Reflections

I recently sat in on a candid conversation among creatives where a surprising question broke out. The question was simple and I assume one that is common with creatives but to me someone who came from the creative for social impact sector it was WILD!  Should creators think about their audience first, or is that the very thing that cripples great work? I stayed mostly quiet and listened. One side argued that thinking about the audience too early contaminates the purity of creation. Creates doubts and too much questioning to result in great work. The other side said creating without an audience in mind can be difficult. As someone shaped by years in the development and social impact world, I didn’t even know you can start ‘without the audience’.  Because where I come from, you always start with the audience. In social impact, public health, and behavior change work, audience first is almost sacred. Human centered design, participatory approaches, and user journey mapping are not optional extras. They are the starting line. You are trained to ask: Who is this for? What do they believe already? What barriers do they face? What will move them to act? What are their drivers?  Communication scholar Everett Rogers, known for Diffusion of Innovations theory, emphasized that adoption depends on how well ideas fit the values and realities of the target group. Translation: if you ignore the audience, your brilliant idea may go nowhere. In this world, starting without the audience feels almost irresponsible. But in artistic spaces, the philosophy often flips. Many creators insist their best work happens when they are not optimizing for anyone. No brief. No persona. No segmentation. Just truth, instinct, and expression. One creative in the room said something that stuck with me: “The moment I start seeing the audience over my shoulder, my work isn’t mine anymore.” What Research Says About Constraint and Creativity Interestingly, academic research does not fully side with either camp. Psychologist Teresa Amabile’s research on creativity shows that intrinsic motivation, the drive that comes from within, is one of the strongest predictors of creative output. When creators feel overly controlled by external demands, creativity drops. At the same time, other research shows that constraints can actually enhance creativity. Structured challenges often force new solutions. A defined brief can act like a creative guiding light rather than a creative cage. There is even a concept in design theory called “creative constraint advantage.” Limits can spark originality because they force sharper thinking and unexpected combinations. So the brief can be a prison. Or it can be a playground. It depends on how it is framed and who is holding it. The Songwriter’s Paradox I have worked with some of the best songwriters who turned technically accurate but emotionally flat health messages into songs that people actually could sing. Vaccine information turned into hooks. Clinical language turned into rhythm. According to them, it takes serious craft and discipline. It is not always their favorite assignment.  They would often say something like: “It’s harder, but it’s also a flex.” That is another truth we do not talk about enough. Audience driven creation can be deeply creative. It is just a different sport. I will admit the songs aren’t as great as the ones with slightly more non technical and abstract concepts such as courage, resilience or even equality. The beauty seems to be in how humans translate these concepts into art. If your brief is already translated, there’s no room for the artist to ‘ART’.  Popular Culture Has Been Arguing This For Years This debate shows up everywhere in pop culture. Filmmaker David Lynch has famously said he does not make films for audiences. He makes them for the idea itself. If others connect, great. If not, the work still stands. On the other side, the entire Hollywood studio system runs on audience testing, focus groups, and box office projections. Make it for the market. Music gives us both extremes too. Some artists say, “I made the album I needed to hear,” while labels ask, “Where is the single?” Even in the TV show Mad Men, there is a recurring tension between pure creative instinct and client needs. Don Draper sells bold ideas, but they are always anchored to persuasion and audience reaction. Art and strategy in constant negotiation. If someone invests in the art they are investing in the audience  There was another layer in that creative debate that made the room a bit more uncomfortable, and a lot more honest. Someone raised the point that art is not always just art. Sometimes it is funded. And when it is funded, it carries expectations. Financiers, sponsors, commissioners, studios, donors, brands, and publishers usually want one thing that sounds unromantic but very real: return on investment. That return is not always money. Sometimes it is reach. Sometimes behavior change. Sometimes brand lift. Sometimes cultural influence. Sometimes measurable social impact. But it is still return. Which raises a practical question. If someone is paying for the work, can you truly ignore the audience? In economics and innovation theory, this is not controversial at all. Joseph Schumpeter, known for his work on innovation and entrepreneurship, described creative production as inseparable from market dynamics and adoption. In simple terms, ideas do not live in isolation. They survive through uptake. In development and social impact spaces, this shows up as accountability to outcomes. In commercial creative industries, it shows up as audience metrics, ticket sales, streams, downloads, and engagement rates. One person in the discussion put it bluntly: “If someone invests in the art, they are investing in the audience too.” It is hard to argue with that. Is Art Without Audience A Failure? One creator in the discussion said, “If no one connects with it, what’s the point?” I am not convinced that is the right measure. Art has always served more than one purpose. Expression. Healing. Witness. Processing. Protest. Memory. Psychologists who study expressive writing, like James Pennebaker, have