Summary of “How ‘Creativity’ Became a Capitalist Buzzword”

An even more recent development is the notion that creativity is a trait of capitalist markets.
In the history of the word “Creative,” there are actually two decisive rifts: this initial one between the divine and the human creation suggested here, and then, once creativity became a human trait, a division between its aesthetic and productive forms.
Productive creativity is not art but labor, and thus rarely earns the title of creativity at all; this is the supposedly unimaginative labor of the manual worker or the farmer and the often feminized work of social reproduction.
The popularity of “Creativity” as an economic value in English can be traced to two major sources-Joseph Schumpeter, 20th-century economist and theorist of “Creative destruction,” and Richard Florida, the University of Toronto scholar whose book, The Rise of the Creative Class, became one of the most celebrated and influential urban policy texts of the early 2000s.
Its members include scientists and engineers, architects and artists, musicians and teachers-anyone, in short, “Whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology, and new creative content.” The creative class shares certain tastes and preferences, like nonconformity, an appreciation for merit, a desire for social diversity, and an appetite for “Serendipity,” the chance encounter facilitated by urban life.
Politicians in various postindustrial cities in the global north became eager customers of the consultancy spawned by the success of The Rise of The Creative Class.
The rise of the so-called creative class is not a heroes-and-villains plot of businessmen corrupting creativity.
These meanings of artistry have evolved over the years in complex ways, but the one that circulates in the economic use of creativity dates to the origins of the word “Creativity” in the late 19th century.

The orginal article.