This section draws from Juniper Hill’s book Becoming Creative: Insights from Musicians in a Diverse World (2018).

Opportunity, permission, and authority are enablers of musicians’ creativity. However, the networks that they belong to and rely on are often plagued by larger issues of power imbalances. Social inequalities, economic pressures, and value systems and group identity all play a role in deciding who gets to be creative. The power to be creative is given to those who have the power to decide (gatekeepers) what creativity is worthy.

Consider how power exists on these two levels:

→ Psychological level (ex. The internalization of negative stereotypes)

→ Material level (ex. Limited access to physical resources)

The most relatable and pertinent example of this to university music students is likely audition requirements. Despite the significant evolution of these requirements over a short time period, they continue to uphold the fundamental tenets of what it means to be a musician at the university level. For major universities with international recognition, this also means legitimizing what it means to be musical/a musician on a much larger scale. In preparation for their students to be adequately equipped for a “legitimate” musical career, teachers and parents of younger students (pre-university) may feel pressured to maintain these traditional pathways (pedagogical choices, selection of extracurriculars, etc.) to ensure their success at studies in higher education, despite the potential for this particular pathway to suppress creativity. The indoctrination of students into this conservative view of musical creativity can lead to an internalized association of these norms with moral values. It is important to consider who benefits from the maintaining of these standards. What is at stake for them?

Similar institutional prejudices surrounding notions of creativity can be found throughout the university context.

So what is the solution? The short answer is that there is no single answer that will work for the countless ways in which we engage with creativity. However, Hill offers the following statement.

“To fully realize one’s creative potential, one would ideally have equal access to formal and informal learning opportunities; material resources; like role models and mentors; supportive peers, teachers, and communities; constructive assessments; legitimization and validation of one’s ideas, person, and cultural heritage; permission and authority to explore and realize one’s creative visions; supportive institutions and policies; and opportunities and economic support to engage in creative work” (p. 217)