We put too much focus on the product, not enough on the creative process that leads to that product. Or, at least, that was the conclusion of a panel on creativity in the age of AI at NEXT25.

Not long off stage, where he co-created a dance artwork with the audience, his husband, and an Accenture Song-created AI system, John Michael Schert was keen to explore what the creative process would look like in the age of AI.

“How do we put ourselves in a position of uncertainty to create?” He asked. “How do you create fear and doubt so that you can be courageous? So many corporate processes are designed to eliminate uncertainty, fear, and doubt.”

Certainty is the enemy of creativity

Thomas Knüwer, Creative Managing Director, Accenture Song, agreed. “By creating certainty, we are deleting options,“ he said. “Should the output always be the starting point? If we start with a planned output, we will get that output. Maybe our starting point should be uncertainty, with a range of possible inputs. That way, we don’t rob ourselves of possible outcomes.”

And that drew us back to the on-stage performance earlier in the day. Nobody involved knew 100% of what was going to happen. They provoked everyone involved to create something new, by not telling everyone all the parts of the equation. And there were mistakes — the motion tracker connected to the AI needed to be restarted multiple times.

“It became another input for another output that led to something new,” said Knüwer.

And the involvement of NEXT25 conference goers was another input. “The interaction with the audience was surprisingly moving,” said Nina Kirst, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Campaign Germany, who was chairing the discussion.

Friction as a creative catalyst

“I really like the idea of friction,” said Knüwer. “It’s often framed negatively. But friction is life.”

“I got a reaction I didn’t expect,” said Schert. “We had a human dancing with AI — aesthetics built on connection. I had goosebumps when he was lifted. There was a clear difference in what was created in the end, compared to where we started.”

And that raised the unspoken question: what do we lose when we scale creativity with AI? At what point in that process do we lose the human connection, the human inputs?

We are, Knüwer suggested, so often lost in what we are doing, that we lose sight of why we are doing it. There is a false urgency born of KPIs and the need for security that can stifle creativity.

Embracing vulnerability

An audience member chipped in to say that there was a power in vulnerability. “You made yourself vulnerable, and that’s what moved us,” they said, addressing Schert’s husband, who was the main dancer. “We try to make ourselves look invulnerable. But that kills the creative process, which needs to leave space for an opportunity to fail.”

“It’s about care, counsel, community, and creativity — human-only things,” said Schert, who admitted that he’d been inspired to change his session by the use of those ideas in David Mattin’s opening keynote.

And then they opened the curtain on the creative process that led to the earlier performance. They didn’t write a brief that dictated what they did — they wanted to leave room for the four-person team within Accenture Song to play. What were they doing? They built the motion-capture AI that generated sound and visuals to go with the performance. They only met in person when they arrived in Hamburg yesterday. The audience was the last element to be brought into the creative process, unaware of the other creative elements in play.

“You can only open up, be vulnerable, when there’s trust in the room,” said Knüwer. “Openness creates openness.”

Complexity and creativity

And it’s not just openness we need to embrace: it’s complexity, too.

“We have to be optimistic about complexity,” said Schert. “False simplicity is a false way out. False simplicity leads to so much confirmation bias. AI is built on confirmation bias.”

In fact, Knüwer suggested, AI can create mirror moments, when its use reflects our own biases back onto us. Exploring the ability of individuals to bring different inputs, without falling prey to collective biases, is vital for true creative work.

“We all felt something, but we didn’t all feel the same thing — but it was still a collective experience,” said Schert. “There’s something really powerful about that, as Hannah said on stage later on. We have to create the conditions that allow for life.”

And what are those conditions? A “productive zone of disequilibrium”, as he put it, which exists somewhere between a panic zone and a safe zone. But we want to be in the mezzo zone of vulnerable creativity.”

Open room for dissent

But Kirst brought us back to earth with an uncomfortable bump: how do we sell this to the organisation? How do you persuade them to welcome dissenting voices?

One member of the audience suggested that you could see the answer in the way people joined in either the performance earlier:

“The first person was reluctant, but as more people joined in, it made it easier for the rest,” they said. “People like to be involved, even if they don’t think they can at the beginning.”

When you welcome creative dissent, you open a space for more of it. And setting the boundaries of that space is important. In the performance, Schert’s role was to deliver order, protection, and guidance. And that left Brett free to explore trust, expression, and connection.

“There’s no such thing as a leader — leadership is an action,” said Schert. “Brett was showing us how to engage together. How many people in your workplace have informal authority — are we optimising for that?”

Leading through disruption

Schert brought a sober note to the proceedings: he and his husband have been driven from their homes by attacks from neo-nazis. And yet, he’s doing some of the most creative work of his career. Why? Because it’s reflective of the world we’re living in.

“We’re seeing the destruction of all our post-WWII systems now,” he said. “I feel a deep despair: everything I’ve been working for is being destroyed. But there’s a purpose to it — the agricultural, industrial and knowledge economies didn’t do a good job of being a system for humanity. But we might build an economy now that does.”

The disruption is here. And, as David Mattin said in his keynote, we need new systems to cope.

“In the creative industry, we make creativity scarce — artificially,” said Knüwer. “Only ‘creatives’ are allowed to be creative. If we get rid of creative arrogance, and allow non-creatives into the creative process, then we start something new…”

And right now, we need something new.