Behind The Screen: Why We Can't Audition Creativity

There’s a popular example of de-biasing judges in orchestra auditions by having auditionees perform behind a screen. The logic is, if the judges can’t see who’s playing, they can’t be swayed by looks (or any other information) besides sound. It makes a ton of intuitive sense. And, if you’re the one auditioning, it takes some pressure off too. That mustard mark leftover from lunch on your shirt? It won’t set you back against the absolute stud/goddess who’s on before you.

Unfortunate food stains and fortunate good looks aside, what’s really going on here is - the judges are doing everything they can to be as objective as possible in a technical skill assessment. It’s important for this step of the process. But it opens up another question: what’s this tension I feel between performing objective assessments and performing creative work here?

Because, it seems important to point out, the auditioning screen is only important for this step of the process. Once somebody is picked for the orchestra, they’re going to be performing on stage, in front of an audience, sans-screen. Get out the stain spot stick and the lipstick. Every tool has its time and place.

There’s a more extreme version of the orchestral audition screen too. One that matters with a less creative element, and one that matters because I’m going to bring this back to the arts and creative processes by the end of this thought, and it comes from Nassim Taleb. He gives an example of a person picking a surgeon.

In Taleb’s framework, if you are picking a surgeon, and both surgeons purport to be great, but one looks like a Grey’s Anatomy cast member and the other is a not-so-hot-mess with a mustard stain on his shirt, you want to pick the 2nd surgeon every single time. His logic is, the surgeon who is successful despite their appearance, must be truly great otherwise they would definitely not be a surgeon anymore. The 1st option might have some room for charisma and coasting, even if they’re not the best.

The judges can put up that screen for the orchestra auditions. Taleb is pointing out, in a very Rory Sutherland fashion, how you can and should look for other non-causal clues to debias objective decisions. Those mustard stains, they’re kind of magical.*

When John Candeto came back on Just Press Record (that’s the Audio/Visual partner to my Personal Archive here at CultishCreative.com), he added a fresh connection if not dimension to this puzzle. He pointed out a contrast I hadn’t exactly connected before. In opposition to the orchestra and surgeon is any truly creative act. This is the insight that put a flashlight on the exact connection, between an objective assessment and a creative act, that I was looking for.

Creative processes function differently. Obviously. When creative output is the objective, we have to throw all those non-causal clues back into the pot. We actually want maximum mixing. We want messiness, at least to start, for organization to emerge from. A great orchestra might be assembled by a committee of judges, but no great symphony was ever written by a committee.

Full humanity is emergent. You might be sexy, or you might not be, but what you create and then who it resonates with is a unique signature. To pull out another Just Press Record quote, it’s Dave Nadig’s idea that “All creation is actually an act of co-creation.” We don’t know what works here, we just know the possible combinations of what works are WILD.

Once you write the symphony, somebody has to perform it, AND the audience has to react - positively - if it’s truly great. While the creativity of thinking up and writing all the notes down is critical, so is the reception. You can’t create a celebrated piece of art without somebody celebrating it.

Candeto pulled this paradox out in a way I hadn’t quite thought of it before. There are tons of domains in life where we want objective quality. However, any time we want some art, or creativity, or humanity in it too, we can’t overlook the presence of subjective connection.

Whatever you’re working on, whatever you’re making - know when to judge it purely on skill, and know when to embrace it purely for it’s humanity.

When you’re deciding on who to add to a team at work, or which specialist you need for a task, isolate the objective variables.

But, when you’re figuring out what to make, or how to present an idea, or - anything creative at its core - don’t hide the connections behind the screen or worry about the flaws, focus on what the audience loves, or will love, and why.

We can choose alone. We can create alone. But greatness, in both cases, comes in the agency of others mutually accepting the outcome. That’s a BIG idea, well worth keeping in mind whether you’re making decisions or making art.

*not sponsored, but Maille Dijon mustard is the Cultish Creative mustard of choice.

Here’s John Candeto (via a YouTube short) I created of this comment, that ended up inspiring this post. And, if you want to connect with/follow John, here’s my Grow Your Network post introducing you to a few of my favorite ideas from him:

John’s (solo) JPR is here:

And his original appearance, when I introduced him to Matt Reustle is here: