Peterson Vs. Warner: Two Creative Philosophies

Just finished a second read of two books that seem to be dyad thoughts on creativity- “Adorning the Dark” by Andrew Peterson and “Effortless Mastery” by Kenny Warner.

Both books are exceptional reads and offer insight into creativity, but the authors have a big difference in the way they think about the creative act.

Peterson views creativity as something you pull up from the depths like hoisting an anchor off the sea floor. There’s lot of hard work, sweat, and probably some cursing involved 😂

It’s clear he sees it as a sacred struggle, and worth the end result. But you feel sorry for how much suffering he seems to endure during the process.

Warner sees creativity as an unstoppable deluge, something you can’t help be swept away by. Creativity to him isn’t something you have to conjure up, it’s a natural state of being. To enter a creative flow, Warner suggests all you need to do is stop fighting it. Remove the dam of overthinking and ego identification, and you’ll be rushing downstream effortlessly.

When I was 20 (or even 30) I identified with and embraced Peterson’s creative method. At 38, Warner’s ideas feel like the truth I avoided for years because it couldn’t be that simple, or God couldn’t be that generous. I had to earn it through suffering for it to count.

As I’ve gotten older (and spent more time both creating and in nature) Warner’s creative philosophy seems more valid. We’re literally swimming in effortless, wild, unending creativity every day. The only way to avoid the creative flow is to overcomplicate it, fence it in, or artificially suppress it either on purpose or by accident. Once you realize this, you realize how hard you’ve been paddling upstream all your creative life and feel a little sheepish 😂

It’s possible to make stunning works of art using Peterson’s philosophy (just check his catalog) but it’s a lot more fun to do it Warner’s way.