If it is just drawing from things that already exist?
Can you identify Dora Maar from Picasso's portrait?
This is a painting (drawing) of a thing that already exists. Suppose that thing was a photo of Maar. Would Picasso's portrait be considered a copy then?
Can you think of something that doesn't exist (and never did) that isn't a derivative of something that exists in the human conscious (dragons, monsters, etc.) that people would want to look at?
Like, a random abstract painting of colors either coalescing together, spreading in all directions, or splatter art, etc. By this standard, the moment some artist first accidently spilled paint on his canvas makes any of the forms of art mentioned non-original. Doesn't it?
Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.
Deleted UserDecember 16, 2020 at 05:51#4804510 likes
Reply to Darkneos It's not a copy. Not even photorealist paintings are copies. They are two dimensional (pretty much) representations of one three dimensional things. You've selected the perspective on the thing and used all sorts of stylistic tricks to make it look like the thing, but only in a certain sense. You can't walk behind it, for example.
If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?
I think @Darkneos is just using this term loosely to separate a copy from an original work that, as I said, exists within itself. Call if representative if you want.
Noble DustDecember 16, 2020 at 06:11#4804550 likes
It's not a copy because it's an interpretation. A painter inevitably interprets a still life with their own style, regardless of how "realistic" their interpretation; even the degree to which their interpretation is realistic is a factor of their style. And style determines interpretation. Just off the top of my head, dunno if that made sense.
But I don’t know if I would call Monet’s “Haystacks” an interpretation so much as a study of light. On the other hand everything might be considered interpretive.
But what would the subject of a painting be that we called an original. Because whatever the style if we recognised the subject then we could say it’s interpretive, that the artist has treated the subject in a particular way.
The perspective I'm coming from is that yes, everything is interpretive. This checks out in music; in the classical/jazz realm, someone performs someone else's piece, and they do it in such and such a way, and it's their "interpretation", and rightly described as so. In the pop realm, it's simply called a "cover". Even when an artist wants to "remain faithful" to the original, they still add their own style to the work, even if they're actively attempting to minimize this effect. And that's totally fine.
As far as an "original" painting, I don't find that to be particularly important (from this perspective I'm taking) but I guess you could look to non-representational art. But even that could be said to be "interpretive" of aspects of reality; logical structure in Mondrian, for instance. He was very philosophically preoccupied.
Noble DustDecember 16, 2020 at 06:29#4804600 likes
In typical fashion I've already lost sight of the OP. I agree that creative and original are not the same. I get the sense I'm maybe misinterpreting something or missing something obvious in what you're saying.
However, judging by writing style, my guess is that the OP didn't consider the question of whether creative and original can be used interchangeably, and I would also hazard the guess that that wasn't an important distinction to them. It may be to us, but to the OP, the error might be simply corrected by editing the sentence to "Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being [...] creative?"
I’ve just being thinking; why do we use the word original? It seems to me to present the same problems as nothing, as in Why something rather than nothing?
Noble DustDecember 16, 2020 at 07:26#4804820 likes
Off the top of my head, in art, I think "original" tends to connote a work to which easy signifiers ("Monet-esque", "post-modern", etc) are not easily applied. But this doesn't mean that there are not precursors ("signifiers") to the work, it's just that they aren't obvious. The building blocks to Elvis are there, historically, for anyone to study, but at the time, they were not obvious, and Elvis "exploded" on the scene. He was "original". What does seem to exist is this cultural boiling point that gives the illusion of originality...
...But the question to me then is whether "original" is simply the word that describes what I just described, or whether, on the other hand, "original" is a lie, and that nothing is original; everything is a patchwork of what came before. It starts to feel semantic and unimportant to me, but I could be convinced otherwise.
You would think that something original could only happen once. From then on the artist or others is imitating the original. Abstract art was a way of breaking away from the representative, but once done everything that followed had to resemble abstract work otherwise it wasn’t abstract.
But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original.
I know we often talk about original but if it’s not something that flared up out of the ether or the mind of the artist fully formed then what is it?
An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think?
Noble DustDecember 16, 2020 at 07:46#4804860 likes
But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original.
But the final painting is the original to the audience.
An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think?
Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing.
So does that suggest that originality is a perception?
It could. The artist knows all of their scraps and sketches too well; their work isn't original to them. But it can be to the audience, since they don't know. You can also play God and imagine all of this, like we're doing. Does doing this concretely define "original" for us from this perspective? When does our hypothetical perspective become concrete?
Jack CumminsDecember 16, 2020 at 08:33#4804960 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I think that your question is a good one, and it was one I have thought about a lot when making visual art.
Often, I have taken photographs in the street as a basis for creating drawings or paintings because it would just be too awkward to sit outside and sketch. However, when I have been doing the art, even though photography is an art form in its own right, I have not wanted to replicate the photos purely, but develop the art. In that sense, I have not wished to copy, and ideally go beyond realism.
Realist art if it is too exact can be too much about trying to copy reality. Actually, I am inspired by the whole superrealist perspective which shows everything in a more abundant and full way. I like to create pictures which go beyond the real and have used the pointillist technique. The building up in dots seems to be away of capturing energy and, even, the nature of the infinite.
All in all, I would say that art should not strive to merely replicate, but to add a hidden extra element.
This is true of fiction, and probably other forms of art, because if one reads a great novel, it is not just a depiction of the surface of life and conversation.In novels, it can be seen as the building up of a worlds in itself, such as those created by Tolstoy, Dickens and Joyce. This is particularly interesting in science fiction and fantasy writing, because the writers conjure up alternative universes for the reader to enter.
So we’re not talking about an absolutely original act, like an Obsidian cutting tool. Assuming I’m correct there.
Originality in the visual arts seems to be about perception. People are stunned, or intrigued, by the juxtaposition of disparate elements, or unexpected results. But they won’t accept just any result and they have their limits. And for the art specialists and critics they expect to see the old made new, or references to traditions, cultures and social mores they had not previously thought about generating new perceptions.
But I would also like to know just what it was that made Elvis an original.
Deleted UserDecember 16, 2020 at 15:12#4805700 likes
Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create. But I think his point was that if one is merely copying, it isn't creative. The creation was all in the thing itself. But the thing itself is generally very different from representative art based on it or representing it. It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative. I am sure there are some works of art that are direct copies, but they are rare.
If we look at what you quoted....
Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?
Representative art based on studying the real thing is not copying. If its a study of a bowl of fruit, copying would be putting the bowl of fruit in some futuristic 3d printer and making a direct atomic level copy. The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented. What facets are focused, what ignored, the style. Even 'trying to be realistic' means using tricks of perspective and shading and also choosing amongst possible facets. And it will include a philosophical/aesthetic take on what the thing 'really' looks like. Pointillists and Impressionists could argue they are more realistic than people who use so called realistic ways of conveying what is represented.
Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.
Except it isn't though. Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it. There is nothing deep or philosophical or transformational about it once you see that nothing about art is original or new, it's all derivative. All you have are quotes that seem to be rooted in ignorance.
Yes art can be called creative, but not necessarily original.
But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new. Looking at everything I see today it's not really new or original if I think about it. It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new.
Jack CumminsDecember 16, 2020 at 18:01#4805980 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I got into the whole area of the debate of 'original' with many on my own post on the idea on original ideas a week ago. One theme which emerged was that being the first does not necessarily preclude inventiveness. In particular, @Possibility suggested that one useful measure is the following categories :originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity. I think these could be useful in considering where you others stand in considering the authenticity of creativity in art.
Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create.
By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model.
It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative.
To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field.
So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality. You might refer to Cubism as a style but does it really plain much? I’m not sure about this. Maybe style is a factor in creativity, maybe it isn’t.
The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented.
I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it.
Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it.
In the sense that you can tell that “The Weeping Woman” is Dora Maar then yes it’s not original. But in the portrait of the pain, suffering and anxiety behind the crying then you might consider that as being original or certainly creative. I don’t think there’s anything derivative in that painting. To say it’s derivative you need reference to something earlier that it resembled.
But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new.
As I said, I don’t think you can use creative and original/new as synonyms. You might disagree. I think there are many things that are creative but not original. It’s creative for instance to rewrite “Romeo and Juliet” as “West Side Story”.
It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new.
I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind.
I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind.
Yeah, I think artistic originality of any kind (visual or otherwise) has always been relative to perception. As self-styled philosophers, we take this grandiose birds eye view as if we're perceiving the entirety of artistic expression through history in all cultures, when in reality, the experience of the individual (if you notice I always come back to this) determines what "originality" means. Each individual possesses a limited perception of what a given art form is, and any time those foundations are shaken, or the vistas are opened, the word "original" is breathlessly uttered. And this is totally fine. It's not something to critique, it's just the reality that can be observed from our "birds eye view". There's always an artistic corner undiscovered to the individual; there's always the potential for the experience of "originality".
Deleted UserDecember 17, 2020 at 05:40#4807460 likes
By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model.
Yes, memory, though it need not be a specific face, it could be memory supported imagined people or things. A landscape that is not a rendering of any particular landscape, viewpoint over a landscape, the artist has seen. Quoting Brett
To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field.
I would say this supports the position I am arguming, in fact I nearly mentioned the cubists, because yes, part of what they are doing is showing that what the realist painters are doing is not copying, but is itself also a style and perhaps not one as real as theirs.Quoting Brett
So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality.
I'm not saying it is a door to understanding creativity, I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'.Quoting Brett
I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it.
Yes, all painting relies on tricks. It is all creative. I am arguing against the OPs idea that a realist painter or drawer is not creative, cause it's just copying. They are making a new thing. They are creative.
It is that, yes, and specifically, the viewer is stunned or excited because they're encountering something "seemingly" new. But this is where it gets either psychological, mystical, or just ill-defined (if you want to try to remain logical) to me: because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview).
I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'.
Yes I would agree with you there. The painting still exists as a thing in itself. It’s not the jug it’s a rendition of the jug in two dimensional form. And that artist could easily have titled the painting “This is not a jug.”
because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview).
Absolutely agree. Which of course opens up another can of worms.
Noble DustDecember 17, 2020 at 06:20#4807600 likes
For me, psychological explanations for this sort of experience are indeed compelling, but only to a degree. I can't shake the feeling that they are only descriptive of something else latent or interwoven into the human experience.
If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?
Perhaps the creative aspect of realistic art is in the method and not in the result. Too, there's the matter of not everybody being able to draw and paint - it takes talent or loads of practice or both - and this makes art, even if it's only copying an object onto a canvas, a rare ability and thus art becomes, if only in a limited sense, an object of admiration and perhaps even a cause for envy for those of us not thus gifted.
My two cents...
Noble DustDecember 17, 2020 at 07:39#4807760 likes
The bolder parts are my interest, apart from the general theory.
“ ... dreaming can be seen as the "default" position for the activated brain when it is not forced to focus on physical and social reality by (1) external stimuli and (2) the self system that reminds us of who we are, where we are, and what the tasks are that face us.”
From a cognitive perspective, dreams express people's "conceptions," which are also the basis for action in the waking world. Dreams are a dramatic and perceptible embodiment of schemas, scripts, and general knowledge. They are like plays that the mind stages for itself when it doesn't have anything specific to do.
However, there is also a significant minority of dreams, perhaps as many as 30% for some adults, which have no easily discernable connections to the person's waking life.
They are more like sagas or adventure stories; Foulkes (1999, p. 136) calls such dreams "narrative-driven" to contrast them with dreams that seem to be based on personal concerns.
Fourth, in-depth investigations of dream journals from a few excellent recallers might help to explain the aspects of dream content that are not continuous with waking conceptions and concerns. These anomalous aspects of dream content may be the products of metaphoric thinking, although very little progress has been made in testing this cognitively based hypothesis (Domhoff, 2003b). Or it may be that unusual juxtapositions, blended settings, metamorphoses, and sudden scene changes reveal the limits of the mind under the conditions that produce dreaming (Domhoff, 2007; Foulkes, 1999).
The Case for a Cognitive Theory of Dreams. https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Library/domhoff_2010a.html
Noble DustDecember 17, 2020 at 07:57#4807810 likes
Headshot! Sniper! I'm now sprawled on the ground with a gaping hole in my skull, bits and pieces of brain matter everywhere, a halo of blood circles my noggin. Confirmed kill, soldier! You're one step closer to the medal.
Jack CumminsDecember 17, 2020 at 08:00#4807830 likes
Reply to Brett
Art can be away of dreaming and you only have to think of the surrealist painters.
I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions which could put into words in many instances. This level of expression has healing potential, as well as enabling people to feel empowered by their own creative abilities.
Noble DustDecember 17, 2020 at 08:04#4807850 likes
I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions
I don’t understand why it’s called “therapy”. It’s not as if those who engage with art on a committed level are seeking some sort of therapy. Though art is obviously something that drives them. Nor do I understand why it has healing potential unless they’re in a state that actually doing anything would be good for them. From your experience how does it help?
Edit: and do you think they’re actually creating or just doing something. I know that drawing can be used in psychology to explain or make available difficult internal problems. Is that what they’re doing?
Jack CumminsDecember 17, 2020 at 10:14#4808060 likes
I am talking about art psychotherapy. I was undertaking the training, although I did not complete the training. But art therapy is a profession in it's own right, even though it is not given much funding. Having taken a year out , I did not going back and one factor was the increasing lack of jobs in this therapy, and some questions about its effectiveness. There is a need for evidence-based research to back up its value.
However, I have run creative art groups in mental health settings and think that creative expression and discussion of the art can provide a benefitial intervention. It can just be about drawing or can be about communicating specific stories or internal experience. This can be particularly true of people who have been placed in mental health settings, sometimes against their will, and being forced to take medication that they do not wish to to take. Of course, there is a tension between the expression of emotion and art ability.
Some people may feel inferior to others if they compare it with others' art, and certainly I have strived to emphasise that such comparisons should not to be made. However, this is a grey area because I know that when I am making art I do care about the quality of the art I make. So, sometimes it felt hypocritical in trying to overcome the idea of preventing the distinction about quality and this did influence me not to pursue a career in art therapy, as I was questioning my authenticity in the role.
course, art therapy or art psychotherapy does not have to be in group settings, and this may make group comparison to be less of a matter of importance, although the relationship between the the client and the therapist is in itself of great significance. Here, it is drawing upon the whole psychoanalytic idea of the transference, but this large topic is, perhaps, beyond the scope of this thread discussion.
But, in an ultimate sense, we could argue is there good and bad art? From an early age at school, it
always seemed important to me that my art was chosen to go on the wall, but for many others it was probably more important to be chosen as one of the first for a football team. As one progresses in art at school it is about getting good grades and,if one proceeds in adult life in an art career, art exhibitions are important markers, for sharing work with other people.
So, this brings us back to the whole point of art therapy, which is about catharsis and expression of emotion through images. I think that it can also be about enjoyment, especially as it is about tactile and sensory exploration.
Apart from being an intervention in mental health care, art therapy has been used with children in schools and in other institutions. I have no personal experience of running any art facilitation with children, but I know of others who offer testimonials of how art and art therapy can offer major benefits for children, especially those who have experienced great difficulties.
Jack CumminsDecember 17, 2020 at 18:33#4808510 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I can't believe that you are trying to dismiss the whole profession and experience of art therapy as not being 'creative.'
I am wondering what is your actual definition or understanding of creativity? Having read your posts about art it seems that you would dismiss art all together. If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity where would you suggest we look to as the more 'creative' alternative?
Reply to Jack Cummins Nowhere, there would simply be no such thing as creativity as it's just replication. I mean you can't make something from nothing and everything made is usually a variation of something else. Hence that phrase "there is nothing new under the sun", so you can't call any of that creative. Reminds me of what someone said on here about it just pushing paint around.
This is sort of why you don't look too closely at things, you end up ruining them. The artist technically isn't creative, as they are just replicating or copying. Kind of sad when you realize it. They try to attach all these extra layers to their "work" to give it some semblance of depth but that's just blowing smoke. If you have to explain what it means then that's sort of a failure as an artist.
Jack CumminsDecember 17, 2020 at 19:34#4808600 likes
Reply to Darkneos
But I think that you are missing the whole spirit of the artistic quest, which I don't see as being limited to the visual arts.
I think that each artist does see the world differently. Apart from visual art, do you not appreciate literature and music?I don't think it has to be classical literature alone. My own literature tastes include plenty of dark fantasy and science fiction. I also love plenty of on the edge music ranging from goth, metal to psychedelic, and the weirder the better.
i see the arts, appreciatiing them and creating art is a whole way of transforming and transmuting the mundane and painful aspects of life. Without the arts I think that life for many would be unbearable and each person's art is unique, which I think is a better word than original.
I also think that philosophy and writing these posts is a form of art. Here, you could say the posts we write may not be entirely original insofar as they may touch upon ideas touched upon previously. But, they include variations, subtle differences rendered through different ways of viewing issues and the stylistics of the writer, and in that sense, you are an artist too.
I just think art isn't your thing man. To each their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, the message of the flower is the flower, etc., etc.
HangingBishopDecember 18, 2020 at 05:33#4809380 likes
Nope. In 18th century draftsman wouldn't call himself artist. He could call himself craftsman. I have in mind those draftsmen who arrived in Egpit with Napoleon. They wanted only copy what they seen for scientific reasons (like Darwin).
I think that reason is very important. It's different when human want to express himself. Painting landscapes also.
Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing.
Meaning that for the sake of the OP we need to focus on originality in art. Which makes sense. But what interests me about your posts is that you can stand back and look at art reasonably objectively because as you said:
It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then?
So I think you should chip away at these posts because, from my point of view, art is so important to me and yet not to others and we make every effort to bolster that point of view. Because it’s possible it’s importance is zero.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:10#4809460 likes
Darkneos, your question seems to suggest that art only has value if it's "original" or "creative". While I'm very much interested in creating original and creative art, I nevertheless think the question is misguided. If you or anyone is questioning whether or not they should create art (and dragging feet about these concepts), the answer is easy: yes, create. Don't over think it. The longer I create art (music in my case) and the older I get, the less I understand what I'm doing, and that feels very correct. Maybe I'm just in a rare mental space of positivity recently, but I'm content with that conception for now.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:12#4809480 likes
I.e. the closer I study music itself, the more confused I get. I like being confused!
Interesting, because the more I think about art these days the more I find myself tying it back to a primitive nature and therefore it having greater significance than how it’s presented or sold to us.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:36#4809530 likes
So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art?
I’ve thought that for a long time but time has helped me join the dots. In fact I’m more interested in thinking about it than doing it these days. My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:39#4809560 likes
The fact that art is largely irrelevant now and the idea of creativity being any form of expression. We are probably all creative creatures in a primitive sense. But most have lost touch with that and don’t even know what it really means. It’s like the vestigial fingers of the dolphin.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:45#4809590 likes
My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were.
I like what I see of your thought process, so this is not an accusation, but this sounds a bit like the classic line of "they don't make it like they used to". Which in my view is a simple psychological projection of your (not you specifically) perception of the world of your formative years unto the actual world you find yourself in when you come of age.
In relation to some things that’s possible. But I don’t think so with art. I was interested in all art movements and periods but there were some that had more meaning to me than others and some artists in particular who were trying to connect the dots as well. It’s also tied in with thoughts and reading on anthropology, religion, early comprehension of the world, myths and the unique qualities we have of comprehending and explaining the world and ourselves. Like what I found of interest in the article on dreaming about Metaphoric thinking.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 06:57#4809630 likes
I don't think art is largely irrelevant. To expand further on what I said above, I worry that this arm chair philosophical perspective allows us to create fake perceptions of art across history. When we read art history and connect it to the art around us, we form a concept of what happened and is happening, but we're at the mercy of historical data and, more importantly, technology. I.e. our technologically influenced perception of history is warping our perceptions: 200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, in fact more so, because the masses didn't have the intimate access they have now; they didn't have the internet; they couldn't wax philosophical to strangers about art. Now that we can, we form these hackneyed perceptions that are a symptom of our weird birds eye view. I worry that the farther out we zoom from reality, the more warped our perception becomes.
Reply to Noble Dust Sadly I'm starting to be more of the view of Brett. It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere. It's hard to look at art the same way again, kind of makes me a little sad. Philosophy ruins life yet again.
200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now,
I understand your point there. But I’m going way back. I have a sculpture from New Guinea carved out of wood of a bird as large as the man whose shoulders it stands on. All the skill and craft of the person who made it is in the sculpture. But he wasn’t making it to hang on the wall to make his hut a little more homely. This meant something. This was a time when you might have hurried past a mask hanging from a tree that makes you shiver with fear as you pass by.
The same as when someone believed a crucifix protected them from the evil out there that actually existed to them.
In old black and white movies I’ve watched Aborigines dancing. The men seem to be duplicating the movement of particular animals, like an Emu. The movements they make create the emu. Now are they pretending to be the Emu or do they actually become an Emu?
Those are just two aspects of art: sculpture and dance. Which we still have. But what does it means now?
Jack CumminsDecember 18, 2020 at 10:27#4810200 likes
Reply to Darkneos
You just don't seem to understand art or creativity. Why do you place 'originality' as supreme over all else?
However, the main reason I am posting you again is because you say that philosophy is ruining your life. I wonder what do you mean by this?
If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity
I don’t think the work is the source of creativity. The work is the result of creativity. And as in the discussion with Possibility, in a spontaneous dance the work itself disappears as you watch it.
Jack CumminsDecember 18, 2020 at 14:30#4810670 likes
Reply to Brett
When I spoke of art as being the source, and not simply the result of creativity, I was speaking of how others' artistic creations inspire us in our own art making.
I am not sure what point you are saying about the discussion I had with Possibility. I was simply making a reference to a comment she made to me on another thread. I am not aware of any dancing, and am a useless dancer, but love dance music to play when I meditate.
Reply to Jack Cummins Thing is I do. Art is not creative. It's not creative to duplicate something you have seen before.
Jack CumminsDecember 18, 2020 at 19:43#4811140 likes
Reply to Darkneos
I just do not understand what you are trying to argue. Are you a depressed artist? If you are, I do empathise because my greatest love is creating art, even above philosophy.
Noble DustDecember 18, 2020 at 20:19#4811260 likes
There have been efforts in art that we could regard as producing something original with the Surrealists and Dadaists.
“ Automatic drawing (distinguished from drawn expression of mediums) was developed by the surrealists, as a means of expressing the subconscious. In automatic drawing, the hand is allowed to move "randomly" across the paper. In applying chance and accident to mark-making, drawing is to a large extent freed of rational control. Hence the drawing produced may be attributed in part to the subconscious and may reveal something of the psyche, which would otherwise be repressed.” Wikipedia
I think their work was more about tapping the unconscious mind rather than looking for originality, though you could say they are the same thing. But the point was that the work which would otherwise be repressed was produced without rational control.
The same might be said about William Burrough’s “Cut-ups”. The problem was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.
So can we really cope with truly original work? Do we just reject it as crazy or threatening?
Deleted UserDecember 19, 2020 at 08:14#4813360 likes
Reply to Darkneos Though it doesn't really imitate it, even if the artist is trying to and many don't. It is inspired by something that already exists. I am not sure where the idea came from that to create entails making something with no connection to what has gone before. To create every facet of it. Would this entail shapes never before found, colors?
Which is why I can say no artist is truly creative.
Deleted UserDecember 20, 2020 at 00:25#4814520 likes
Reply to DarkneosWell, I guess if you want to define the word 'creative' in such a way that it doesn't mean what most people mean, you can then say it doesn't happen (in art). Especially if you move the goalposts by adding in 'truly'. But for those use the word in the more common way, we will still find creativity in art and artists and in other places as well.
It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere.
You may not like what @Darkneos is saying but I think it needs to be considered seriously. Because it raises the whole question of originality and whether it exists, or even that it might exist but we may not, as I said, like it or be able to comprehend it.
Up until the period of Post Impressionists most work, certainly all in the public sphere, was based on what we see. How that was interpreted varied from artist to artist, but all of them worked around representational objects.
At some point around Post Impressionism the artist began to play around with ideas of personal perception. Artists began working around what they were thinking, not only what they were seeing. Abstract art moved completely away from representation. Conceptual art became all about the idea.
The more art moved in this direction the more people looked away from art. Jackson Pollock supposedly went in a kind of trance when painting. It seemed to be about releasing something he felt or experienced onto the canvas with as little as possible coming between the two. He was largely scorned by the public.
So are the Jackson Pollock paintings original? What earlier references do you think might exist that you could attach them?
Noble DustDecember 20, 2020 at 06:10#4815040 likes
I'm just gonna vomit up some opinions for ya'll and you can take or leave them. Word? @Brett@Coben@Darkneos
My provisional definition of creative is: non-logical ways of arriving at correct assumptions.
So, is visual art not creative? No. It is creative. Good visual art arrives at correctness by bypassing logic.
I thought I had more in me, but this feels correct.
Sadly I'm starting to be more of the view of Brett. It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere. It's hard to look at art the same way again, kind of makes me a little sad. Philosophy ruins life yet again.
Duplicate in that art itself imitates something that already exists.
It’s interesting that you use the word ‘duplicate’ to mean ‘imitate’. While in many ways this is believed to be the aim of producing art, I don’t believe it is the aim of creativity in art. You can be artistic, and you can be creative, but not necessarily a creative artist.
There is a difference between ‘duplicate’ and ‘imitate’ that should be the first step towards creativity in art. I agree that it’s not creative to duplicate something - but a creative artist recognises that what they see and what they create cannot be identical, ever. The saying ‘art imitates life’ refers not to ‘life’ as what we see, but what we experience, and this is necessarily subjective. Most aspiring artists don’t recognise the difference, and so they strive for comprehensible accuracy at the expense of originality. What results is a faithful imitation of what everyone expects to see.
Jack Cummins described his own artistic efforts, in which he ‘adds’ something to what would otherwise be an attempt to duplicate a photograph. What he adds he believes to be an aspect of his subjective experience - except it’s in relation to the photograph, not to the street scene, and it’s also subsumed under an existing art style/technique (pointillist). It’s hard to say this isn’t a creative process - it certainly seems to be from the artist’s perspective, because the process is original in their mind. It will often also be described as ‘creative’ by those who have no capacity for art themselves. But I think you’re right in saying that what the artist produces from this process is not creative in itself. There is nothing of his own uniqueness identifiable in the product.
My own realisation of this is part of why I stopped pursuing visual arts. I could reproduce on paper or canvas how I would visually sense a photograph, but not how I perceived a street scene. There was a feeling of dissatisfaction with my efforts ‘en plain air’, which I solved by taking photographs and working in the studio instead. What it took me a few years to realise was that there was little originality present in my work at all. I made some creative choices occasionally, with colour or style or technique, and I suppose I could have learned to be more creative with my artwork, but I didn’t. I still considered myself to be creative and artistic, but I was no longer under the illusion that I was ‘being creative’ with my art, except in my own mind. Visual art and also music continue to be therapeutic and expressive pursuits for me, personally. My creativity, however, required a different medium - one in which I was prepared to master, play with and then challenge the conventions.
I think there are two parts to creativity: how one looks at, perceives or understands reality, and how one expresses, interprets or renders it. As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate.
I think the problem with maximising originality in art is that the artist then struggles to produce something that is comprehensible (as @Brett suggests), something that is correct (as @Noble Dust suggests), or something that is popular (ie. subjectively relatable).
While creativity is not just about originality, it must be noticeable to recognise creativity. But if you find nothing original in art at all, then I would argue that this is because your perspective is limited. If you’re expecting originality in a particular aspect of art, then creativity which takes an original direction can be difficult to recognise - incomprehensible, unrelatable - from your perspective. As has been evident across art history, that doesn’t necessarily make it inaccurate as a perspective or understanding of reality.
As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate.
I think the focus on originality has its merits, because, if you’re prepared to, it does make you consider the order in which creativity and the creative act takes place, that in its genuine form creativity has to spring from something.
As I said before “The problem (with originality) was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.”
What the unconscious mind first produces is probably monstrous in the sense that there is no control over it. Like in dreams, no rational control over images or meaning and impossible to transmit in that form. The Surrealists tried but it just became another technique to imitate the unconscious mind. And like I said people tried it with automatic drawing and cut-ups. But people don’t address the world that way. They like things to gave some comprehensible order, maybe Noble Dust’s “ correct assumptions”.
But that original form was there, it has to be. Creativity is the ability, that varies in degrees of success, to wrestle or manipulate that original form into some shape others can comprehend without completely separating it from its origins. That might be regarded as an interpretation, only because there’s no other way of expressing what happens. But it’s an interpretation of something original.
Edit: so not all art is creative.
Jack CumminsDecember 20, 2020 at 10:07#4815400 likes
Reply to Possibility
I was glad to hear someone else on this thread talking about art they make rather than just as a philosophical way.
One aspect of the matter, which I think that has not been touched upon in this this thread in much depth, is the whole difference between art that is based on the objects in the real world and that which is symbolic. I think Brett maybe touches upon it a little in the previous post, but not upon actual experience of art making.But I would go further and say that I have experimented with the process of drawing from the inner world, or what Jung describes as active imagination.
The whole process of making this kind of art seems so different from that of making art based on the material world, although I am talking about the way in which drawing symbolic realms does connect with more realistic drawing, in the sense that if I am drawing a person from my imagination I am using my past memories of copying people, which I have done since throughout my life, as I spent most of my childhood drawing pop singers from magazines. If anything, I would say that when I am drawing imaginary people I sometimes get concerned with getting all the proportions and perspective correctly too. Of course, the art arising from the symbolic does not have to be figurative at all, although I have not done art that is abstract entirely.
I am not sure that the art based on the imagination is more creative entirely, but the whole process does seem very different and does seem to arise from a different dimension to that which is based on depicting the everyday world. I think that Jung did are interesting, and I also feel inspired by the work of Cecil Collins and Alex Grey.
However, I have to admit that I do not do much art currently. I make all kinds of excuses about why I am not doing so.
Deleted UserDecember 20, 2020 at 10:32#4815440 likes
Reply to Noble Dust I think that's generally a part of creativity. And via non-logical processes it something new is present. Is it completely new? Like not made ultimately of quarks or sharing no characteristics with what has gone before, no. Thjat's the creativity of a deity. We don't have to invent a new geometrical shape,new kind of matter and em radiation to create. We build and combine and new things emerge, some with emergent properties. That's the kind of creation we non-deities have access to. New things rather than things that have no connection to anything that ever existed before.
PossibilityDecember 21, 2020 at 00:57#4816550 likes
I think the focus on originality has its merits, because, if you’re prepared to, it does make you consider the order in which creativity and the creative act takes place, that in its genuine form creativity has to spring from something.
And we return to the idea of ‘order’ in the relation between creativity and action. Metaphorically speaking, I would say creativity ‘springs’ from imaginable possibility through subjectively perceived potentiality (in relation to conceptual structure), and the creative act ‘springs’ from this perceived potentiality through the individual will (in relation to interoception of affect). But I don’t think either imaginable possibility nor perceived potentiality exist in a necessary temporal sequence in relation to the creative act, and while perception of potentiality logically precedes the creative act, imaginable possibility need not logically precede this perception of potentiality. It does seem, however, to purposively precede it in an ontological sense. This pertains to the dimensionality that I continue to apply to ontological descriptions of relational structure.
I hope I’m making some sense here. I should point out that perceived potentiality is not necessarily apperceived (in a conscious sense) prior to the creative act, neither is imaginable possibility necessarily imagined (in a self-conscious sense).
As I said before “The problem (with originality) was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.”
What the unconscious mind first produces is probably monstrous in the sense that there is no control over it. Like in dreams, no rational control over images or meaning and impossible to transmit in that form. The Surrealists tried but it just became another technique to imitate the unconscious mind. And like I said people tried it with automatic drawing and cut-ups. But people don’t address the world that way. They like things to gave some comprehensible order, maybe Noble Dust’s “ correct assumptions”.
The whole point of automatic writing or drawing is to deconstruct this illusion we have that the conscious mind (the faculties of self-consciousness) must somehow ‘gain control’ over the unconscious mind (the faculties of consciousness). Creativity, as I have said, is about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - what looks like mere imitation is a path towards understanding that doesn’t aim to control, but to collaborate. It isn’t about duplicating how people commonly address the world, but in exploring the options and alternatives for better accuracy, comprehensibility and relatability. Surrealism just becomes part of this process.
Creativity is not like Science in that it doesn’t strive for consolidation - it is the process that matters. What is made - whether it’s an image, a sculpture, a dance, a system, a theory - is just a way of sharing the progress with others, collaborating beyond our own temporal existence.
But that original form was there, it has to be. Creativity is the ability, that varies in degrees of success, to wrestle or manipulate that original form into some shape others can comprehend without completely separating it from its origins. That might be regarded as an interpretation, only because there’s no other way of expressing what happens. But it’s an interpretation of something original.
Edit: so not all art is creative.
The artist is the original ‘form’. It is the progress in awareness, connection and collaboration that the artist has integrated which they attempt to express. Not all art is creative, no - and much of it fails to express originality. From personal experience, this has quite a bit to do with fear and self-doubt. As artists, we open up ourselves - this original form - to criticism: the extent to which ‘I’ as the artist lack originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity is on display in a genuinely creative work. We hold back on expressing all of our originality - choosing instead to consolidate much of it under proven or popular theories, logic or language systems, archetypes, culturally significant styles, etc. It is the extent to which we challenge and transcend these systems in our work (success or fail) that we make use of our creativity, but it’s only our successes that build our identity as an artist. To fail is to expose ourselves to experiences of pain, humility, lack and loss. The more structured and defined this identity, the less creative we’re prepared to be.
Reply to Possibility I disagree. The artist believes that what they create and what they see aren't identical but in a sense they are. They believe themselves to be creating when they are just duplicating various things they have known before. They aren't really making anything, just pushing paint around.
I think there are two parts to creativity: how one looks at, perceives or understands reality, and how one expresses, interprets or renders it. As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate.
We don't. There is no original way to see reality, it's all variations on a theme. There is ZERO creativity present in either the perception or the expression of it either. It's just duplication.
Actually I think there is something that is original, but it can’t be made material, and in fact the effort to make it material destroys the original.
“ We can interpret Zen’s nondualistic experience epistemologically as that experience which arises from a nondiscriminatory state of meditational awareness. ... It may also be characterized as nondiscriminatory discrimination, in order to capture a sense of how things appear in meditational awareness. In such awareness no ego is posited either as an active or a passive agent in constituting the things of experience, as this awareness renders useless the active-passive scheme as an explanatory model. This awareness lets a thing announce itself as a thing.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/
This awareness creates a situation where you see something without discrimination, without conscious input, without us making it something. So you are seeing something in its original form,
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 08:20#4817190 likes
Reply to Brett
I just read your link on Zen. It is interesting, but I think it would be mistaken to think that is more 'original,' or superior to all other states of consciousness. After all, if the states of mind des bribed are experienced by a succession of individuals you could end up saying that these will not be the 'original', creative ones, but replication.
Also, in your understanding of creativity in relation to art, I think that you fail to understand the creative process itself. Many of the great artists may have achieved profound altered states of awareness in the rendering of making art. The actual art is not identical to these states of consciousness but, nevertheless, through the communication in their art, may be able to convey aspects of those states to others.
It is interesting, but I think it would be mistaken to think that is more 'original,' or superior to all other states of consciousness. After all, if the states of mind des bribed are experienced by a succession of individuals you could end up saying that these will not be the 'original', creative ones, but replication.
I’ve experienced this state of mind once. It was unexpected but I knew enough to understand what was happening. I would also say it is superior to all other states of consciousness. Some here might know what I’m talking about.
If this state of mind is experienced by a succession of individuals I don’t think it could be called replication. Except to say that a moment of truth will always be the same in that it is true.
Also, in your understanding of creativity in relation to art, I think that you fail to understand the creative process itself. Many of the great artists may have achieved profound altered states of awareness in the rendering of making art. The actual art is not identical to these states of consciousness but, nevertheless, through the communication in their art, may be able to convey aspects of those states to others.
I feel quite confident in talking about the creative process. I’m not really talking about altered states of awareness in the making of art. No, the actual art is not identical to those states (the ones I refer to, which is not altered states). Nor do I think the artist’s intention is to convey those states. Once the work is finished the artist has very little interest in it. It’s the process that counts. The artist is the supreme egotist.
I have to point out that we are always referring to visual arts. Dancing and poetry, how do we address that on these terms?
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 09:28#4817310 likes
Reply to Brett
I am not in any way wishing to undervalue your experience, but I think that there is a danger in making claims about whose or which experiences are superior. We are all aware of our subjective ones primarily and who can say who has reached the superior state ultimately?
Certain individuals might have been ranked as geniuses or enlightened ones by many, but perhaps even such views are linked to the cultural contexts in which they were esteemed. I am sure that many brilliant minds have been viewed negatively and undervalued. Some highly creative individuals have been labelled as mentally ill as well.
And I think that it is wrong to judge the artist as the supreme egotist. Some might be, but others are extremely humble, so it is not right to make generalisations. I would say that the issues of creativity and the visual arts are applicable to the other arts too.
And I think that it is wrong to judge the artist as the supreme egotist.
I say that because he/she doesn’t really care about you.
Edit: I should make clear that my experience, the state of mind I was referring to is not an altered state.
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 10:09#4817340 likes
Reply to Brett
I have already said that I am not in any way wishing to undervalue your experience. I would say my choice of the term altered consciousness may have been not the best because it conjures up possible scenarios of intoxication. I chose it, because I was about to write elevated states of consciousness and this could be too simplistic.
I don't want to label your experience at all, but I would say ask the idea of enlightenment might be a more helpful one? I think that the whole question of creativity or enlightenment is central here, and probably this is away from the actual matter of the debate about whether art can be called creative. But another useful idea which could encompass what are categorical as heightened states of creativity or enlightenment is the notion of peak experiences.
I have already said that I am not in any way wishing to undervalue your experience.
No, it’s fine. I’m not suggesting that.
The experience is not connected to art, only to ideas of originality. I don’t regard enlightenment as any part of this. It might be worth considering, to keep things in perspective, the cold determination of many artists. And I’m talking about artists as opposed to a group of people who think they’re creative, which has nothing to do with it. These are people who put their art before anything else. They destroy in the process of creating.
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 10:28#4817360 likes
Reply to Brett
I still think that there while there may be some cold determine artists, there are many who are not. I have one good friend who could be called an artist in the full sense, as she has regular exhibitions and makes her living through her art. She is the complete opposite to cold . She is determined, but that is because she has experienced so many obstacles in her path.
I have one good friend who could be called an artist in the full sense, as she has regular exhibitions and makes her living through her art.
With due respect I don’t think that means anything.
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 11:29#4817420 likes
Reply to Brett
I am simply talking about an example of an artist living in daily life, in the way that you are speaking of your own experience. It is about speaking of the particular rather than the general.
What I mean is that having exhibitions and making a living does not necessarily mean one is an artist. Just how many artists can there be in the world? How many masterpieces can there be?
Jack CumminsDecember 21, 2020 at 11:43#4817450 likes
Reply to Brett
I am sure that there could be various definitions of 'an artist' but the one I used is a generic one, in the sense of speaking of a person being a professional. This is in the same way that the distinction is used in writing circles, to distinguish from that of an amateur. Of course, it is not an absolute one because in some cases the amateur may be be as skilled or more skilled, and most professionals will not paint or write masterpieces, but I would be the last to deny anyone's basic creativity. The denial of such creativity is to rob a person of their essential humanity.
I disagree. The artist believes that what they create and what they see aren't identical but in a sense they are. They believe themselves to be creating when they are just duplicating various things they have known before. They aren't really making anything, just pushing paint around.
First of all, I don’t think it helps to make such sweeping generalisations about what ‘the artist’ believes. To acknowledge that they aren’t identical is NOT to say that they’re original - only that an imitation is not a duplicate. To say that two things are identical ‘in a sense’ is to say that they are identical only by a particular interpretation - ie. by external observation, or by focusing on only one aspect. In a general sense, they are not. The particular sense in which they appear identical acts is a method of grounding the creative idea in something familiar.
An artist is someone who practises or performs a creative act - but it is a common misconception that anything (new, original or otherwise) needs to be consolidated or made for others to observe. To create is not to ‘make’ but to ‘bring into existence’. Someone can be creative whether or not they consider themselves to be an artist. From your perspective, they’re just pushing paint around, but it’s the internal process of restructuring potentiality that matters.
I do agree, however, that many artists do believe themselves to be ‘creating’ when they’re just making, Also many people who consider themselves ‘artists’ are creative, but not creative artists - they can’t or won’t manifest their creativity in what they make. So, in all honesty, although I am creative, the visual art that I make is rarely creative in itself. In consolidating an imitation (not a duplication) of my subjective experience for an audience, I feel less at risk when I exclude what I’m afraid might be judged as incomprehensible, unrelatable or inaccurate: my originality. As the audience, you are open to original experiences only insofar as they are comprehensible, relatable and accurate - which is not very original. So an artist creates in their mind a much broader perspective of reality than what they make, and in making negotiates a fine line between surprising their audience and challenging them more than they’re ready to expect in terms of relating to reality.
There is no original way to see reality, it's all variations on a theme. There is ZERO creativity present in either the perception or the expression of it either. It's just duplication.
I’m not saying there is ‘an original way to see reality’ - I’m saying that originality exists in how we each perceive reality, but rarely in how we express, interpret or render it, because we self-consciously ignore, isolate or exclude it. A ‘variation on a theme’ is not a duplication - it has, by definition, an element of original perspective to it, in relation to an indeterminate theme. For duplication to occur, the entire process must be identical and unalterable, but this can never be the case - even a mechanical duplication process is susceptible to variation on the ‘theme’ (it’s what ‘quality control’ is for). This brings us back to another assumption about creativity: intentionality. We assume this originality to be intentional, that an artist must mean for what they create to be ‘original’, or to adhere to a pre-existing ‘theme’. But originality, or variation on the theme, is an essential aspect of any interaction, whether or not anyone is conscious of it in relation to an expected ‘theme’. It is this variability that most of us try to ignore, isolate or exclude from our relation to (ie. control of) reality.
FWIW, I don’t see creativity as the domain of the artist, but an underlying process of existence.
This awareness creates a situation where you see something without discrimination, without conscious input, without us making it something. So you are seeing something in its original form,
Non-dual originality, :chin: , an original claim if I’ve ever heard one. :clap:
If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?
Creativity is just one aspect of art, but I think exists in any work of art, more or less. The results of dawing an object as realistically as possible, for example, would unquestionably be original to some extent. Even taking a photograph would be original to some extent, unless all the conditions of the photograph were exactly duplicated, which would be very difficult in most situations.
Have you ever observed a group of artists work from the same subject? The results are wildly different even without them trying to be original or creative.
PossibilityDecember 23, 2020 at 05:08#4822300 likes
One aspect of the matter, which I think that has not been touched upon in this this thread in much depth, is the whole difference between art that is based on the objects in the real world and that which is symbolic. I think Brett maybe touches upon it a little in the previous post, but not upon actual experience of art making.But I would go further and say that I have experimented with the process of drawing from the inner world, or what Jung describes as active imagination.
The whole process of making this kind of art seems so different from that of making art based on the material world, although I am talking about the way in which drawing symbolic realms does connect with more realistic drawing, in the sense that if I am drawing a person from my imagination I am using my past memories of copying people, which I have done since throughout my life, as I spent most of my childhood drawing pop singers from magazines. If anything, I would say that when I am drawing imaginary people I sometimes get concerned with getting all the proportions and perspective correctly too. Of course, the art arising from the symbolic does not have to be figurative at all, although I have not done art that is abstract entirely.
I am not sure that the art based on the imagination is more creative entirely, but the whole process does seem very different and does seem to arise from a different dimension to that which is based on depicting the everyday world.
The distinction between objects and symbols/concepts in art is an interesting one, and I have participated in workshops on symbolic expression in art. In my view, it’s about the process of perceiving and rendering the dimensional complexity of information.
When you draw from a photograph, there is no variability in the perspective - you already have a two-dimensional rendering of a three-dimensional perception. But if the artist cannot duplicate the process that produced the photograph, then what they paint is not a duplication, but an imitation. There is little room for originality here, but it will never be entirely void of originality.
When you draw from life, you acknowledge a variability in perception, from which you choose (unconsciously or consciously) with each brushstroke application. IF you stay in one spot and ask the model not to move, you can produce a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception.
When you draw from imagination, you are selecting from conceptual structures or predictions (5D) and structuring them into a pattern of interrelated movements (4D), which are continually adjusted according to their evaluated success in rendering the prediction, which is also entirely variable at every point. When you talk about getting all the proportions and perspective ‘correct’, this is in reference to a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception - you are limiting your perspective to follow convention in interpretation/expression.
To the extent that each artwork deviates from convention, how much of that variability is a ‘failure’ of technique, and how much is the unique three, four, five or even six-dimensional perspective of the artist influencing variability in brushstroke application?
Jack CumminsDecember 23, 2020 at 10:29#4822760 likes
Reply to Possibility
I think that the whole area of art based on symbolism is an interesting area, although I am not one to say that art based on 3D reality is not creative. One aspect which I think has not been mentioned is that paintings, drawings and photographs translate 3D reality into 2. This could be seen as reductive, as in copying, but the whole translation into lesser dimensions does even involve synthetic perception, and styles. When one reaches out into four or more dimensions this synthesis, to portray perceptions is more complex, because it contains more that is hidden from the naked eye
I have never done sculpture, but one friend who does, spoke of how she carves, and feels a living connection with the wood, bringing out patterns and energy within it. When she used to speak in this way, and I saw her working, I could feel the creativity pervading her, and this level she was experiencing seemed to transcend the whole issue of being 'original' or not, as discussed in this thread because it was about primal expression, at a deep level.
But, on the level of my own symbolic expression, I think that the reason why I focus on the same concerns in symbolic art is because I was taught to think that way. At A level, the whole emphasis was upon exactness and perfection. I did not do a foundation course or a degree in art, but I did an illustration course and one on art therapy. In illustration, the tutor stressed the importance of producing camera ready work, and the stage between a concept and the finished art seemed to almost get left out.
On the art therapy course, the majority of the other students had done an art degree, in which they had done more experimental work, whereas I was accepted on the basis of my portfolio, but I did feel that meant I lacked a certain amount of some of the experience which some of the others had. The course itself allowed for a certain amount of experimentation but because the emotional and group experience were considered as extremely important, sometimes the chance to explore the symbolic seemed to get pushed into the background.
My initial encounter with symbolic art was actually before I did the art therapy course, by a friend who had done a lot of art based on his own experience. He encouraged me to look within as he had done. My friend had done loads of pictures based on his own life and tried to get his work exhibited. He found that he encountered a lot of prejudice within art circles because it was obvious that he had not been to art school. His use of materials and elements of his drawing abilities did not stand up to certain expectations and it would probably be true to say that he was probably more in the tradition of 'outsider art', which is of great value and significance.
Personally, I would love to do more experimental work, in which I explore the symbolic dimensions, with less feelings of restrictions about the need to draw or paint 'correctly'. Ideally, I would like to find a workshop after the pandemic because it can be more motivational than working alone in a room. In the last few years I feel that I have travelled much further from the third dimensions, into fourth, fifth and unknown ones and would like to captivate the multidimensional reality in art.
Above all else, I do think a central aspect of the creative process in the visual and other arts is about accessing other levels of consciousness. The art produced is not just to be seen as an end but as a testimony to the journey which has taken place. I would say that the possible areas of failure of technique and brushstrokes may result from the interaction with energy arising in the other dimensions.
PossibilityDecember 26, 2020 at 23:04#4829860 likes
I think that the whole area of art based on symbolism is an interesting area, although I am not one to say that art based on 3D reality is not creative. One aspect which I think has not been mentioned is that paintings, drawings and photographs translate 3D reality into 2. This could be seen as reductive, as in copying, but the whole translation into lesser dimensions does even involve synthetic perception, and styles. When one reaches out into four or more dimensions this synthesis, to portray perceptions is more complex, because it contains more that is hidden from the naked eye
Personally, I use the term ‘render’ rather than ‘translate’ to describe an interpretation of 3D reality into 2D, because I think there is more to this process than translating from one ‘language’ system to another.
If we talk about the process in terms of information, awareness of 3D reality requires an integrated 4D system (life), but consolidating 3D information (ie. distinguishing and defining objects) requires an integrated 5D system (consciousness) consisting of interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception). The paintings, drawings or photographs are a result of 4D formulations in a 5D system consolidating 3D information into a transmittable 2D system structure. It’s similar to the process of DNA/RNA, or sampling in computer information systems: by cascading the information according to coded patterns recognisable by both sending and receiving systems, complex relational structures of information can be transferred through systems only capable of consolidating much simpler relational structures.
This seems from certain perspectives to be simply copying or duplicating, but it’s imitation - not the same thing. The important element in the efficiency of integrated information systems is ‘difference’. The 2D structure contains information that enables an integrated 5D system to consolidate particular 3D information by relating the structure to their 4D formulations. It’s not a copy of the 3D information, but qualitative instructions to adjust other interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception) so that the same information (difference) is achieved. The 2D structure is effectively a calculated difference between the artist’s and the audience’s perspectives.
I have never done sculpture, but one friend who does, spoke of how she carves, and feels a living connection with the wood, bringing out patterns and energy within it. When she used to speak in this way, and I saw her working, I could feel the creativity pervading her, and this level she was experiencing seemed to transcend the whole issue of being 'original' or not, as discussed in this thread because it was about primal expression, at a deep level.
What your sculptor friend is speaking about is her capacity to collaborate with the potential of the material structure. For most artists (in my experience), the question of originality is a matter of selection criteria for the work they present to others, and has little to do with the creative process itself - in which there is often a distinct lack of self-conscious identification (ego), and more of a sense of ‘connection’ or ‘one-ness’ with the material, the moment, etc. The creative experience is a collaborative one - it relies on unselfish interrelation between the potential complexity in the structure of the wood and the potential complexity in the artist as a conscious organism, without consolidation. From this collaborative experience, options for 4D formulations present themselves. For the merely conscious agent, only the most efficient formulation for the organism is determined and initiated. But the self-conscious artist can distinguish, organise and select from efficient formulations according to purpose - which is where the question of originality (as well as comprehensibility, relatability and popularity) arises.
PossibilityDecember 27, 2020 at 00:15#4830010 likes
But, on the level of my own symbolic expression, I think that the reason why I focus on the same concerns in symbolic art is because I was taught to think that way. At A level, the whole emphasis was upon exactness and perfection. I did not do a foundation course or a degree in art, but I did an illustration course and one on art therapy. In illustration, the tutor stressed the importance of producing camera ready work, and the stage between a concept and the finished art seemed to almost get left out.
The art-related courses you’ve done seem to be geared towards employment, so their focus is on the consolidated result rather than the process. I did a unit at university on Authorship and Publication, which had a similar focus to your illustration course, whereas I also picked up a Drawing 101 unit, which was more focused on the creative process - challenging the way we look at ordinary objects, as well as our reliance on visual sensory information in generating art. A similar Writing 101 unit had activities designed to shift the way we looked at the world, and to challenge the way we applied personal experience to writing.
On the art therapy course, the majority of the other students had done an art degree, in which they had done more experimental work, whereas I was accepted on the basis of my portfolio, but I did feel that meant I lacked a certain amount of some of the experience which some of the others had. The course itself allowed for a certain amount of experimentation but because the emotional and group experience were considered as extremely important, sometimes the chance to explore the symbolic seemed to get pushed into the background.
In your art therapy course, it seems the focus was on developing skills of introspection - the art produced in these sessions are not to share with others, but with yourself: it’s a dialogue between interrelating 4D formulations (prediction and interoception) within your own 5D system. The symbolism only needs to make sense to you, so the selection process regarding originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity is irrelevant to art therapy.
My initial encounter with symbolic art was actually before I did the art therapy course, by a friend who had done a lot of art based on his own experience. He encouraged me to look within as he had done. My friend had done loads of pictures based on his own life and tried to get his work exhibited. He found that he encountered a lot of prejudice within art circles because it was obvious that he had not been to art school. His use of materials and elements of his drawing abilities did not stand up to certain expectations and it would probably be true to say that he was probably more in the tradition of 'outsider art', which is of great value and significance.
I remember doing a workshop a few years ago on symbolic expression in art, where the instructor focused on the comprehensibility and relatability of qualitative aspects. The first thing he did was take away our access to colour, and challenged us to convey certain emotions or other qualitative experiences using relative position, direction, intensity or shape. The idea was to deconstruct the prepackaged conceptual symbolism we tend to rely on in everyday expression, and recognise the capacity of the simplest qualitative aspects (one and two-dimensional relations) to universally ‘move’ the viewer.
I think getting work exhibited is about the self-conscious selection process in relation to a cultural perception of value and significance: what does this art say about who we are, are we prepared to face this truth, and if so, how important is it that we face it today? It’s a narrow space that is continually shifted by artists who find the ‘sweet spot’ between what we already know and what we aren’t ready to know about ourselves.
PossibilityDecember 27, 2020 at 00:36#4830040 likes
Above all else, I do think a central aspect of the creative process in the visual and other arts is about accessing other levels of consciousness. The art produced is not just to be seen as an end but as a testimony to the journey which has taken place. I would say that the possible areas of failure of technique and brushstrokes may result from the interaction with energy arising in the other dimensions.
I think art that can lead the viewer into the creative process, to perceive the variability in perspective and not be alarmed or threatened by it, is where we need to aim. Joseph Campbell talks about the hero’s journey - the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves?
yiwakah227December 27, 2020 at 08:03#4830660 likes
From a standpoint in how "original" is created is following (the following can be applied in all areas of life and learning) you create one painting it's a copy from someone you learned then your second painting is copy from somebody else you find interesting then your third painting is your combination of those two previous paintings and once it's gets over certain threshold like combination of ten twenty arts now it became your style and congratulations you've created "original" art due to complexity of how many different "original" styles you copied to basically create a new style that is yours.
That can be applied everywhere and why certain things are intimidating because of how many different combinations of learning viewpoints you need to learn to result in good finding.
When you read a book it's combination of authors mind that previously read hundred of books and picked on specific type of writing including combination of his environment how he/she grew up, with whom, what he liked and it becomes a new book.
the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves?
In terms of discovering ourselves do you mean for the artist or for the observer?
PossibilityDecember 27, 2020 at 11:10#4830830 likes
Reply to Brett Don’t get me wrong: I think an artist can still ‘discover themselves’ through making 2D visual art, and an observer, too, can discover themselves in interacting with artworks. But aside from shifting personal or cultural identity, I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D. I don’t think it’s an issue of creative process, but of this self-conscious selection criteria that determines ‘creativity’ in what is made: originality, relatability, comprehensibility and popularity.
I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D.
I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative.
Jack CumminsDecember 27, 2020 at 16:50#4831260 likes
Reply to Possibility
I have read the posts that you have written and I believe in you have addressed a number of very important problems.
One of the main ones is the tension between making art with other people, in contrast to the individual is in the process of discovery of symbolism in a journey of self exploration. I think that the process of sharing art made with others is important, but art made in groups often allows for this exploration to get lost.
The most interesting aspect I have found is that there can be some underlying shared themes emerging in the art, . and that is not because individuals have been looking at each other, because they have often been situated far apart. The shared elements do suggest that the individuals are tapping into a collective dimension.
The problem with art therapy can be that the art is expected to fall into a secondary role. In art psychotherapy, the whole thinking was mainly based on Freudian and Kleinian objects relations theory. This involved the idea of the transference being central. I am not dismissing this as being important but on the course I did this meant that other approaches were almost excluded. I am extremely interested in James Campbell' s portrayal of mythic exploration, and I can remember talking about this in a workshop and I got the feeling that the tutor and other students regarded the whole matter as unimportant.
In exploring the symbolic dimensions, one of the ideas which I also consider helpful is shamanic vision quests, including accessing the upper world and the underworld. One aspect of this is the imagery in hypnagogic and hypopompic imagery, and I do try to incorporate my own experience of this into symbolic art, but sometimes it is difficult to recall the details exactly. One way which I have also found helpful for finding doorways into multidimensional reality for art making is the listening to music, ranging from metal, dance, and prog rock.
You ask about the limitations of 2D art for the exploration of the hero's journey. I have to admit that I have found that to be the case, to some extent. Since doing the art therapy course, I have experimented in fiction writing, and do wish to do so in the future. I find that it is possible to explore all the senses in writing and that words, while being limited, do have potential for creating unknown dimensions, and I am particularly interested in fantasy and the deeper side of cyberpunk and steampunk.
However, I am not convinced that there are not many areas left for 2D visual art, and not just as therapy. Personally, I do plan to do more visual art and would like to use art and writing in a complementary way. Although I have not done much art for a few years, for the few months before I found this site, I had playing around drawing inner worlds on my phone and do wish to use these ideas for future art work or for writing.
I am not sure if I am wrong, or the people who saying that 2D art has come to an end, because as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art.
as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art.
I feel we, as a species, may have moved on from what the visual art did for us. We might have crossed over into images having a meaning that is very removed from what it was. We’re a long way from the cave drawings of Lascaux.
Jack Cummins and others have talked about exploring the self through art and the value of symbolism and even the journey of the hero. But I don’t think that’s who we are anymore. The images and symbols that once contained power have been bleached of significance. With this goes the purpose of the visual arts.
First of all there’s nothing left to paint. Our lives are flooded with images of the world that serve every purpose except to reach out to us in ways they once did. Those images were culturally embedded, they had a history and resonance, they contained meaning that did not have to be articulated or explained. Virtually everything out there in the world has been converted to an image that is removed from its meaning and given new, relative meanings. Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire?
Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins?
PossibilityDecember 28, 2020 at 03:11#4832230 likes
I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative.
It’s easy to conclude that, sure. But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge.
Take, for example, the Banksy that was shredded immediately after selling at auction in 2018. The 2D artwork itself could be perceived as a duplicate but isn’t - it’s one of many impressions from an original stencil, an iteration of a particular creative potential retained by this artistic identity. What is sold in a Banksy print is rarely considered ‘original’, the buyer owns an impression of this creative potential, often unsigned. What made this particular piece original was evidence of the creative process: the signed dedication on the back, the artist’s frame...and its ultimate meaninglessness for the artist as a 2D work in relation to what is a five-dimensional creative potential. It is this last aspect that is difficult to express in a 2D work without seemingly defeating the purpose of making the work itself. Why make something only to destroy it? But creative potential is just that: the freedom to make and un-make at will. When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. The creative process is considered complete. But Banksy challenges this assumption, not just in this work but in a more recent auction of ‘Devolved Parliament’, a painting originally titled ‘Question Time’, that he had somehow reworked since it was first sold.
Creativity isn’t inherent as such in the artwork or in the artist - it is the relational structure of reality. Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us - it can be informative only in its relational structures, but in that sense I still think 2D art as part of the broader creative process is a long way from done.
But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity.
I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity.
I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge.
We should not take a representational account of religious language but try to see its appropriate use in a religious life in form of metaphor, paradox, expectation, commands etc. In other words, religious statements about God cannot be assigned a truth value. They function in a different manner.
You may or may not agree with this in relation to art.
If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?
We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.
So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning.
PossibilityDecember 28, 2020 at 04:33#4832290 likes
I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity.
It’s more that we attribute intentionality to the artwork when we judge it as ‘creative’ or ‘not creative’, which reflects more on our ability to perceive its potential in relation to our own, than anything the artwork can achieve in itself. It comes back to the relatability or comprehensibility of what is original or unexpected in the work.
The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it.
I agree with this, which is what I was getting at with the Banksy example. Ownership is an attempt to consolidate a relational structure by excluding others, and Banksy challenges this exclusion as a false assumption - a limited perception of reality.
If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?
We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.
So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning.
That this meaning of personal art expression is ‘given’ is an important point. Meaning is not confined to significance or value, so the question of whether or not art has meaning has nothing to do with its specific meaning, but whether or not it matters at all.
Personally, I don’t see art as an exploration ‘of the soul’, but of possible perspectives. An alternative possible perspective is not necessarily important or valuable in itself, but it matters because its existence enables us to critically examine our own logic - our conceptual reality that we would otherwise take for granted. An artist’s capacity to render a surprising perspective in visual form provides a broad opportunity for us to understand where they’re coming from, instead of dismissing it as false, wrong, illogical, or the work of pure imagination. It is at this level of meaning that we’re reluctant to suspend our consolidated reasoning, to consider the variability of logic and the adjustments and corrections that can still be made to relational structures between different value and significance systems, towards a more accurate understanding of reality.
It isn’t that there’s no meaning, but rather that meaning is indeterminate. In Kant’s aesthetics it’s referred to as ‘purposiveness’, without any particular purpose.
Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses.
Given, also, that in the beginning this creative ability wasn’t used to brighten up a hut but had a purpose, or more accurately was directed towards a purpose. That purpose would have been quite primitive. The thing created was not the thing referred to, but it referred to something that could not be spoken of in the Wittgenstein sense: the cave drawings of Lascaux, the Borneo masks, the body decorations, the small fetishes. The art refers back to something that existed outside of space and time. This, I believe, is the origin of “art”.
This is how it operated throughout history, usually referring to something greater than ourselves, greater than the “artist”. As long as we believed in this “something” the work spoke for it.
In time we moved away from these beliefs. The mystery the work held about the unknown was transferred to the artist, the artist became the mystery. Of course there is no mystery except in the mystery of “creativity”. The connection was still maintained between the work and the unknown source, the origins, the unconscious mind. So the work became about the artist, who became some sort of Shaman, revealing unknown depths of the mind through the use of subject, symbols and metaphors.
This is just a performance, maintaining the uniqueness of the “artist’s” mind, perpetuating the idea that they have access to something they can share with us, that they are on some sort of journey to enlighten us in the process of enlightening themselves about reality. But the “artist” knows as much about reality as the man in the street, sometimes less.
So we are back to something that supposedly cannot be spoken of; the hidden genius of the artist. Which is just circular to me.
So yes, there might be such a thing as creativity, but it’s meaningless.
Why was it thatRimbaud stopped writing poetry and left France and everything he knew to trade guns in Africa and never write again?
However, artists can and do create beautiful and interesting things, but that’s all they are. And as we know beauty is subjective. Rimbaud’s poetry led him nowhere. People love and admire it, but what did it mean to him, unless what he found in his poetry was dissatisfaction, that art is meaningless.
What art reveals is not what it’s about but our perception of the function of art.
This from the OP “Essence without reality” seems relevant to me in this light.
So our philosophical quest for the essence of a thing turns out to be a search for what is important to us about it. Aren't these (essentially) the same thing? And this is still an analytical endeavor, but the investigation of our concepts (good, knowledge, intention) are not for the goal of finding one point to ensure their (or all) application, but to draw out the ways they express what we desire and need.
PossibilityDecember 28, 2020 at 07:48#4832380 likes
Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins?
People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. I agree that we are a long way from the paintings at Lascaux, but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational.
Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire?
The same thing: we’re looking for opportunity to participate in the creative process. These are rather innocuous methods: we give nothing of ourselves to the process, but are looking to be swept along in the momentum that’s already established, like a b-grade horror flick or a biographical history. We’re understanding the terrain in relation to a map. We’re not staring into the abyss or being asked to contribute, which suits us fine. We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there.
But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’.
People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality.
but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational.
I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?
We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there.
That’s a big generalisation for what people are looking to art for. Maybe art is a long way from its roots, but even then it wasn’t to discover ourselves. To discover what?
But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’.
Once again, for me, too much of a generalisation about the creative artist and why they do it. The creative artist’s answer to whether our experience of uncertainty matters is always yes.
If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same?
Jack CumminsDecember 28, 2020 at 17:21#4832870 likes
Reply to Brett Reply to PossibilityReply to Darkneos
I think that part of the diminishing role of art is because people are beginning to want fast solutions, especially entertainment through television and on the internet. I am inclined to think that the loss of meaning in art began when popular art became part of consumer material society, with pictures being sold to be placed on the wall, almost becoming parts of furniture.
I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. On the basis of liking my drawings, many people asked me to draw their pets or their houses, and I did not take up the challenge, even when though they offered me money, because I had no meaningful way of making art based on the objects of their sentiments because it seemed at odds with the whole quest of my art. I tried to explain that to them but I don't think that they understood, because they saw drawing as a practical skill. The most I achieved was to be able to come up with pictures for my parents' living room walls, because this was not too limiting.
I think that the whole idea of art as products is part of the problem. This applies to other arts, including music and books, which is a whole area of commercial value. I don't think that most creative people do wish to work for money but they have to survive. Perhaps the best solution is a day job to support oneself, rather than relying on artistic work for a living, but this is complicated, especially as we are moving into a time of possible mass unemployment.
I would say that it is likely that art will be a minority interest. When I have been running art groups, I have found that a lot of adults think that making art is just for children. However, they do not think that about art, However, they do not seem to think this about playing sports, and I think that it is unfortunate that art is not seen as a means of enjoyment, expression and questing for meaning.
One other point which I would make is that some would say that philosophy is a minority interest and irrelevant. Should we be following the direction of the minority or be trying to rise above it?:I do believe that some of the original posters on this site are not saying simply that art is not creative but that it is worthless and, therefore, should not be pursued at all.This seems so nihilistic, and is in the spirit of discouraging creativity
What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, but surely to reduce all exploration to one answer is far too simplistic, and it should not be instead of the arts, and possibly the two states could be complementary. Art and spirituality are not enemies.
If the arts lack any creativity whatsoever, I am left wondering how one chooses to understand the term creativity, and I am not sure that it can just be reduced to the idea of 'originality' as some posters wish to cling, to rigidly as the supreme benchmark. It seems to me to be lopsided thinking and to try to say that art has no creativity, or potential for creativity.
once it's gets over certain threshold like combination of ten twenty arts now it became your style and congratulations you've created "original" art due to complexity of how many different "original" styles you copied to basically create a new style that is yours.
That’s true and I think it could be applied to every aspect of our life. Isn’t it essentially how we learn and develop as people? We’re drawn to particular things of interest that expand our world. Most artists work within a tradition no matter how much they they bend the rules. If one bends the rules too much it becomes incomprehensible to others. An artist can continue to paint outside of a tradition, if that’s possible, and bend the rules with each work and find that only he can relate to it and he can continue without any contact outside of the studio. If we actually lived our lives like that what would we become?
So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.
Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother?
I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning.
My point about Sunday painters was not that it depletes meaning but whether a line can be drawn between them and those who say “yes to uncertainty”. Are they both creative or is there a difference?
Not only do I not think they’re enemies but I think once they were one and the same. Though I’m wry of the word spirituality which seems to gave all sorts of vapid meanings these days.
Edit: if archaeologists 500 years from now dug up our art of the last 100 years what would it say to them?
PossibilityDecember 29, 2020 at 03:37#4833990 likes
Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses.
Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. This creative work varies in originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity, and while all of it matters, it is our self-conscious reasoning that selects what we consolidate and share with others. This part of the process is where it becomes ‘art’ - where self-consciousness kicks in.
What you refer to as a manipulative skill is self-conscious recognition of variability in consolidation - whether as a starting point on the page, a line, a shape, an object, an event, a potential or an idea - and the courage to integrate perceived potentiality that increases awareness, connection and collaboration. Some work is creative almost by accident - it is in recognising that this variability matters, and then striving to understand how it differs from what is predicted, that contributes to the creative process. This applies to scientific discovery as much as art. It even applies to philosophical discussions.
I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?
I think you’re giving art far too much credit.
Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, whether it’s in art, engineering or philosophy. I think that art has certainly challenged conventions in how we look at the world and how we render it visually. I think art is now capable of sharing more information than was intended in the paintings at Lascaux, but we are also able to discern much more information from the paintings at Lascaux and their context than the original artists would have imagined. So yes, art can really do that - but that’s not to say that ONLY art can do that, not at all.
If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same?
Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes.
So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.
Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother?
I agree that institutionalised art is becoming somewhat of an echo chamber, trying to consolidate itself as ‘art’ at the expense of contributing to the creative process. It is on the fringes that we find the genuine creative contributors - those artists and collaborators who aren’t afraid for their work to be de-valued or dismissed as ‘not art’.
As an example in literature, ‘Fifty Shades Grey’ is dismissed as ‘Mom porn’, written in a style that horrified those who lamented its top spot on the bestsellers list for a record number of weeks. But the style is deliberate, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that challenges the dichotomous, black and white conceptual structures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that uphold institutions such as love, morality and family. What distinguishes a ‘good’ relationship or person from a ‘bad’ one? What distinguishes ‘good’ literature from ‘bad’? Do these black and white concepts consolidate, or is everything really just shades of grey? And how does the balance of power, its use and abuse, relate? But the significance of this work has gone largely unnoticed, so far.
Tangled up in efforts to demonstrate the value of ‘visual arts’ I think are efforts to protect its identity as such from the collaborative efforts of creative thinkers that transcend its boundaries, which undermine its creative progress. The real significance and value of visual art is not in its categorical identification as ‘art’, but in its capacity to contribute to the creative process. Perhaps it’s the concept of ‘art’ that is now largely superficial, not the process behind it.
PossibilityDecember 29, 2020 at 04:13#4834020 likes
What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts?
I think we need to recognise the creative process as more valuable than the consolidated art or artists it produces. It has the effect, as we can see in music, of destroying the elitism of the arts industry, and making it almost impossible for someone to make a living from their ‘art’. But it enables anyone to recognise their capacity to contribute to the creative process, which can only increase awareness, connection and collaboration overall.
What if, instead of dividing our creative resources across arts, science, engineering, philosophy, politics and religion, we dissolve the institutions and instead negotiate structures according to originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity in creative processes? Just a wild thought...
Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality.
This is a bit unclear to me.
Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work?
Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence.
Developing understanding is foundational to creativity,
This is how I interpret your post:
Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity
Understanding > creativity
But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:
Understanding > creativity > existence
What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.
Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator?
Jack CumminsDecember 29, 2020 at 11:07#4834350 likes
Reply to Possibility
The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.
The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering.
However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.
In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art.
Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely.
Jack CumminsDecember 29, 2020 at 16:37#4834530 likes
Reply to Brett
I find the most interesting point that you make in your post addressed to me, because you have written many generally, is a recognition that art and spirituality were once one. I do wonder about this as an avenue for future exploration, but I am using both the term spiritual and art in a loose sense rather than in a strict one. However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence.
Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes.
There are things you say that I would agree with. To say yes to uncertainty can only make life better. To say yes to painting on Sundays is obviously better than saying no. And to absorb yourself in something can only be positive. The results don’t determine the value of painting on a Sunday.
This is not necessarily being creative, but it is something of value. Maybe it’s therapeutic, which is fine.
I decided I needed to do a bit of reading on this subject. This from the beginning of an article I’m reading;
“ The purpose of studying the audience is to tackle the problem of aesthetic communication where the sender (the artist) transmits a coded message (the artwork) to receivers (the audience).”
Picasso, Cubism and the Eye of the Beholder: Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychology. TOM ETTINGER, American Imago.
However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence.
The problem I have with this, and the idea of spirituality, is that it seems to me we’re no longer those people. There may be some around, there are certainly a lot trying to be, but I think we’ve lost that. Though we haven’t forgotten it.
Jack CumminsDecember 30, 2020 at 09:55#4836500 likes
Reply to Brett
Yes, I am not sure that I like the word spiritual. It used to make sense to me, but not any longer. Perhaps our consciousness is changing.
PossibilityJanuary 01, 2021 at 08:46#4840940 likes
Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work?
Sorry, most of what I’m writing in this discussion is not as carefully thought through as I’d like. What I mean is that what we refer to as ‘art’ is not always considered ‘creative’ (sometimes it’s a study or imitation of established style, technique, creative identity, etc) and what we refer to as ‘creative’ is not always original (sometimes it’s consolidating the artist’s own understanding or initial relation to the creative process so far).
Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity
Understanding > creativity
But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:
Understanding > creativity > existence
What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.
Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator?
I can see now how this is confusing. I’m using ‘creativity’ to refer to:
- the underlying creative impetus at the core of existence,
- the creative process as it occurs, and
- humanity’s participation (self-conscious or otherwise) in this creative aspect of existence.
Let me see if I can clarify this better...
First of all, I’m not saying that ‘creativity creates’, because I don’t think consolidating creativity or attributing it to ‘something’ is an accurate understanding. I recognise that reducing what I’m trying to describe here to a logical statement enables you to ask logic-busting questions such as ‘who or what is the creator?’ (which is the same as asking ‘what is creativity?’), but the statement itself misses the point, which is that creativity is not the property of an event or a subject. It refers to the process, impetus or faculty at the core of existence: relational structure either beyond reason, perception or observation, depending on the dimensional level of awareness.
What commonly seems to escape notice in these discussions is that we’re navigate at least three different dimensional aspects: observation refers to 4D processes or actions in consolidating objects in relation to time, perception refers to 5D value or potential in consolidating events in relation to significance, and reason refers to the 6D faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in consolidating concepts in relation to meaning. Language cannot distinguish which aspect or level of awareness we are operating in, and the dictionary system is an insufficient relational structure to orient perspective (like we do with global time zones) in relation to either significance or meaning, because for the most part we assume that significance and meaning are the same, or at least that they should be aligned. Logic is an attempt to consolidate the equivalent of ‘global time’ by reducing meaning to significance, but any variability is discarded in this reductionist methodology for the sake of certainty.
So, when we say ‘create’, do we mean consolidate (as object, event or concept) or relate (beyond observation, perception or reason)? And when we say ‘creative’, are we referring to a capacity to relate or to consolidate, and at what level? And when we use the term ‘creativity’, are we referring to a faculty that enables relation and/or consolidation, and again at what level?
This may seem to complicate things, but if we’re talking about an aspect of existence that both appears definable and yet transcends all attempts at definition, chances are we’re referring to a six-dimensional aspect: a variability in meaningfulness regardless of value. So we’re not going to reach an agreed statement that defines creativity, because if we’re honest, we’d recognise that what we’re talking about (in its purest sense) transcends the relational structure of language.
This can make creativity seem really wish-washy, which is where the possibility of six-dimensional structure helps to keep everything in some kind of perspective. If we think of five-dimensional structure in terms of atemporal concepts such as knowledge, logic, mathematics, language, history, etc, then to the extent that all of these systems interrelate, they would do so within a six-dimensional structure, whether or not it matters, or we believe one exists. Such a structure would also include unconsolidated aspects of perceivable value, potential or significance that we’re presently unable (or unwilling) to understand, imagine or judge to the extent that we can conceptualise it. Creativity is not just the ‘free play’ of our faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in relation to these unconsolidated relational structures (as Kant suggests), but the extension of that free play into ALL aspects of existence, regardless of consolidation at any level - including the ‘self’. Consolidation ‘makes’ the world - but creativity is to increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with this ’free play’ in all relational structures.
Understanding builds a foundation for self-conscious creativity - it’s a reference structure that frees the faculties of imagination and judgement to play with what we don’t yet understand. Creativity is constrained by a limited relation to the moment. In a gross simplification, not understanding how green is both a pigment and a combination of blue and yellow pigments, for instance, constrains the creativity of a painter, whose imagination and judgement is occupied with the question of how to render green when he runs out of pigment.
So we’re not going to reach an agreed statement that defines creativity, because if we’re honest, we’d recognise that what we’re talking about (in its purest sense) transcends the relational structure of language.
This is true. To me you tend to talk in a very structural way, like a brick builder. Which I need to adjust to understand what you’re getting at. What it does do is help crystallise some of my own thoughts and theories, which has led me to reading a bit about psychoanalytical reflections or interpretations of particular art. Also some comments about Wittgenstein and language have contributed.
It’s fine to me that this subject is difficult to tie down, it should be. So I’ll read your post more carefully tomorrow; red wine does not help.
PossibilityJanuary 01, 2021 at 09:48#4841000 likes
The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.
The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering.
Is a measurement value the only path to existence? In quantum physics, potential existence is sufficient, and the qualitative variability between strict divisions of quantitative measurement are undeniable. Potentiality is ‘measurable’ as a wavefunction, an irreducible relational structure between attention and effort - but this may be another discussion.
However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.
In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art.
I will clarify here that I’m not expecting each person to become accomplished in ALL these realms - only that we grasp the value of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration across the various branches. In my job, I have certain qualifications, skills and experience that are valuable, but I’m also acutely aware of deficiencies I have in certain areas that are crucial to the position. I’ve been fortunate to work with a team member who, while she has no qualifications, is particularly skilled in those areas I find difficult or unrewarding. While my pay grade is higher, most of our colleagues would never know - between the two of us, we are more effective and efficient than two staff with identical, broad abilities.
I would imagine a similar thing occurs with nursing: you might be expected to do all these things, but your high proficiency in certain areas will fit better in some environments or teams than others.
Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely.
Can you tell me what structures are not changeable to some extent? I’m not talking about division or categories, but principles. There is nothing static or concrete about creativity, except its very possibility.
PossibilityJanuary 01, 2021 at 10:27#4841030 likes
This is true. To me you tend to talk in a very structural way, like a brick builder. Which I need to adjust to understand what you’re getting at. What it does do is help crystallise some of my own thoughts and theories, which has led me to reading a bit about psychoanalytical reflections or interpretations of particular art. Also some comments about Wittgenstein and language have contributed.
This is not how I normally talk - but it’s how I find it most effective to explain my approach. I do lean towards ontological structural realism. While I can intuitively follow this all in my own mind, I’ve found it very easy to lose people in explanation, because of the variability in how we interpret certain terms in relation to objects, events, experiences or ideas. The structural language I use is a way to orient our perspectives in relation to each other, instead of talking across purposes or metaphorically, as tends to happen at this level. It can be frustrating initially, but it often seems to be productive for both parties in terms of clarifying ideas and theories. My aim is not to have you agree with me, but to give an idea of some of the relational structure between us. I like to think of it as ‘constructing the elephant’. I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable approach.
I do need to read up more on Wittgenstein - he keeps coming up in discussions with regard to language and meaning...
Jack CumminsJanuary 01, 2021 at 13:47#4841180 likes
Reply to Possibility
I am pleased that you are not suggesting that individuals should be proficient in all areas, but have connections with other areas and awareness.
When you speak of structures, which I am interpreting to cover the wide range of institutions and aspects of society, I feel that one critical aspect of this power structures. Based on my experience in nursing and medicine these seem to be hierarchical. The problem as I see it is that the awareness and connections made by people at the lower levels of the hierarchy are not necessarily incorporated at the level of decision making.
when I was working I felt that I had some slight influence. Of course, I had interaction with others on a day to day basis and tried to have awareness and connection to all fields. For example, I had example I worked alongside students coming from Universities, so this meant that I gained knowledge from them and hopefully they gained some from me. But, even then, the dialogue seemed limited because so much was about following policies and the agenda set by people at the top of the power structure.
To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence.
I think that I am just having difficulty conceiving of structures and perhaps the existing structures are collapsing. Perhaps the important structures are online, and this forum can be seen as one. So, your categorical could be relevant for considering the threads and posts too. So, we should probably look for awareness and connections in the many discussions we have rather than being locked into our views, and I would say that listening to other perspectives may be a way of enhancing creativity and exchange.
PossibilityJanuary 01, 2021 at 16:42#4841470 likes
Reply to Jack Cummins Structures of power are perceptions of potential and value relations - you might see yourself at the ‘lower level of the hierarchy’ in one sense, or as powerful in another sense, without anything changing except the perceived value relations. To some of my colleagues, I’m a glorified tea lady, but I know that my boss and many other colleagues recognise the skills and experience I have as indispensable to the organisation. My expertise and counsel are sought from the highest levels, so I’m not afraid to speak truth to power - which baffles those who only understand institutional power structures such as job title. But I don’t need their validation.
Creativity isn’t always about ‘making’ things - it’s also about perceiving all structure as variable, where others see only what is consolidated.
Jack CumminsJanuary 01, 2021 at 18:11#4841550 likes
Reply to Possibility
Its interesting that in your job that you were often seen as the 'tea lady' , when you probably did so much more. I think I was remembered in nursing jobs by patients for art more than anything else, to the point where a patient queried why I was giving medication to him, and he said, ' But, you're the art teacher,' My worst moments were when, in rehab hostels, I was expected to cook the supper, and sometimes my best resource was getting the patients to help, and technically I was correct, because psychiatric rehabilitation is meant to be about getting patients involved as part of the rehabilitation process.
I do think that power is a matter of perspective. At times, I feel that I am powerless, and other times, I realise that others seem almost unnerved by my power.
So, I would say that the whole question of creativity, in art and all aspects of life is a matter of perspective, with no absolutes, but a matter of framing. It involves conjuring up the imagination, rather than closing it down by focusing upon restrictions in a negative way.
PossibilityJanuary 02, 2021 at 00:06#4841900 likes
To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence.
It is creativity - in terms of awareness, connection and collaboration beyond ‘existing structures’ - that enables the perception of structure to change. There is a danger in thinking that your influence does not matter, or that no one cares what you think - these are limited perceptions that stifle your creativity, as I was describing to Brett earlier in reference to understanding. You seem to have plenty of skills and experience that are sorely needed in these unusual times by people who are marginalised - it would be a shame to let that go to waste by limiting yourself ‘within the framework of structures which exist’. Sometimes acting as if the structures are different can be enough to change them - ‘be the change you wish to see in the world’ is about creativity - recognising that the way you perceive the world matters, it’s just that no one else can see how it matters until you find a way to manifest it in the world. Awareness and connection are just the beginning: it is collaboration that engages the world in change. We need to stop thinking that change happens all at once when the ‘right person’ decides - often 99% of it is already in place by then. Like with the question of originality, is it more important to be recognised as the change-maker, or that change occurs?
Jack CumminsJanuary 02, 2021 at 17:10#4842810 likes
Reply to Possibility
I found your post helpful because I often get demoralised by people dismissing any ideas I have about influence and creativity. I probably shouldn't get disheartened but I find that most people try to discourage me, but of course I do not really side with the majority, but at the same time I am a bit sensitive to criticism.
I definitely believe in collaboration, but sometimes finding people to collaborate with is not easy. I do have ideas for involvement in art and creative writing groups. I was involved in such groups in libraries and a museum until all these closed in March. I find that trying to do most things, including find work, is so difficult when practically all the structures we know are shut down. I have found that the last year seemed to havel asted about 10 years. It will be interesting to see what life will be like after the pandemic and I am hoping that it will bring some positive changes.
Yes, it is important to try to be part of the positive change one would like to be. I definitely would like to be involved in bringing positive changes and I think that you are right to say that it is likely to be occurring by the time structural changes occur. I also hope that others read what you wrote because I think that people need to be inspired positively.
PossibilityJanuary 02, 2021 at 18:26#4842950 likes
Reply to Jack Cummins So much of what you write resonates with my younger self, so I’m glad my responses are helpful to you.
By collaboration, I don’t just mean with self-conscious, willing human beings. Collaborate with existing structures, with the current situation, with what’s going to happen anyway, with the flow of water, with gravity, with chi...this is creativity. When we understand the relational structures of the universe, or at least focus on increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, we don’t have to try to control or even ‘change’ anything - we can create our own opportunities. The world isn’t working against us - for the most part, it has no clue what we’re capable of, let alone what our intentions are...
I hope that 2021 is amazing for you - just don’t wait for life after the pandemic before you start.
Comments (162)
Quoting Darkneos
Can you identify Dora Maar from Picasso's portrait?
This is a painting (drawing) of a thing that already exists. Suppose that thing was a photo of Maar. Would Picasso's portrait be considered a copy then?
Quoting Darkneos
Yes I think so. If it’s a copy of something then it doesn’t exist in its own right. Picasso’s Dora Maar portrait is not a copy of her face or head.
Can you think of something that doesn't exist (and never did) that isn't a derivative of something that exists in the human conscious (dragons, monsters, etc.) that people would want to look at?
Like, a random abstract painting of colors either coalescing together, spreading in all directions, or splatter art, etc. By this standard, the moment some artist first accidently spilled paint on his canvas makes any of the forms of art mentioned non-original. Doesn't it?
Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.
What’s a copy? How could we define if enough to say “it’s not a copy”?
Quoting Coben
Quoting Darkneos
I think @Darkneos is just using this term loosely to separate a copy from an original work that, as I said, exists within itself. Call if representative if you want.
It's not a copy because it's an interpretation. A painter inevitably interprets a still life with their own style, regardless of how "realistic" their interpretation; even the degree to which their interpretation is realistic is a factor of their style. And style determines interpretation. Just off the top of my head, dunno if that made sense.
But I don’t know if I would call Monet’s “Haystacks” an interpretation so much as a study of light. On the other hand everything might be considered interpretive.
But what would the subject of a painting be that we called an original. Because whatever the style if we recognised the subject then we could say it’s interpretive, that the artist has treated the subject in a particular way.
I guess you could ask at what point a painting is no longer copying, representing or imitating something.
The perspective I'm coming from is that yes, everything is interpretive. This checks out in music; in the classical/jazz realm, someone performs someone else's piece, and they do it in such and such a way, and it's their "interpretation", and rightly described as so. In the pop realm, it's simply called a "cover". Even when an artist wants to "remain faithful" to the original, they still add their own style to the work, even if they're actively attempting to minimize this effect. And that's totally fine.
As far as an "original" painting, I don't find that to be particularly important (from this perspective I'm taking) but I guess you could look to non-representational art. But even that could be said to be "interpretive" of aspects of reality; logical structure in Mondrian, for instance. He was very philosophically preoccupied.
Is that a valid question? I don't understand the reason for asking it, or rather, it seems like a non sequitur to me.
Quoting Noble Dust
In relation to the OP? I think it’s a mistake to use creative and original as synonyms. The answer might be it’s creative but not original.
In typical fashion I've already lost sight of the OP. I agree that creative and original are not the same. I get the sense I'm maybe misinterpreting something or missing something obvious in what you're saying.
I think the answer to the OP question was always there.
Yes art can be called creative, but not necessarily original.
That's a succinct summary which I agree with.
However, judging by writing style, my guess is that the OP didn't consider the question of whether creative and original can be used interchangeably, and I would also hazard the guess that that wasn't an important distinction to them. It may be to us, but to the OP, the error might be simply corrected by editing the sentence to "Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being [...] creative?"
That’s true too. Hence their question “If they’re just copying what’s in front of them are they being creative?”
Sure she can, but I wouldn't advise doing so.
I wrote something out and then disagreed with myself. Touché.
Whoops thought you said what creative said. See above.
Quoting Noble Dust
Very creative.
*blushes*
I’ve just being thinking; why do we use the word original? It seems to me to present the same problems as nothing, as in Why something rather than nothing?
Off the top of my head, in art, I think "original" tends to connote a work to which easy signifiers ("Monet-esque", "post-modern", etc) are not easily applied. But this doesn't mean that there are not precursors ("signifiers") to the work, it's just that they aren't obvious. The building blocks to Elvis are there, historically, for anyone to study, but at the time, they were not obvious, and Elvis "exploded" on the scene. He was "original". What does seem to exist is this cultural boiling point that gives the illusion of originality...
...But the question to me then is whether "original" is simply the word that describes what I just described, or whether, on the other hand, "original" is a lie, and that nothing is original; everything is a patchwork of what came before. It starts to feel semantic and unimportant to me, but I could be convinced otherwise.
You would think that something original could only happen once. From then on the artist or others is imitating the original. Abstract art was a way of breaking away from the representative, but once done everything that followed had to resemble abstract work otherwise it wasn’t abstract.
But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original.
I know we often talk about original but if it’s not something that flared up out of the ether or the mind of the artist fully formed then what is it?
An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think?
But the final painting is the original to the audience.
Quoting Brett
Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing.
Quoting Noble Dust
So does that suggest that originality is a perception?
Quoting Noble Dust
Then that means there are different kinds of original.
It could. The artist knows all of their scraps and sketches too well; their work isn't original to them. But it can be to the audience, since they don't know. You can also play God and imagine all of this, like we're doing. Does doing this concretely define "original" for us from this perspective? When does our hypothetical perspective become concrete?
Quoting Brett
Sure, but again, I thought we were discussing the idea of original art.
Quoting Noble Dust
True, but I need to know what is meant by original.
In regards to art specifically?
I think that your question is a good one, and it was one I have thought about a lot when making visual art.
Often, I have taken photographs in the street as a basis for creating drawings or paintings because it would just be too awkward to sit outside and sketch. However, when I have been doing the art, even though photography is an art form in its own right, I have not wanted to replicate the photos purely, but develop the art. In that sense, I have not wished to copy, and ideally go beyond realism.
Realist art if it is too exact can be too much about trying to copy reality. Actually, I am inspired by the whole superrealist perspective which shows everything in a more abundant and full way. I like to create pictures which go beyond the real and have used the pointillist technique. The building up in dots seems to be away of capturing energy and, even, the nature of the infinite.
All in all, I would say that art should not strive to merely replicate, but to add a hidden extra element.
This is true of fiction, and probably other forms of art, because if one reads a great novel, it is not just a depiction of the surface of life and conversation.In novels, it can be seen as the building up of a worlds in itself, such as those created by Tolstoy, Dickens and Joyce. This is particularly interesting in science fiction and fantasy writing, because the writers conjure up alternative universes for the reader to enter.
Quoting Brett
Quoting Noble Dust
Because it’s the subject of the OP then yes.
So we’re not talking about an absolutely original act, like an Obsidian cutting tool. Assuming I’m correct there.
Originality in the visual arts seems to be about perception. People are stunned, or intrigued, by the juxtaposition of disparate elements, or unexpected results. But they won’t accept just any result and they have their limits. And for the art specialists and critics they expect to see the old made new, or references to traditions, cultures and social mores they had not previously thought about generating new perceptions.
But I would also like to know just what it was that made Elvis an original.
Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create. But I think his point was that if one is merely copying, it isn't creative. The creation was all in the thing itself. But the thing itself is generally very different from representative art based on it or representing it. It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative. I am sure there are some works of art that are direct copies, but they are rare.
If we look at what you quoted....
Representative art based on studying the real thing is not copying. If its a study of a bowl of fruit, copying would be putting the bowl of fruit in some futuristic 3d printer and making a direct atomic level copy. The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented. What facets are focused, what ignored, the style. Even 'trying to be realistic' means using tricks of perspective and shading and also choosing amongst possible facets. And it will include a philosophical/aesthetic take on what the thing 'really' looks like. Pointillists and Impressionists could argue they are more realistic than people who use so called realistic ways of conveying what is represented.
Except it isn't though. Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it. There is nothing deep or philosophical or transformational about it once you see that nothing about art is original or new, it's all derivative. All you have are quotes that seem to be rooted in ignorance.
Quoting Brett
But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new. Looking at everything I see today it's not really new or original if I think about it. It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new.
I got into the whole area of the debate of 'original' with many on my own post on the idea on original ideas a week ago. One theme which emerged was that being the first does not necessarily preclude inventiveness. In particular, @Possibility suggested that one useful measure is the following categories :originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity. I think these could be useful in considering where you others stand in considering the authenticity of creativity in art.
Quoting Coben
By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model.
Quoting Coben
And in this you mean creation is in the jug itself being the subject of the painting.
Quoting Coben
Yes, they are both things in themselves.
Quoting Coben
To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field.
So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality. You might refer to Cubism as a style but does it really plain much? I’m not sure about this. Maybe style is a factor in creativity, maybe it isn’t.
Quoting Coben
I think it is copying, because of the “tricks” brought into play.
Quoting Coben
I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it.
Quoting Darkneos
In the sense that you can tell that “The Weeping Woman” is Dora Maar then yes it’s not original. But in the portrait of the pain, suffering and anxiety behind the crying then you might consider that as being original or certainly creative. I don’t think there’s anything derivative in that painting. To say it’s derivative you need reference to something earlier that it resembled.
Quoting Darkneos
As I said, I don’t think you can use creative and original/new as synonyms. You might disagree. I think there are many things that are creative but not original. It’s creative for instance to rewrite “Romeo and Juliet” as “West Side Story”.
Quoting Darkneos
I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind.
Well art was always like that though.
Quoting Darkneos
What do you mean?
Yeah, I think artistic originality of any kind (visual or otherwise) has always been relative to perception. As self-styled philosophers, we take this grandiose birds eye view as if we're perceiving the entirety of artistic expression through history in all cultures, when in reality, the experience of the individual (if you notice I always come back to this) determines what "originality" means. Each individual possesses a limited perception of what a given art form is, and any time those foundations are shaken, or the vistas are opened, the word "original" is breathlessly uttered. And this is totally fine. It's not something to critique, it's just the reality that can be observed from our "birds eye view". There's always an artistic corner undiscovered to the individual; there's always the potential for the experience of "originality".
Yes, memory, though it need not be a specific face, it could be memory supported imagined people or things. A landscape that is not a rendering of any particular landscape, viewpoint over a landscape, the artist has seen.
Quoting BrettI would say this supports the position I am arguming, in fact I nearly mentioned the cubists, because yes, part of what they are doing is showing that what the realist painters are doing is not copying, but is itself also a style and perhaps not one as real as theirs.Quoting BrettI'm not saying it is a door to understanding creativity, I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'.Quoting Brett
Yes, all painting relies on tricks. It is all creative. I am arguing against the OPs idea that a realist painter or drawer is not creative, cause it's just copying. They are making a new thing. They are creative.
So maybe it’s the experience of being stunned by what you see, or excited and inspired. Which becomes very important in a homogenised world.
It is that, yes, and specifically, the viewer is stunned or excited because they're encountering something "seemingly" new. But this is where it gets either psychological, mystical, or just ill-defined (if you want to try to remain logical) to me: because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview).
Quoting Coben
Yes I would agree with you there. The painting still exists as a thing in itself. It’s not the jug it’s a rendition of the jug in two dimensional form. And that artist could easily have titled the painting “This is not a jug.”
Quoting Noble Dust
Absolutely agree. Which of course opens up another can of worms.
For me, psychological explanations for this sort of experience are indeed compelling, but only to a degree. I can't shake the feeling that they are only descriptive of something else latent or interwoven into the human experience.
Yes I agree. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on dreams and what’s going on there.
What have you been reading on dreams?
Perhaps the creative aspect of realistic art is in the method and not in the result. Too, there's the matter of not everybody being able to draw and paint - it takes talent or loads of practice or both - and this makes art, even if it's only copying an object onto a canvas, a rare ability and thus art becomes, if only in a limited sense, an object of admiration and perhaps even a cause for envy for those of us not thus gifted.
My two cents...
You sound envious!
The bolder parts are my interest, apart from the general theory.
“ ... dreaming can be seen as the "default" position for the activated brain when it is not forced to focus on physical and social reality by (1) external stimuli and (2) the self system that reminds us of who we are, where we are, and what the tasks are that face us.”
From a cognitive perspective, dreams express people's "conceptions," which are also the basis for action in the waking world. Dreams are a dramatic and perceptible embodiment of schemas, scripts, and general knowledge. They are like plays that the mind stages for itself when it doesn't have anything specific to do.
However, there is also a significant minority of dreams, perhaps as many as 30% for some adults, which have no easily discernable connections to the person's waking life.
They are more like sagas or adventure stories; Foulkes (1999, p. 136) calls such dreams "narrative-driven" to contrast them with dreams that seem to be based on personal concerns.
Fourth, in-depth investigations of dream journals from a few excellent recallers might help to explain the aspects of dream content that are not continuous with waking conceptions and concerns. These anomalous aspects of dream content may be the products of metaphoric thinking, although very little progress has been made in testing this cognitively based hypothesis (Domhoff, 2003b). Or it may be that unusual juxtapositions, blended settings, metamorphoses, and sudden scene changes reveal the limits of the mind under the conditions that produce dreaming (Domhoff, 2007; Foulkes, 1999).
The Case for a Cognitive Theory of Dreams. https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Library/domhoff_2010a.html
I'm beat, I'll get back to you.
Headshot! Sniper! I'm now sprawled on the ground with a gaping hole in my skull, bits and pieces of brain matter everywhere, a halo of blood circles my noggin. Confirmed kill, soldier! You're one step closer to the medal.
Art can be away of dreaming and you only have to think of the surrealist painters.
I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions which could put into words in many instances. This level of expression has healing potential, as well as enabling people to feel empowered by their own creative abilities.
Too many metaphors broh!
Really? All this while I've been thinking of myself as incapable of figurative discourse. G'day!
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don’t understand why it’s called “therapy”. It’s not as if those who engage with art on a committed level are seeking some sort of therapy. Though art is obviously something that drives them. Nor do I understand why it has healing potential unless they’re in a state that actually doing anything would be good for them. From your experience how does it help?
Edit: and do you think they’re actually creating or just doing something. I know that drawing can be used in psychology to explain or make available difficult internal problems. Is that what they’re doing?
I am talking about art psychotherapy. I was undertaking the training, although I did not complete the training. But art therapy is a profession in it's own right, even though it is not given much funding. Having taken a year out , I did not going back and one factor was the increasing lack of jobs in this therapy, and some questions about its effectiveness. There is a need for evidence-based research to back up its value.
However, I have run creative art groups in mental health settings and think that creative expression and discussion of the art can provide a benefitial intervention. It can just be about drawing or can be about communicating specific stories or internal experience. This can be particularly true of people who have been placed in mental health settings, sometimes against their will, and being forced to take medication that they do not wish to to take. Of course, there is a tension between the expression of emotion and art ability.
Some people may feel inferior to others if they compare it with others' art, and certainly I have strived to emphasise that such comparisons should not to be made. However, this is a grey area because I know that when I am making art I do care about the quality of the art I make. So, sometimes it felt hypocritical in trying to overcome the idea of preventing the distinction about quality and this did influence me not to pursue a career in art therapy, as I was questioning my authenticity in the role.
course, art therapy or art psychotherapy does not have to be in group settings, and this may make group comparison to be less of a matter of importance, although the relationship between the the client and the therapist is in itself of great significance. Here, it is drawing upon the whole psychoanalytic idea of the transference, but this large topic is, perhaps, beyond the scope of this thread discussion.
But, in an ultimate sense, we could argue is there good and bad art? From an early age at school, it
always seemed important to me that my art was chosen to go on the wall, but for many others it was probably more important to be chosen as one of the first for a football team. As one progresses in art at school it is about getting good grades and,if one proceeds in adult life in an art career, art exhibitions are important markers, for sharing work with other people.
So, this brings us back to the whole point of art therapy, which is about catharsis and expression of emotion through images. I think that it can also be about enjoyment, especially as it is about tactile and sensory exploration.
Apart from being an intervention in mental health care, art therapy has been used with children in schools and in other institutions. I have no personal experience of running any art facilitation with children, but I know of others who offer testimonials of how art and art therapy can offer major benefits for children, especially those who have experienced great difficulties.
I can't believe that you are trying to dismiss the whole profession and experience of art therapy as not being 'creative.'
I am wondering what is your actual definition or understanding of creativity? Having read your posts about art it seems that you would dismiss art all together. If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity where would you suggest we look to as the more 'creative' alternative?
This is sort of why you don't look too closely at things, you end up ruining them. The artist technically isn't creative, as they are just replicating or copying. Kind of sad when you realize it. They try to attach all these extra layers to their "work" to give it some semblance of depth but that's just blowing smoke. If you have to explain what it means then that's sort of a failure as an artist.
But I think that you are missing the whole spirit of the artistic quest, which I don't see as being limited to the visual arts.
I think that each artist does see the world differently. Apart from visual art, do you not appreciate literature and music?I don't think it has to be classical literature alone. My own literature tastes include plenty of dark fantasy and science fiction. I also love plenty of on the edge music ranging from goth, metal to psychedelic, and the weirder the better.
i see the arts, appreciatiing them and creating art is a whole way of transforming and transmuting the mundane and painful aspects of life. Without the arts I think that life for many would be unbearable and each person's art is unique, which I think is a better word than original.
I also think that philosophy and writing these posts is a form of art. Here, you could say the posts we write may not be entirely original insofar as they may touch upon ideas touched upon previously. But, they include variations, subtle differences rendered through different ways of viewing issues and the stylistics of the writer, and in that sense, you are an artist too.
I just think art isn't your thing man. To each their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, the message of the flower is the flower, etc., etc.
I think that reason is very important. It's different when human want to express himself. Painting landscapes also.
Quoting Darkneos
I think that’s an interesting point of view and pretty much what I was suggesting until @Noble Dust posted:
Quoting Noble Dust
Meaning that for the sake of the OP we need to focus on originality in art. Which makes sense. But what interests me about your posts is that you can stand back and look at art reasonably objectively because as you said:
Quoting Darkneos
So I think you should chip away at these posts because, from my point of view, art is so important to me and yet not to others and we make every effort to bolster that point of view. Because it’s possible it’s importance is zero.
Darkneos, your question seems to suggest that art only has value if it's "original" or "creative". While I'm very much interested in creating original and creative art, I nevertheless think the question is misguided. If you or anyone is questioning whether or not they should create art (and dragging feet about these concepts), the answer is easy: yes, create. Don't over think it. The longer I create art (music in my case) and the older I get, the less I understand what I'm doing, and that feels very correct. Maybe I'm just in a rare mental space of positivity recently, but I'm content with that conception for now.
Interesting, because the more I think about art these days the more I find myself tying it back to a primitive nature and therefore it having greater significance than how it’s presented or sold to us.
So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art?
Can art be creative? The answer may be, not any more. Unless we reframe the meaning of creative to accomodate that, which I think is happening.
Quoting Noble Dust
I’ve thought that for a long time but time has helped me join the dots. In fact I’m more interested in thinking about it than doing it these days. My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were.
Wait, to accommodate what?
Quoting Noble Dust
The fact that art is largely irrelevant now and the idea of creativity being any form of expression. We are probably all creative creatures in a primitive sense. But most have lost touch with that and don’t even know what it really means. It’s like the vestigial fingers of the dolphin.
I like what I see of your thought process, so this is not an accusation, but this sounds a bit like the classic line of "they don't make it like they used to". Which in my view is a simple psychological projection of your (not you specifically) perception of the world of your formative years unto the actual world you find yourself in when you come of age.
In relation to some things that’s possible. But I don’t think so with art. I was interested in all art movements and periods but there were some that had more meaning to me than others and some artists in particular who were trying to connect the dots as well. It’s also tied in with thoughts and reading on anthropology, religion, early comprehension of the world, myths and the unique qualities we have of comprehending and explaining the world and ourselves. Like what I found of interest in the article on dreaming about Metaphoric thinking.
I don't think art is largely irrelevant. To expand further on what I said above, I worry that this arm chair philosophical perspective allows us to create fake perceptions of art across history. When we read art history and connect it to the art around us, we form a concept of what happened and is happening, but we're at the mercy of historical data and, more importantly, technology. I.e. our technologically influenced perception of history is warping our perceptions: 200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, in fact more so, because the masses didn't have the intimate access they have now; they didn't have the internet; they couldn't wax philosophical to strangers about art. Now that we can, we form these hackneyed perceptions that are a symptom of our weird birds eye view. I worry that the farther out we zoom from reality, the more warped our perception becomes.
Quoting Noble Dust
I understand your point there. But I’m going way back. I have a sculpture from New Guinea carved out of wood of a bird as large as the man whose shoulders it stands on. All the skill and craft of the person who made it is in the sculpture. But he wasn’t making it to hang on the wall to make his hut a little more homely. This meant something. This was a time when you might have hurried past a mask hanging from a tree that makes you shiver with fear as you pass by.
The same as when someone believed a crucifix protected them from the evil out there that actually existed to them.
In old black and white movies I’ve watched Aborigines dancing. The men seem to be duplicating the movement of particular animals, like an Emu. The movements they make create the emu. Now are they pretending to be the Emu or do they actually become an Emu?
Those are just two aspects of art: sculpture and dance. Which we still have. But what does it means now?
You just don't seem to understand art or creativity. Why do you place 'originality' as supreme over all else?
However, the main reason I am posting you again is because you say that philosophy is ruining your life. I wonder what do you mean by this?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don’t think the work is the source of creativity. The work is the result of creativity. And as in the discussion with Possibility, in a spontaneous dance the work itself disappears as you watch it.
When I spoke of art as being the source, and not simply the result of creativity, I was speaking of how others' artistic creations inspire us in our own art making.
I am not sure what point you are saying about the discussion I had with Possibility. I was simply making a reference to a comment she made to me on another thread. I am not aware of any dancing, and am a useless dancer, but love dance music to play when I meditate.
I just do not understand what you are trying to argue. Are you a depressed artist? If you are, I do empathise because my greatest love is creating art, even above philosophy.
So what is creative then?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sorry, of course you were confused. I had mistakenly thought you were involved in the OP “The purpose of Creativity”.
There have been efforts in art that we could regard as producing something original with the Surrealists and Dadaists.
“ Automatic drawing (distinguished from drawn expression of mediums) was developed by the surrealists, as a means of expressing the subconscious. In automatic drawing, the hand is allowed to move "randomly" across the paper. In applying chance and accident to mark-making, drawing is to a large extent freed of rational control. Hence the drawing produced may be attributed in part to the subconscious and may reveal something of the psyche, which would otherwise be repressed.” Wikipedia
I think their work was more about tapping the unconscious mind rather than looking for originality, though you could say they are the same thing. But the point was that the work which would otherwise be repressed was produced without rational control.
The same might be said about William Burrough’s “Cut-ups”. The problem was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.
So can we really cope with truly original work? Do we just reject it as crazy or threatening?
What does music imitate?
Quoting Noble Dust
Oooo, I think you’ve been saving that one.
Which is why I can say no artist is truly creative.
Quoting Darkneos
You may not like what @Darkneos is saying but I think it needs to be considered seriously. Because it raises the whole question of originality and whether it exists, or even that it might exist but we may not, as I said, like it or be able to comprehend it.
Up until the period of Post Impressionists most work, certainly all in the public sphere, was based on what we see. How that was interpreted varied from artist to artist, but all of them worked around representational objects.
At some point around Post Impressionism the artist began to play around with ideas of personal perception. Artists began working around what they were thinking, not only what they were seeing. Abstract art moved completely away from representation. Conceptual art became all about the idea.
The more art moved in this direction the more people looked away from art. Jackson Pollock supposedly went in a kind of trance when painting. It seemed to be about releasing something he felt or experienced onto the canvas with as little as possible coming between the two. He was largely scorned by the public.
So are the Jackson Pollock paintings original? What earlier references do you think might exist that you could attach them?
My provisional definition of creative is: non-logical ways of arriving at correct assumptions.
So, is visual art not creative? No. It is creative. Good visual art arrives at correctness by bypassing logic.
I thought I had more in me, but this feels correct.
Quoting Noble Dust
What would you mean by “correct assumptions”?
Quoting Darkneos
Quoting Darkneos
It’s interesting that you use the word ‘duplicate’ to mean ‘imitate’. While in many ways this is believed to be the aim of producing art, I don’t believe it is the aim of creativity in art. You can be artistic, and you can be creative, but not necessarily a creative artist.
There is a difference between ‘duplicate’ and ‘imitate’ that should be the first step towards creativity in art. I agree that it’s not creative to duplicate something - but a creative artist recognises that what they see and what they create cannot be identical, ever. The saying ‘art imitates life’ refers not to ‘life’ as what we see, but what we experience, and this is necessarily subjective. Most aspiring artists don’t recognise the difference, and so they strive for comprehensible accuracy at the expense of originality. What results is a faithful imitation of what everyone expects to see.
Jack Cummins described his own artistic efforts, in which he ‘adds’ something to what would otherwise be an attempt to duplicate a photograph. What he adds he believes to be an aspect of his subjective experience - except it’s in relation to the photograph, not to the street scene, and it’s also subsumed under an existing art style/technique (pointillist). It’s hard to say this isn’t a creative process - it certainly seems to be from the artist’s perspective, because the process is original in their mind. It will often also be described as ‘creative’ by those who have no capacity for art themselves. But I think you’re right in saying that what the artist produces from this process is not creative in itself. There is nothing of his own uniqueness identifiable in the product.
My own realisation of this is part of why I stopped pursuing visual arts. I could reproduce on paper or canvas how I would visually sense a photograph, but not how I perceived a street scene. There was a feeling of dissatisfaction with my efforts ‘en plain air’, which I solved by taking photographs and working in the studio instead. What it took me a few years to realise was that there was little originality present in my work at all. I made some creative choices occasionally, with colour or style or technique, and I suppose I could have learned to be more creative with my artwork, but I didn’t. I still considered myself to be creative and artistic, but I was no longer under the illusion that I was ‘being creative’ with my art, except in my own mind. Visual art and also music continue to be therapeutic and expressive pursuits for me, personally. My creativity, however, required a different medium - one in which I was prepared to master, play with and then challenge the conventions.
I think there are two parts to creativity: how one looks at, perceives or understands reality, and how one expresses, interprets or renders it. As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate.
I think the problem with maximising originality in art is that the artist then struggles to produce something that is comprehensible (as @Brett suggests), something that is correct (as @Noble Dust suggests), or something that is popular (ie. subjectively relatable).
While creativity is not just about originality, it must be noticeable to recognise creativity. But if you find nothing original in art at all, then I would argue that this is because your perspective is limited. If you’re expecting originality in a particular aspect of art, then creativity which takes an original direction can be difficult to recognise - incomprehensible, unrelatable - from your perspective. As has been evident across art history, that doesn’t necessarily make it inaccurate as a perspective or understanding of reality.
Quoting Possibility
I think the focus on originality has its merits, because, if you’re prepared to, it does make you consider the order in which creativity and the creative act takes place, that in its genuine form creativity has to spring from something.
As I said before “The problem (with originality) was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.”
What the unconscious mind first produces is probably monstrous in the sense that there is no control over it. Like in dreams, no rational control over images or meaning and impossible to transmit in that form. The Surrealists tried but it just became another technique to imitate the unconscious mind. And like I said people tried it with automatic drawing and cut-ups. But people don’t address the world that way. They like things to gave some comprehensible order, maybe Noble Dust’s “ correct assumptions”.
But that original form was there, it has to be. Creativity is the ability, that varies in degrees of success, to wrestle or manipulate that original form into some shape others can comprehend without completely separating it from its origins. That might be regarded as an interpretation, only because there’s no other way of expressing what happens. But it’s an interpretation of something original.
Edit: so not all art is creative.
I was glad to hear someone else on this thread talking about art they make rather than just as a philosophical way.
One aspect of the matter, which I think that has not been touched upon in this this thread in much depth, is the whole difference between art that is based on the objects in the real world and that which is symbolic. I think Brett maybe touches upon it a little in the previous post, but not upon actual experience of art making.But I would go further and say that I have experimented with the process of drawing from the inner world, or what Jung describes as active imagination.
The whole process of making this kind of art seems so different from that of making art based on the material world, although I am talking about the way in which drawing symbolic realms does connect with more realistic drawing, in the sense that if I am drawing a person from my imagination I am using my past memories of copying people, which I have done since throughout my life, as I spent most of my childhood drawing pop singers from magazines. If anything, I would say that when I am drawing imaginary people I sometimes get concerned with getting all the proportions and perspective correctly too. Of course, the art arising from the symbolic does not have to be figurative at all, although I have not done art that is abstract entirely.
I am not sure that the art based on the imagination is more creative entirely, but the whole process does seem very different and does seem to arise from a different dimension to that which is based on depicting the everyday world. I think that Jung did are interesting, and I also feel inspired by the work of Cecil Collins and Alex Grey.
However, I have to admit that I do not do much art currently. I make all kinds of excuses about why I am not doing so.
And we return to the idea of ‘order’ in the relation between creativity and action. Metaphorically speaking, I would say creativity ‘springs’ from imaginable possibility through subjectively perceived potentiality (in relation to conceptual structure), and the creative act ‘springs’ from this perceived potentiality through the individual will (in relation to interoception of affect). But I don’t think either imaginable possibility nor perceived potentiality exist in a necessary temporal sequence in relation to the creative act, and while perception of potentiality logically precedes the creative act, imaginable possibility need not logically precede this perception of potentiality. It does seem, however, to purposively precede it in an ontological sense. This pertains to the dimensionality that I continue to apply to ontological descriptions of relational structure.
I hope I’m making some sense here. I should point out that perceived potentiality is not necessarily apperceived (in a conscious sense) prior to the creative act, neither is imaginable possibility necessarily imagined (in a self-conscious sense).
Quoting Brett
The whole point of automatic writing or drawing is to deconstruct this illusion we have that the conscious mind (the faculties of self-consciousness) must somehow ‘gain control’ over the unconscious mind (the faculties of consciousness). Creativity, as I have said, is about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - what looks like mere imitation is a path towards understanding that doesn’t aim to control, but to collaborate. It isn’t about duplicating how people commonly address the world, but in exploring the options and alternatives for better accuracy, comprehensibility and relatability. Surrealism just becomes part of this process.
Creativity is not like Science in that it doesn’t strive for consolidation - it is the process that matters. What is made - whether it’s an image, a sculpture, a dance, a system, a theory - is just a way of sharing the progress with others, collaborating beyond our own temporal existence.
Quoting Brett
The artist is the original ‘form’. It is the progress in awareness, connection and collaboration that the artist has integrated which they attempt to express. Not all art is creative, no - and much of it fails to express originality. From personal experience, this has quite a bit to do with fear and self-doubt. As artists, we open up ourselves - this original form - to criticism: the extent to which ‘I’ as the artist lack originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity is on display in a genuinely creative work. We hold back on expressing all of our originality - choosing instead to consolidate much of it under proven or popular theories, logic or language systems, archetypes, culturally significant styles, etc. It is the extent to which we challenge and transcend these systems in our work (success or fail) that we make use of our creativity, but it’s only our successes that build our identity as an artist. To fail is to expose ourselves to experiences of pain, humility, lack and loss. The more structured and defined this identity, the less creative we’re prepared to be.
Quoting Possibility
We don't. There is no original way to see reality, it's all variations on a theme. There is ZERO creativity present in either the perception or the expression of it either. It's just duplication.
Actually I think there is something that is original, but it can’t be made material, and in fact the effort to make it material destroys the original.
“ We can interpret Zen’s nondualistic experience epistemologically as that experience which arises from a nondiscriminatory state of meditational awareness. ... It may also be characterized as nondiscriminatory discrimination, in order to capture a sense of how things appear in meditational awareness. In such awareness no ego is posited either as an active or a passive agent in constituting the things of experience, as this awareness renders useless the active-passive scheme as an explanatory model. This awareness lets a thing announce itself as a thing.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-zen/
This awareness creates a situation where you see something without discrimination, without conscious input, without us making it something. So you are seeing something in its original form,
I just read your link on Zen. It is interesting, but I think it would be mistaken to think that is more 'original,' or superior to all other states of consciousness. After all, if the states of mind des bribed are experienced by a succession of individuals you could end up saying that these will not be the 'original', creative ones, but replication.
Also, in your understanding of creativity in relation to art, I think that you fail to understand the creative process itself. Many of the great artists may have achieved profound altered states of awareness in the rendering of making art. The actual art is not identical to these states of consciousness but, nevertheless, through the communication in their art, may be able to convey aspects of those states to others.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I’ve experienced this state of mind once. It was unexpected but I knew enough to understand what was happening. I would also say it is superior to all other states of consciousness. Some here might know what I’m talking about.
If this state of mind is experienced by a succession of individuals I don’t think it could be called replication. Except to say that a moment of truth will always be the same in that it is true.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I feel quite confident in talking about the creative process. I’m not really talking about altered states of awareness in the making of art. No, the actual art is not identical to those states (the ones I refer to, which is not altered states). Nor do I think the artist’s intention is to convey those states. Once the work is finished the artist has very little interest in it. It’s the process that counts. The artist is the supreme egotist.
I have to point out that we are always referring to visual arts. Dancing and poetry, how do we address that on these terms?
I am not in any way wishing to undervalue your experience, but I think that there is a danger in making claims about whose or which experiences are superior. We are all aware of our subjective ones primarily and who can say who has reached the superior state ultimately?
Certain individuals might have been ranked as geniuses or enlightened ones by many, but perhaps even such views are linked to the cultural contexts in which they were esteemed. I am sure that many brilliant minds have been viewed negatively and undervalued. Some highly creative individuals have been labelled as mentally ill as well.
And I think that it is wrong to judge the artist as the supreme egotist. Some might be, but others are extremely humble, so it is not right to make generalisations. I would say that the issues of creativity and the visual arts are applicable to the other arts too.
Quoting Jack Cummins
What danger is that?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I say that because he/she doesn’t really care about you.
Edit: I should make clear that my experience, the state of mind I was referring to is not an altered state.
I have already said that I am not in any way wishing to undervalue your experience. I would say my choice of the term altered consciousness may have been not the best because it conjures up possible scenarios of intoxication. I chose it, because I was about to write elevated states of consciousness and this could be too simplistic.
I don't want to label your experience at all, but I would say ask the idea of enlightenment might be a more helpful one? I think that the whole question of creativity or enlightenment is central here, and probably this is away from the actual matter of the debate about whether art can be called creative. But another useful idea which could encompass what are categorical as heightened states of creativity or enlightenment is the notion of peak experiences.
Quoting Jack Cummins
No, it’s fine. I’m not suggesting that.
The experience is not connected to art, only to ideas of originality. I don’t regard enlightenment as any part of this. It might be worth considering, to keep things in perspective, the cold determination of many artists. And I’m talking about artists as opposed to a group of people who think they’re creative, which has nothing to do with it. These are people who put their art before anything else. They destroy in the process of creating.
I still think that there while there may be some cold determine artists, there are many who are not. I have one good friend who could be called an artist in the full sense, as she has regular exhibitions and makes her living through her art. She is the complete opposite to cold . She is determined, but that is because she has experienced so many obstacles in her path.
Quoting Jack Cummins
With due respect I don’t think that means anything.
I am simply talking about an example of an artist living in daily life, in the way that you are speaking of your own experience. It is about speaking of the particular rather than the general.
What I mean is that having exhibitions and making a living does not necessarily mean one is an artist. Just how many artists can there be in the world? How many masterpieces can there be?
I am sure that there could be various definitions of 'an artist' but the one I used is a generic one, in the sense of speaking of a person being a professional. This is in the same way that the distinction is used in writing circles, to distinguish from that of an amateur. Of course, it is not an absolute one because in some cases the amateur may be be as skilled or more skilled, and most professionals will not paint or write masterpieces, but I would be the last to deny anyone's basic creativity. The denial of such creativity is to rob a person of their essential humanity.
Quoting Darkneos
What makes you say that?
Edit: yes I guess they were ignorant of neuroscience. But why don’t you put much stock in Zen philosophy?
First of all, I don’t think it helps to make such sweeping generalisations about what ‘the artist’ believes. To acknowledge that they aren’t identical is NOT to say that they’re original - only that an imitation is not a duplicate. To say that two things are identical ‘in a sense’ is to say that they are identical only by a particular interpretation - ie. by external observation, or by focusing on only one aspect. In a general sense, they are not. The particular sense in which they appear identical acts is a method of grounding the creative idea in something familiar.
An artist is someone who practises or performs a creative act - but it is a common misconception that anything (new, original or otherwise) needs to be consolidated or made for others to observe. To create is not to ‘make’ but to ‘bring into existence’. Someone can be creative whether or not they consider themselves to be an artist. From your perspective, they’re just pushing paint around, but it’s the internal process of restructuring potentiality that matters.
I do agree, however, that many artists do believe themselves to be ‘creating’ when they’re just making, Also many people who consider themselves ‘artists’ are creative, but not creative artists - they can’t or won’t manifest their creativity in what they make. So, in all honesty, although I am creative, the visual art that I make is rarely creative in itself. In consolidating an imitation (not a duplication) of my subjective experience for an audience, I feel less at risk when I exclude what I’m afraid might be judged as incomprehensible, unrelatable or inaccurate: my originality. As the audience, you are open to original experiences only insofar as they are comprehensible, relatable and accurate - which is not very original. So an artist creates in their mind a much broader perspective of reality than what they make, and in making negotiates a fine line between surprising their audience and challenging them more than they’re ready to expect in terms of relating to reality.
Quoting Darkneos
I’m not saying there is ‘an original way to see reality’ - I’m saying that originality exists in how we each perceive reality, but rarely in how we express, interpret or render it, because we self-consciously ignore, isolate or exclude it. A ‘variation on a theme’ is not a duplication - it has, by definition, an element of original perspective to it, in relation to an indeterminate theme. For duplication to occur, the entire process must be identical and unalterable, but this can never be the case - even a mechanical duplication process is susceptible to variation on the ‘theme’ (it’s what ‘quality control’ is for). This brings us back to another assumption about creativity: intentionality. We assume this originality to be intentional, that an artist must mean for what they create to be ‘original’, or to adhere to a pre-existing ‘theme’. But originality, or variation on the theme, is an essential aspect of any interaction, whether or not anyone is conscious of it in relation to an expected ‘theme’. It is this variability that most of us try to ignore, isolate or exclude from our relation to (ie. control of) reality.
FWIW, I don’t see creativity as the domain of the artist, but an underlying process of existence.
Non-dual originality, :chin: , an original claim if I’ve ever heard one. :clap:
Creativity is just one aspect of art, but I think exists in any work of art, more or less. The results of dawing an object as realistically as possible, for example, would unquestionably be original to some extent. Even taking a photograph would be original to some extent, unless all the conditions of the photograph were exactly duplicated, which would be very difficult in most situations.
Have you ever observed a group of artists work from the same subject? The results are wildly different even without them trying to be original or creative.
The distinction between objects and symbols/concepts in art is an interesting one, and I have participated in workshops on symbolic expression in art. In my view, it’s about the process of perceiving and rendering the dimensional complexity of information.
When you draw from a photograph, there is no variability in the perspective - you already have a two-dimensional rendering of a three-dimensional perception. But if the artist cannot duplicate the process that produced the photograph, then what they paint is not a duplication, but an imitation. There is little room for originality here, but it will never be entirely void of originality.
When you draw from life, you acknowledge a variability in perception, from which you choose (unconsciously or consciously) with each brushstroke application. IF you stay in one spot and ask the model not to move, you can produce a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception.
When you draw from imagination, you are selecting from conceptual structures or predictions (5D) and structuring them into a pattern of interrelated movements (4D), which are continually adjusted according to their evaluated success in rendering the prediction, which is also entirely variable at every point. When you talk about getting all the proportions and perspective ‘correct’, this is in reference to a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception - you are limiting your perspective to follow convention in interpretation/expression.
To the extent that each artwork deviates from convention, how much of that variability is a ‘failure’ of technique, and how much is the unique three, four, five or even six-dimensional perspective of the artist influencing variability in brushstroke application?
I think that the whole area of art based on symbolism is an interesting area, although I am not one to say that art based on 3D reality is not creative. One aspect which I think has not been mentioned is that paintings, drawings and photographs translate 3D reality into 2. This could be seen as reductive, as in copying, but the whole translation into lesser dimensions does even involve synthetic perception, and styles. When one reaches out into four or more dimensions this synthesis, to portray perceptions is more complex, because it contains more that is hidden from the naked eye
I have never done sculpture, but one friend who does, spoke of how she carves, and feels a living connection with the wood, bringing out patterns and energy within it. When she used to speak in this way, and I saw her working, I could feel the creativity pervading her, and this level she was experiencing seemed to transcend the whole issue of being 'original' or not, as discussed in this thread because it was about primal expression, at a deep level.
But, on the level of my own symbolic expression, I think that the reason why I focus on the same concerns in symbolic art is because I was taught to think that way. At A level, the whole emphasis was upon exactness and perfection. I did not do a foundation course or a degree in art, but I did an illustration course and one on art therapy. In illustration, the tutor stressed the importance of producing camera ready work, and the stage between a concept and the finished art seemed to almost get left out.
On the art therapy course, the majority of the other students had done an art degree, in which they had done more experimental work, whereas I was accepted on the basis of my portfolio, but I did feel that meant I lacked a certain amount of some of the experience which some of the others had. The course itself allowed for a certain amount of experimentation but because the emotional and group experience were considered as extremely important, sometimes the chance to explore the symbolic seemed to get pushed into the background.
My initial encounter with symbolic art was actually before I did the art therapy course, by a friend who had done a lot of art based on his own experience. He encouraged me to look within as he had done. My friend had done loads of pictures based on his own life and tried to get his work exhibited. He found that he encountered a lot of prejudice within art circles because it was obvious that he had not been to art school. His use of materials and elements of his drawing abilities did not stand up to certain expectations and it would probably be true to say that he was probably more in the tradition of 'outsider art', which is of great value and significance.
Personally, I would love to do more experimental work, in which I explore the symbolic dimensions, with less feelings of restrictions about the need to draw or paint 'correctly'. Ideally, I would like to find a workshop after the pandemic because it can be more motivational than working alone in a room. In the last few years I feel that I have travelled much further from the third dimensions, into fourth, fifth and unknown ones and would like to captivate the multidimensional reality in art.
Above all else, I do think a central aspect of the creative process in the visual and other arts is about accessing other levels of consciousness. The art produced is not just to be seen as an end but as a testimony to the journey which has taken place. I would say that the possible areas of failure of technique and brushstrokes may result from the interaction with energy arising in the other dimensions.
Personally, I use the term ‘render’ rather than ‘translate’ to describe an interpretation of 3D reality into 2D, because I think there is more to this process than translating from one ‘language’ system to another.
If we talk about the process in terms of information, awareness of 3D reality requires an integrated 4D system (life), but consolidating 3D information (ie. distinguishing and defining objects) requires an integrated 5D system (consciousness) consisting of interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception). The paintings, drawings or photographs are a result of 4D formulations in a 5D system consolidating 3D information into a transmittable 2D system structure. It’s similar to the process of DNA/RNA, or sampling in computer information systems: by cascading the information according to coded patterns recognisable by both sending and receiving systems, complex relational structures of information can be transferred through systems only capable of consolidating much simpler relational structures.
This seems from certain perspectives to be simply copying or duplicating, but it’s imitation - not the same thing. The important element in the efficiency of integrated information systems is ‘difference’. The 2D structure contains information that enables an integrated 5D system to consolidate particular 3D information by relating the structure to their 4D formulations. It’s not a copy of the 3D information, but qualitative instructions to adjust other interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception) so that the same information (difference) is achieved. The 2D structure is effectively a calculated difference between the artist’s and the audience’s perspectives.
Quoting Jack Cummins
What your sculptor friend is speaking about is her capacity to collaborate with the potential of the material structure. For most artists (in my experience), the question of originality is a matter of selection criteria for the work they present to others, and has little to do with the creative process itself - in which there is often a distinct lack of self-conscious identification (ego), and more of a sense of ‘connection’ or ‘one-ness’ with the material, the moment, etc. The creative experience is a collaborative one - it relies on unselfish interrelation between the potential complexity in the structure of the wood and the potential complexity in the artist as a conscious organism, without consolidation. From this collaborative experience, options for 4D formulations present themselves. For the merely conscious agent, only the most efficient formulation for the organism is determined and initiated. But the self-conscious artist can distinguish, organise and select from efficient formulations according to purpose - which is where the question of originality (as well as comprehensibility, relatability and popularity) arises.
The art-related courses you’ve done seem to be geared towards employment, so their focus is on the consolidated result rather than the process. I did a unit at university on Authorship and Publication, which had a similar focus to your illustration course, whereas I also picked up a Drawing 101 unit, which was more focused on the creative process - challenging the way we look at ordinary objects, as well as our reliance on visual sensory information in generating art. A similar Writing 101 unit had activities designed to shift the way we looked at the world, and to challenge the way we applied personal experience to writing.
Quoting Jack Cummins
In your art therapy course, it seems the focus was on developing skills of introspection - the art produced in these sessions are not to share with others, but with yourself: it’s a dialogue between interrelating 4D formulations (prediction and interoception) within your own 5D system. The symbolism only needs to make sense to you, so the selection process regarding originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity is irrelevant to art therapy.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I remember doing a workshop a few years ago on symbolic expression in art, where the instructor focused on the comprehensibility and relatability of qualitative aspects. The first thing he did was take away our access to colour, and challenged us to convey certain emotions or other qualitative experiences using relative position, direction, intensity or shape. The idea was to deconstruct the prepackaged conceptual symbolism we tend to rely on in everyday expression, and recognise the capacity of the simplest qualitative aspects (one and two-dimensional relations) to universally ‘move’ the viewer.
I think getting work exhibited is about the self-conscious selection process in relation to a cultural perception of value and significance: what does this art say about who we are, are we prepared to face this truth, and if so, how important is it that we face it today? It’s a narrow space that is continually shifted by artists who find the ‘sweet spot’ between what we already know and what we aren’t ready to know about ourselves.
I think art that can lead the viewer into the creative process, to perceive the variability in perspective and not be alarmed or threatened by it, is where we need to aim. Joseph Campbell talks about the hero’s journey - the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves?
That can be applied everywhere and why certain things are intimidating because of how many different combinations of learning viewpoints you need to learn to result in good finding.
When you read a book it's combination of authors mind that previously read hundred of books and picked on specific type of writing including combination of his environment how he/she grew up, with whom, what he liked and it becomes a new book.
Quoting Possibility
In terms of discovering ourselves do you mean for the artist or for the observer?
Quoting Possibility
I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative.
I have read the posts that you have written and I believe in you have addressed a number of very important problems.
One of the main ones is the tension between making art with other people, in contrast to the individual is in the process of discovery of symbolism in a journey of self exploration. I think that the process of sharing art made with others is important, but art made in groups often allows for this exploration to get lost.
The most interesting aspect I have found is that there can be some underlying shared themes emerging in the art, . and that is not because individuals have been looking at each other, because they have often been situated far apart. The shared elements do suggest that the individuals are tapping into a collective dimension.
The problem with art therapy can be that the art is expected to fall into a secondary role. In art psychotherapy, the whole thinking was mainly based on Freudian and Kleinian objects relations theory. This involved the idea of the transference being central. I am not dismissing this as being important but on the course I did this meant that other approaches were almost excluded. I am extremely interested in James Campbell' s portrayal of mythic exploration, and I can remember talking about this in a workshop and I got the feeling that the tutor and other students regarded the whole matter as unimportant.
In exploring the symbolic dimensions, one of the ideas which I also consider helpful is shamanic vision quests, including accessing the upper world and the underworld. One aspect of this is the imagery in hypnagogic and hypopompic imagery, and I do try to incorporate my own experience of this into symbolic art, but sometimes it is difficult to recall the details exactly. One way which I have also found helpful for finding doorways into multidimensional reality for art making is the listening to music, ranging from metal, dance, and prog rock.
You ask about the limitations of 2D art for the exploration of the hero's journey. I have to admit that I have found that to be the case, to some extent. Since doing the art therapy course, I have experimented in fiction writing, and do wish to do so in the future. I find that it is possible to explore all the senses in writing and that words, while being limited, do have potential for creating unknown dimensions, and I am particularly interested in fantasy and the deeper side of cyberpunk and steampunk.
However, I am not convinced that there are not many areas left for 2D visual art, and not just as therapy. Personally, I do plan to do more visual art and would like to use art and writing in a complementary way. Although I have not done much art for a few years, for the few months before I found this site, I had playing around drawing inner worlds on my phone and do wish to use these ideas for future art work or for writing.
I am not sure if I am wrong, or the people who saying that 2D art has come to an end, because as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art.
Quoting Darkneos
Do you mean not just 2D art but all art?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I feel we, as a species, may have moved on from what the visual art did for us. We might have crossed over into images having a meaning that is very removed from what it was. We’re a long way from the cave drawings of Lascaux.
Jack Cummins and others have talked about exploring the self through art and the value of symbolism and even the journey of the hero. But I don’t think that’s who we are anymore. The images and symbols that once contained power have been bleached of significance. With this goes the purpose of the visual arts.
First of all there’s nothing left to paint. Our lives are flooded with images of the world that serve every purpose except to reach out to us in ways they once did. Those images were culturally embedded, they had a history and resonance, they contained meaning that did not have to be articulated or explained. Virtually everything out there in the world has been converted to an image that is removed from its meaning and given new, relative meanings. Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire?
Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins?
It’s easy to conclude that, sure. But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge.
Take, for example, the Banksy that was shredded immediately after selling at auction in 2018. The 2D artwork itself could be perceived as a duplicate but isn’t - it’s one of many impressions from an original stencil, an iteration of a particular creative potential retained by this artistic identity. What is sold in a Banksy print is rarely considered ‘original’, the buyer owns an impression of this creative potential, often unsigned. What made this particular piece original was evidence of the creative process: the signed dedication on the back, the artist’s frame...and its ultimate meaninglessness for the artist as a 2D work in relation to what is a five-dimensional creative potential. It is this last aspect that is difficult to express in a 2D work without seemingly defeating the purpose of making the work itself. Why make something only to destroy it? But creative potential is just that: the freedom to make and un-make at will. When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. The creative process is considered complete. But Banksy challenges this assumption, not just in this work but in a more recent auction of ‘Devolved Parliament’, a painting originally titled ‘Question Time’, that he had somehow reworked since it was first sold.
Creativity isn’t inherent as such in the artwork or in the artist - it is the relational structure of reality. Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us - it can be informative only in its relational structures, but in that sense I still think 2D art as part of the broader creative process is a long way from done.
Quoting Possibility
I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity.
Quoting Possibility
Why do you think this is?
Quoting Possibility
I don’t go along with this at all. The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it.
Quoting Possibility
It’s not meant to surprise us, it was never meant to surprise us. It was made to be understood.
There’s an interesting OP about Wittgenstein, language and God, the inability of language to refer to Gods and beliefs;
“ Quoting Wittgenstein
You may or may not agree with this in relation to art.
If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?
We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.
So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning.
It’s more that we attribute intentionality to the artwork when we judge it as ‘creative’ or ‘not creative’, which reflects more on our ability to perceive its potential in relation to our own, than anything the artwork can achieve in itself. It comes back to the relatability or comprehensibility of what is original or unexpected in the work.
Quoting Brett
I agree with this, which is what I was getting at with the Banksy example. Ownership is an attempt to consolidate a relational structure by excluding others, and Banksy challenges this exclusion as a false assumption - a limited perception of reality.
Quoting Brett
It is the surprise or unexpectedness that motivates understanding.
That this meaning of personal art expression is ‘given’ is an important point. Meaning is not confined to significance or value, so the question of whether or not art has meaning has nothing to do with its specific meaning, but whether or not it matters at all.
Personally, I don’t see art as an exploration ‘of the soul’, but of possible perspectives. An alternative possible perspective is not necessarily important or valuable in itself, but it matters because its existence enables us to critically examine our own logic - our conceptual reality that we would otherwise take for granted. An artist’s capacity to render a surprising perspective in visual form provides a broad opportunity for us to understand where they’re coming from, instead of dismissing it as false, wrong, illogical, or the work of pure imagination. It is at this level of meaning that we’re reluctant to suspend our consolidated reasoning, to consider the variability of logic and the adjustments and corrections that can still be made to relational structures between different value and significance systems, towards a more accurate understanding of reality.
It isn’t that there’s no meaning, but rather that meaning is indeterminate. In Kant’s aesthetics it’s referred to as ‘purposiveness’, without any particular purpose.
Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses.
Given, also, that in the beginning this creative ability wasn’t used to brighten up a hut but had a purpose, or more accurately was directed towards a purpose. That purpose would have been quite primitive. The thing created was not the thing referred to, but it referred to something that could not be spoken of in the Wittgenstein sense: the cave drawings of Lascaux, the Borneo masks, the body decorations, the small fetishes. The art refers back to something that existed outside of space and time. This, I believe, is the origin of “art”.
This is how it operated throughout history, usually referring to something greater than ourselves, greater than the “artist”. As long as we believed in this “something” the work spoke for it.
In time we moved away from these beliefs. The mystery the work held about the unknown was transferred to the artist, the artist became the mystery. Of course there is no mystery except in the mystery of “creativity”. The connection was still maintained between the work and the unknown source, the origins, the unconscious mind. So the work became about the artist, who became some sort of Shaman, revealing unknown depths of the mind through the use of subject, symbols and metaphors.
This is just a performance, maintaining the uniqueness of the “artist’s” mind, perpetuating the idea that they have access to something they can share with us, that they are on some sort of journey to enlighten us in the process of enlightening themselves about reality. But the “artist” knows as much about reality as the man in the street, sometimes less.
So we are back to something that supposedly cannot be spoken of; the hidden genius of the artist. Which is just circular to me.
So yes, there might be such a thing as creativity, but it’s meaningless.
Why was it thatRimbaud stopped writing poetry and left France and everything he knew to trade guns in Africa and never write again?
However, artists can and do create beautiful and interesting things, but that’s all they are. And as we know beauty is subjective. Rimbaud’s poetry led him nowhere. People love and admire it, but what did it mean to him, unless what he found in his poetry was dissatisfaction, that art is meaningless.
What art reveals is not what it’s about but our perception of the function of art.
This from the OP “Essence without reality” seems relevant to me in this light.
Quoting Antony Nickles
People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. I agree that we are a long way from the paintings at Lascaux, but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational.
Quoting Brett
The same thing: we’re looking for opportunity to participate in the creative process. These are rather innocuous methods: we give nothing of ourselves to the process, but are looking to be swept along in the momentum that’s already established, like a b-grade horror flick or a biographical history. We’re understanding the terrain in relation to a map. We’re not staring into the abyss or being asked to contribute, which suits us fine. We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there.
But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’.
Quoting Possibility
What reality do you mean?
Quoting Possibility
I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?
I think you’re giving art far too much credit.
Quoting Possibility
That’s a big generalisation for what people are looking to art for. Maybe art is a long way from its roots, but even then it wasn’t to discover ourselves. To discover what?
Quoting Possibility
Once again, for me, too much of a generalisation about the creative artist and why they do it. The creative artist’s answer to whether our experience of uncertainty matters is always yes.
If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same?
I think that part of the diminishing role of art is because people are beginning to want fast solutions, especially entertainment through television and on the internet. I am inclined to think that the loss of meaning in art began when popular art became part of consumer material society, with pictures being sold to be placed on the wall, almost becoming parts of furniture.
I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. On the basis of liking my drawings, many people asked me to draw their pets or their houses, and I did not take up the challenge, even when though they offered me money, because I had no meaningful way of making art based on the objects of their sentiments because it seemed at odds with the whole quest of my art. I tried to explain that to them but I don't think that they understood, because they saw drawing as a practical skill. The most I achieved was to be able to come up with pictures for my parents' living room walls, because this was not too limiting.
I think that the whole idea of art as products is part of the problem. This applies to other arts, including music and books, which is a whole area of commercial value. I don't think that most creative people do wish to work for money but they have to survive. Perhaps the best solution is a day job to support oneself, rather than relying on artistic work for a living, but this is complicated, especially as we are moving into a time of possible mass unemployment.
I would say that it is likely that art will be a minority interest. When I have been running art groups, I have found that a lot of adults think that making art is just for children. However, they do not think that about art, However, they do not seem to think this about playing sports, and I think that it is unfortunate that art is not seen as a means of enjoyment, expression and questing for meaning.
One other point which I would make is that some would say that philosophy is a minority interest and irrelevant. Should we be following the direction of the minority or be trying to rise above it?:I do believe that some of the original posters on this site are not saying simply that art is not creative but that it is worthless and, therefore, should not be pursued at all.This seems so nihilistic, and is in the spirit of discouraging creativity
What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, but surely to reduce all exploration to one answer is far too simplistic, and it should not be instead of the arts, and possibly the two states could be complementary. Art and spirituality are not enemies.
If the arts lack any creativity whatsoever, I am left wondering how one chooses to understand the term creativity, and I am not sure that it can just be reduced to the idea of 'originality' as some posters wish to cling, to rigidly as the supreme benchmark. It seems to me to be lopsided thinking and to try to say that art has no creativity, or potential for creativity.
Quoting yiwakah227
That’s true and I think it could be applied to every aspect of our life. Isn’t it essentially how we learn and develop as people? We’re drawn to particular things of interest that expand our world. Most artists work within a tradition no matter how much they they bend the rules. If one bends the rules too much it becomes incomprehensible to others. An artist can continue to paint outside of a tradition, if that’s possible, and bend the rules with each work and find that only he can relate to it and he can continue without any contact outside of the studio. If we actually lived our lives like that what would we become?
So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.
Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother?
Quoting Jack Cummins
My point about Sunday painters was not that it depletes meaning but whether a line can be drawn between them and those who say “yes to uncertainty”. Are they both creative or is there a difference?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don’t think that’s what I said.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Not only do I not think they’re enemies but I think once they were one and the same. Though I’m wry of the word spirituality which seems to gave all sorts of vapid meanings these days.
Edit: if archaeologists 500 years from now dug up our art of the last 100 years what would it say to them?
Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. This creative work varies in originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity, and while all of it matters, it is our self-conscious reasoning that selects what we consolidate and share with others. This part of the process is where it becomes ‘art’ - where self-consciousness kicks in.
What you refer to as a manipulative skill is self-conscious recognition of variability in consolidation - whether as a starting point on the page, a line, a shape, an object, an event, a potential or an idea - and the courage to integrate perceived potentiality that increases awareness, connection and collaboration. Some work is creative almost by accident - it is in recognising that this variability matters, and then striving to understand how it differs from what is predicted, that contributes to the creative process. This applies to scientific discovery as much as art. It even applies to philosophical discussions.
Quoting Brett
Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, whether it’s in art, engineering or philosophy. I think that art has certainly challenged conventions in how we look at the world and how we render it visually. I think art is now capable of sharing more information than was intended in the paintings at Lascaux, but we are also able to discern much more information from the paintings at Lascaux and their context than the original artists would have imagined. So yes, art can really do that - but that’s not to say that ONLY art can do that, not at all.
Quoting Brett
Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes.
Quoting Brett
I agree that institutionalised art is becoming somewhat of an echo chamber, trying to consolidate itself as ‘art’ at the expense of contributing to the creative process. It is on the fringes that we find the genuine creative contributors - those artists and collaborators who aren’t afraid for their work to be de-valued or dismissed as ‘not art’.
As an example in literature, ‘Fifty Shades Grey’ is dismissed as ‘Mom porn’, written in a style that horrified those who lamented its top spot on the bestsellers list for a record number of weeks. But the style is deliberate, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that challenges the dichotomous, black and white conceptual structures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that uphold institutions such as love, morality and family. What distinguishes a ‘good’ relationship or person from a ‘bad’ one? What distinguishes ‘good’ literature from ‘bad’? Do these black and white concepts consolidate, or is everything really just shades of grey? And how does the balance of power, its use and abuse, relate? But the significance of this work has gone largely unnoticed, so far.
Tangled up in efforts to demonstrate the value of ‘visual arts’ I think are efforts to protect its identity as such from the collaborative efforts of creative thinkers that transcend its boundaries, which undermine its creative progress. The real significance and value of visual art is not in its categorical identification as ‘art’, but in its capacity to contribute to the creative process. Perhaps it’s the concept of ‘art’ that is now largely superficial, not the process behind it.
I think we need to recognise the creative process as more valuable than the consolidated art or artists it produces. It has the effect, as we can see in music, of destroying the elitism of the arts industry, and making it almost impossible for someone to make a living from their ‘art’. But it enables anyone to recognise their capacity to contribute to the creative process, which can only increase awareness, connection and collaboration overall.
What if, instead of dividing our creative resources across arts, science, engineering, philosophy, politics and religion, we dissolve the institutions and instead negotiate structures according to originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity in creative processes? Just a wild thought...
Quoting Possibility
This is a bit unclear to me.
Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work?
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Possibility
This is how I interpret your post:
Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity
Understanding > creativity
But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:
Understanding > creativity > existence
What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.
Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator?
The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.
The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering.
However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.
In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art.
Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely.
I find the most interesting point that you make in your post addressed to me, because you have written many generally, is a recognition that art and spirituality were once one. I do wonder about this as an avenue for future exploration, but I am using both the term spiritual and art in a loose sense rather than in a strict one. However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence.
Quoting Possibility
There are things you say that I would agree with. To say yes to uncertainty can only make life better. To say yes to painting on Sundays is obviously better than saying no. And to absorb yourself in something can only be positive. The results don’t determine the value of painting on a Sunday.
This is not necessarily being creative, but it is something of value. Maybe it’s therapeutic, which is fine.
I decided I needed to do a bit of reading on this subject. This from the beginning of an article I’m reading;
“ The purpose of studying the audience is to tackle the problem of aesthetic communication where the sender (the artist) transmits a coded message (the artwork) to receivers (the audience).”
Picasso, Cubism and the Eye of the Beholder: Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychology. TOM ETTINGER, American Imago.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The problem I have with this, and the idea of spirituality, is that it seems to me we’re no longer those people. There may be some around, there are certainly a lot trying to be, but I think we’ve lost that. Though we haven’t forgotten it.
Yes, I am not sure that I like the word spiritual. It used to make sense to me, but not any longer. Perhaps our consciousness is changing.
Sorry, most of what I’m writing in this discussion is not as carefully thought through as I’d like. What I mean is that what we refer to as ‘art’ is not always considered ‘creative’ (sometimes it’s a study or imitation of established style, technique, creative identity, etc) and what we refer to as ‘creative’ is not always original (sometimes it’s consolidating the artist’s own understanding or initial relation to the creative process so far).
Quoting Brett
I can see now how this is confusing. I’m using ‘creativity’ to refer to:
- the underlying creative impetus at the core of existence,
- the creative process as it occurs, and
- humanity’s participation (self-conscious or otherwise) in this creative aspect of existence.
Let me see if I can clarify this better...
First of all, I’m not saying that ‘creativity creates’, because I don’t think consolidating creativity or attributing it to ‘something’ is an accurate understanding. I recognise that reducing what I’m trying to describe here to a logical statement enables you to ask logic-busting questions such as ‘who or what is the creator?’ (which is the same as asking ‘what is creativity?’), but the statement itself misses the point, which is that creativity is not the property of an event or a subject. It refers to the process, impetus or faculty at the core of existence: relational structure either beyond reason, perception or observation, depending on the dimensional level of awareness.
What commonly seems to escape notice in these discussions is that we’re navigate at least three different dimensional aspects: observation refers to 4D processes or actions in consolidating objects in relation to time, perception refers to 5D value or potential in consolidating events in relation to significance, and reason refers to the 6D faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in consolidating concepts in relation to meaning. Language cannot distinguish which aspect or level of awareness we are operating in, and the dictionary system is an insufficient relational structure to orient perspective (like we do with global time zones) in relation to either significance or meaning, because for the most part we assume that significance and meaning are the same, or at least that they should be aligned. Logic is an attempt to consolidate the equivalent of ‘global time’ by reducing meaning to significance, but any variability is discarded in this reductionist methodology for the sake of certainty.
So, when we say ‘create’, do we mean consolidate (as object, event or concept) or relate (beyond observation, perception or reason)? And when we say ‘creative’, are we referring to a capacity to relate or to consolidate, and at what level? And when we use the term ‘creativity’, are we referring to a faculty that enables relation and/or consolidation, and again at what level?
This may seem to complicate things, but if we’re talking about an aspect of existence that both appears definable and yet transcends all attempts at definition, chances are we’re referring to a six-dimensional aspect: a variability in meaningfulness regardless of value. So we’re not going to reach an agreed statement that defines creativity, because if we’re honest, we’d recognise that what we’re talking about (in its purest sense) transcends the relational structure of language.
This can make creativity seem really wish-washy, which is where the possibility of six-dimensional structure helps to keep everything in some kind of perspective. If we think of five-dimensional structure in terms of atemporal concepts such as knowledge, logic, mathematics, language, history, etc, then to the extent that all of these systems interrelate, they would do so within a six-dimensional structure, whether or not it matters, or we believe one exists. Such a structure would also include unconsolidated aspects of perceivable value, potential or significance that we’re presently unable (or unwilling) to understand, imagine or judge to the extent that we can conceptualise it. Creativity is not just the ‘free play’ of our faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in relation to these unconsolidated relational structures (as Kant suggests), but the extension of that free play into ALL aspects of existence, regardless of consolidation at any level - including the ‘self’. Consolidation ‘makes’ the world - but creativity is to increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with this ’free play’ in all relational structures.
Understanding builds a foundation for self-conscious creativity - it’s a reference structure that frees the faculties of imagination and judgement to play with what we don’t yet understand. Creativity is constrained by a limited relation to the moment. In a gross simplification, not understanding how green is both a pigment and a combination of blue and yellow pigments, for instance, constrains the creativity of a painter, whose imagination and judgement is occupied with the question of how to render green when he runs out of pigment.
Quoting Possibility
This is true. To me you tend to talk in a very structural way, like a brick builder. Which I need to adjust to understand what you’re getting at. What it does do is help crystallise some of my own thoughts and theories, which has led me to reading a bit about psychoanalytical reflections or interpretations of particular art. Also some comments about Wittgenstein and language have contributed.
It’s fine to me that this subject is difficult to tie down, it should be. So I’ll read your post more carefully tomorrow; red wine does not help.
Is a measurement value the only path to existence? In quantum physics, potential existence is sufficient, and the qualitative variability between strict divisions of quantitative measurement are undeniable. Potentiality is ‘measurable’ as a wavefunction, an irreducible relational structure between attention and effort - but this may be another discussion.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I will clarify here that I’m not expecting each person to become accomplished in ALL these realms - only that we grasp the value of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration across the various branches. In my job, I have certain qualifications, skills and experience that are valuable, but I’m also acutely aware of deficiencies I have in certain areas that are crucial to the position. I’ve been fortunate to work with a team member who, while she has no qualifications, is particularly skilled in those areas I find difficult or unrewarding. While my pay grade is higher, most of our colleagues would never know - between the two of us, we are more effective and efficient than two staff with identical, broad abilities.
I would imagine a similar thing occurs with nursing: you might be expected to do all these things, but your high proficiency in certain areas will fit better in some environments or teams than others.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Can you tell me what structures are not changeable to some extent? I’m not talking about division or categories, but principles. There is nothing static or concrete about creativity, except its very possibility.
This is not how I normally talk - but it’s how I find it most effective to explain my approach. I do lean towards ontological structural realism. While I can intuitively follow this all in my own mind, I’ve found it very easy to lose people in explanation, because of the variability in how we interpret certain terms in relation to objects, events, experiences or ideas. The structural language I use is a way to orient our perspectives in relation to each other, instead of talking across purposes or metaphorically, as tends to happen at this level. It can be frustrating initially, but it often seems to be productive for both parties in terms of clarifying ideas and theories. My aim is not to have you agree with me, but to give an idea of some of the relational structure between us. I like to think of it as ‘constructing the elephant’. I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable approach.
I do need to read up more on Wittgenstein - he keeps coming up in discussions with regard to language and meaning...
I am pleased that you are not suggesting that individuals should be proficient in all areas, but have connections with other areas and awareness.
When you speak of structures, which I am interpreting to cover the wide range of institutions and aspects of society, I feel that one critical aspect of this power structures. Based on my experience in nursing and medicine these seem to be hierarchical. The problem as I see it is that the awareness and connections made by people at the lower levels of the hierarchy are not necessarily incorporated at the level of decision making.
when I was working I felt that I had some slight influence. Of course, I had interaction with others on a day to day basis and tried to have awareness and connection to all fields. For example, I had example I worked alongside students coming from Universities, so this meant that I gained knowledge from them and hopefully they gained some from me. But, even then, the dialogue seemed limited because so much was about following policies and the agenda set by people at the top of the power structure.
To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence.
I think that I am just having difficulty conceiving of structures and perhaps the existing structures are collapsing. Perhaps the important structures are online, and this forum can be seen as one. So, your categorical could be relevant for considering the threads and posts too. So, we should probably look for awareness and connections in the many discussions we have rather than being locked into our views, and I would say that listening to other perspectives may be a way of enhancing creativity and exchange.
Creativity isn’t always about ‘making’ things - it’s also about perceiving all structure as variable, where others see only what is consolidated.
Its interesting that in your job that you were often seen as the 'tea lady' , when you probably did so much more. I think I was remembered in nursing jobs by patients for art more than anything else, to the point where a patient queried why I was giving medication to him, and he said, ' But, you're the art teacher,' My worst moments were when, in rehab hostels, I was expected to cook the supper, and sometimes my best resource was getting the patients to help, and technically I was correct, because psychiatric rehabilitation is meant to be about getting patients involved as part of the rehabilitation process.
I do think that power is a matter of perspective. At times, I feel that I am powerless, and other times, I realise that others seem almost unnerved by my power.
So, I would say that the whole question of creativity, in art and all aspects of life is a matter of perspective, with no absolutes, but a matter of framing. It involves conjuring up the imagination, rather than closing it down by focusing upon restrictions in a negative way.
It is creativity - in terms of awareness, connection and collaboration beyond ‘existing structures’ - that enables the perception of structure to change. There is a danger in thinking that your influence does not matter, or that no one cares what you think - these are limited perceptions that stifle your creativity, as I was describing to Brett earlier in reference to understanding. You seem to have plenty of skills and experience that are sorely needed in these unusual times by people who are marginalised - it would be a shame to let that go to waste by limiting yourself ‘within the framework of structures which exist’. Sometimes acting as if the structures are different can be enough to change them - ‘be the change you wish to see in the world’ is about creativity - recognising that the way you perceive the world matters, it’s just that no one else can see how it matters until you find a way to manifest it in the world. Awareness and connection are just the beginning: it is collaboration that engages the world in change. We need to stop thinking that change happens all at once when the ‘right person’ decides - often 99% of it is already in place by then. Like with the question of originality, is it more important to be recognised as the change-maker, or that change occurs?
I found your post helpful because I often get demoralised by people dismissing any ideas I have about influence and creativity. I probably shouldn't get disheartened but I find that most people try to discourage me, but of course I do not really side with the majority, but at the same time I am a bit sensitive to criticism.
I definitely believe in collaboration, but sometimes finding people to collaborate with is not easy. I do have ideas for involvement in art and creative writing groups. I was involved in such groups in libraries and a museum until all these closed in March. I find that trying to do most things, including find work, is so difficult when practically all the structures we know are shut down. I have found that the last year seemed to havel asted about 10 years. It will be interesting to see what life will be like after the pandemic and I am hoping that it will bring some positive changes.
Yes, it is important to try to be part of the positive change one would like to be. I definitely would like to be involved in bringing positive changes and I think that you are right to say that it is likely to be occurring by the time structural changes occur. I also hope that others read what you wrote because I think that people need to be inspired positively.
By collaboration, I don’t just mean with self-conscious, willing human beings. Collaborate with existing structures, with the current situation, with what’s going to happen anyway, with the flow of water, with gravity, with chi...this is creativity. When we understand the relational structures of the universe, or at least focus on increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, we don’t have to try to control or even ‘change’ anything - we can create our own opportunities. The world isn’t working against us - for the most part, it has no clue what we’re capable of, let alone what our intentions are...
I hope that 2021 is amazing for you - just don’t wait for life after the pandemic before you start.