to have the taste and attention to shape them into something with intention.
If Cleese told us we need open mode, and Robinson warned us that systems disrupt it, Rubin is saying the latest threat is internal: we've externalised so much of our thinking that we're losing the signal of what we actually care about.
Three Thinkers, One Diagnosis
What's striking about placing these three voices side by side is how consistent the core diagnosis remains, even as the surface conditions change.
Cleese in 1991: We get stuck in closed mode because of pressure, urgency, and the fear of looking indecisive. Creativity requires deliberate withdrawal from those pressures, and most people never create that space.
Robinson in 2006: Systems actively discipline the behaviours creativity requires, risk-taking, error, play, and alternative forms of intelligence. We're educating people out of their creative capacities, then wondering why they struggle to innovate.
Rubin in 2023: The modern threat is a collapse of attention and a loss of internal signal. We're optimising for output and losing our ability to perceive what's worth making.
Different emphases. Same underlying problem: creativity is not a technique you apply. It's a condition you create, and we keep building worlds that make that condition almost impossible.
The Five Conditions That Keep Reappearing
Despite different vocabularies and contexts, all three thinkers converge on a small set of non-negotiable conditions for creative work. If you want to move from diagnosis to action, this is where to start.
1. Protected Time and Space
Cleese was explicit about this: You cannot become playful while under your usual pressures. You must create an "oasis of quiet," bounded by both space and time. That means a room with a closed door, no phone calls, and a clear start and end point. Not 30 minutes, your mind needs time to settle, but 90 minutes, maybe two hours. Long enough that something might actually happen.
Robinson would add: and you need to protect that space from the constant pressure to justify its existence. If every creative session has to produce an immediate, measurable result, you'll never take the risks that lead to anything genuinely new.
Rubin's version: treat this time as an opportunity to improve your noticing, not to force output. The quieter the environment, the more subtle the signal you can detect.
2. Permission to Be Wrong
This is where systems break down most obviously. Cleese said it plainly: you cannot be playful if you're frightened that moving in some direction will be "wrong." During creative time, nothing is wrong. There's no such thing as a mistake. "Any drivel may lead to the breakthrough."
Robinson saw this as the core failure of education: by the time children become adults, they've become so frightened of being wrong that they've lost the willingness to try. We stigmatise mistakes, then wonder why people won't innovate.
Rubin's framing is gentler but the same: detach your identity from the work. If every draft feels like a verdict on you as a person, you'll never experiment. Treat early attempts as data, not judgements.
3. The Discipline to Tolerate Discomfort
Here's where all three get surprisingly tough. Creativity isn't just permission to play. It's the willingness to sit with unresolved problems longer than feels comfortable.
Cleese noticed that his more creative colleagues at Monty Python would stick with a problem for an extra hour or two, even when an "acceptable" solution was already available. That tolerance for discomfort, the internal agitation of not yet knowing, is what separates original work from merely adequate work.
Robinson framed this as a cultural problem: we've built systems that reward fast decisions and criticise contemplation. The person who decides quickly looks confident. The person who sits with uncertainty looks weak.
Rubin calls this "following the thread", staying with something that feels alive, even when you're not sure where it's going. The work is often about removing interference and trusting that if you stay present, the answer will arrive.
4. The Right Collaborators (or Solitude)
Cleese was clear: creative collaboration improves when you're working with people you trust and like. The moment someone makes you feel defensive, creativity collapses. "Never say 'no', 'wrong', or 'I don't like that.' Always be positive and build on what is being said."
Robinson saw this through the lens of psychological safety long before that phrase became corporate jargon. When students or employees are afraid of judgement, they play it safe. The teacher, manager, or collaborator who creates an atmosphere where error is expected and exploration is valued unlocks capacity that hierarchy and criticism shut down.
Rubin's version is about taste and signal. If you're going to collaborate, choose people whose taste you trust. But also: know when you need solitude. Some stages of creative work require social energy and exchange. Others require withdrawal and silence.
5. Cycles, Not Constant Output
All three thinkers reject the idea of creativity as a constant state. Cleese was emphatic: you need open mode to generate ideas, then you must switch to closed mode to implement them. You go back and forth. That's the rhythm.
Robinson's version is structural: you cannot ask people to be creative all the time. You need phases of exploration and phases of consolidation. Systems that demand constant innovation without periods of focus and execution create chaos, not creativity.
Rubin describes this as paying attention to energy: when something feels alive, follow it. When it doesn't, step back. Don't force output when the signal isn't there. Build your sensitivity to when the work wants to happen, and when it doesn't.
Why We Keep Ignoring the Advice
If the diagnosis is consistent, and the conditions are clear, why hasn't anything changed?
The uncomfortable answer is that most organisations don't actually want creativity. They want innovation, but only the safe kind. They want originality, but not the risk. They want people to think differently, but they discipline anyone who challenges the existing structure.
Cleese understood this perfectly. Near the end of his talk, he switched tone and delivered a darkly funny guide to "how to stop others from becoming creative." His advice? "Allow them no humour. Demand that people should always be actively doing things. Keep that mode closed."
It was satire, but barely. Walk into most modern offices and you'll find exactly that system in operation. Solemnity is treated as seriousness. Busy-ness is treated as productivity. Quiet thinking time is treated as slacking. And humour? That's "unprofessional."
Robinson saw the same dynamic in education. Schools claim to value creativity, then design curricula, assessments, and timetables that make it structurally impossible. The arts are electives. Mistakes lower your grade. Success is defined as getting the same answer everyone else got, but faster.
Rubin would add: we've also externalised the problem. Instead of building the conditions for creativity, we've started buying tools that promise to do the creative work for us. We've mistaken the generation of options for the exercise of taste. We've confused speed with quality.
The Questions That Matter Now
So where does that leave us in 2026, with generative AI accelerating the production of content, with work becoming more distributed and asynchronous, and with the same old advice still sitting unimplemented in thousands of pages of materials, presentations and lesson plans?
Here are the questions worth asking:
Are you actually protecting open mode, or just calling closed mode by a different name? It's not enough to schedule "creative time" if that time is immediately filled with structured brainstorming, tight deadlines, and pressure to produce something presentable. Real open mode is loose, uncertain, and often unproductive in the short term.
Do your incentives reward exploration, or just successful outcomes? If people are only celebrated when they deliver finished work, and scrutinised when they make mistakes, you've designed a system for incrementalism, not creativity. Robinson's point stands: you cannot stigmatise error and expect original thinking.
Have you actually reduced the noise, or just added more inputs? Rubin's emphasis on attention is the corrective here. If your creative process involves consuming more content, attending more meetings, and generating more options, you might be making the problem worse. Sometimes creativity requires subtraction, not addition.
Are you treating creativity as an event or a practice? All three thinkers emphasise that creativity is not a one-off breakthrough. It's a rhythm, a set of habits, and a way of structuring time. If you're only "being creative" in quarterly offsites, you're not building capacity, you're performing innovation theatre.
A Practical Synthesis: What Actually Works
Now if you have read this far I appreciate your patience and your curiosity as to what we can do about this. And if you're reading this looking for actionable guidance, here's the synthesis of 35 years of advice from John, Ken and Rubin:
Daily: Build a habit of noticing. Rubin's right, creativity begins with perception. Spend 10 minutes a day observing something closely, without judgement. What pulls you in? What repels you?
Weekly: Protect at least one 90-minute block for open mode. Cleese's structure still works: no interruptions, clear start and end time, and a problem to ponder, not to solve immediately, but to sit with. If you finish and feel like you "wasted time," you probably did it right.
Monthly: Audit your environment for creative hostility. Are you working with people who make you feel defensive? Are you in systems that criticise mistakes? Robinson's warning is structural, so look at the structure. If you can't change it entirely, find the edges where you have control.
Quarterly: Review what you've made and ask: did I follow my taste, or did I optimise for approval? Rubin's question cuts through a lot of noise. If most of your output is designed to satisfy external expectations rather than your own signal, recalibrate.
The Creativity We Actually Need
We don't need creativity to make things prettier. We need it to solve problems we haven't encountered before, to adapt when the old rules stop working, and to imagine futures that don't yet exist.
That requires open mode. It requires safety. It requires attention, taste, and the discipline to sit with discomfort. It requires systems that reward exploration, not just execution.
And it requires us to stop pretending we can have creativity on the cheap, a one-hour workshop, a new app, a motivational poster. Creativity is a practice, and practices require time, space, and structural support.
The Choice We Keep Avoiding
Here's the uncomfortable truth that all three thinkers circle around: we know what creativity requires. The advice has been consistent for decades. The problem is that the conditions for creativity conflict directly with the conditions for efficiency, predictability, and control.
So we shouldn't be asking: How do we become more creative?
What we should ask is: Are we willing to build systems that tolerate the uncertainty, the slowness, and the errors that creativity requires?
Because if we're not, if we want innovation but only the kind we can schedule, measure, and control, then we should probably stop talking about creativity altogether and admit we're optimising for something else.
But, if we are willing, if we're genuinely prepared to protect open mode, normalise error, reduce noise, and trust the process even when it feels inefficient, then we've had the roadmap for 35 years, courtesy of John, Ken and Rick.
It's waiting for us to actually use it.
Sources
This article draws on transcripts and analyses of talks by John Cleese (1991), Ken Robinson (2006), and Rick Rubin (2023).
Please log in or sign up to comment.