Increased interest in creativity has given rise to a proliferation of reports and studies such as Creative Britain (DCMS, 2008), NESTA (2008) and the Roberts report (2006). Often set within a discourse of skills, such documents outline the importance of developing creativity across diverse sections of society in order to achieve attributes such as risk taking, collaboration and creative thinking; skills defined as necessary in responding to increasing societal change. However, there has been criticism of aspects of this policy development as a “terminological clutter”, where creativity becomes interchangeable and synonymous with a plethora of other terms such as ‘innovation’ in a discourse of markets, economy and creative industries (Galloway and Dunlop, 2007). With the exception of earlier longitudinal studies such as Getzels and Czikszentmihaly’s (1976) study of problem finding in art; Madge and Weinberg’s (1973) observations of art students and Douglas and Fremantle’s more recent work on creative leadership (2007), little research offers insight into and from artists’ perspectives on what creativity is and in particular what kinds of spaces and approaches to learning and teaching might support risk-taking. How can we assess this approach to learning and collaboration ─ getting things wrong ─ with the students themselves?