:: creativity
I often find myself wondering what the purpose of my life is, and what pursuits in life are the most fruitful. Like I do with everything, I pegged over it and presented myself back a philosophical analysis of my own deliberation.
What I realized is that the only thing human beings are capable of doing that truly exceeds themselves is the act of original creations, simply put, creativity. What of creativity beyond the obvious? Isn't art creativity, or the act of making pretty much anything? Isn't every object constructed or thought conveyed by a human being an act of creation, as Nothing comes through untouched by the idiosyncracies of a specific individual's thought or design?
In my opinion, this kind of definition of "creativity" itself is too broad and it needs to be divided up. Hence the purpose of this writing. If creativity itself just implies the act of creating something new, then we're all creative and yet you don't need a genius to tell you that this assumption simply isn't true. The creations of some far outweight the creations of others and there exists a qualitative measure intrinsic to every human being, where the validity of "originality" in these creations is weighed almost immediately.
Now originality is important when concerning this "scheme" of creativity. Too often things through human invention are considered "creative" when they are merely logical conclusions of some other "creation" that has existed before them. For example, an architect redesigns a building to use air conditionning more economically. In this case, the architect is following a directive of "creating" something, but what he is creating is not necessarily "original" because the act of creation in this case follows a prior directive or an instruction. What the architect is doing is continuing, or restating a thing, in the same way that traditions reinstate themselves throughout generations, or in the way we all write job resumes or in this example, the way in which old buildings are retro-fitted to host new technology.
Look at a writer who publishes Harlequin Romance novels. Though the novels themselves have never been written before, the act of writing them isn't essentially creative (unfortunately it is in common conception) because the fundamental characteristics of the novel (the plot structure, the lead characters, the dynamics and plot development) are all based on a template which has already existed, the only changes consisting of a few minor alterations, such as a change in scenery.
So I have defined what creativity is not. It is not anything designed to merely "carry on" (the next in a chain), it is not mechanical: it is not a simple alternation on a pre-existing thing or "the next logical step" of human progress. What creativity is not is most human beings. Some individuals seemingly exist as pure reflections of their environment; i.e., they are human beings that come into the world in a state (intrinsic nature) and through an environment their behaviour emerges as a parallel process reflecting their intrinsic nature coupled with the environment they grew up in. What doesn't arise from this is something that would appear to not be logically conclusive, something purely random; essentially something that comes out of no recognizable part of what we know of them. Creativity, in this sense, is essentially something completely unexpected, deliberating out of a human being, that does not sync with what we can know about them: rather, it is something transcendent, it is impossibly possible.
I know that when I say "most human beings" are non-creative there is a certain offense to this. I do not mean this in the same sink I meant in an earlier post about "reflex animals" (people who are what they've been shaped to be). I believe that every person in the world has had some experience with creativity, for if this wasn't the case then the world would be truly predictable. The amount of creativity between individuals varies, of course (I'll speak more on it soon), but the instances of creativity or something we have all experienced.
In the 20th Century a kind of science emerged that made us seem like we were nothing more than the seeds of future generations of DNA and that within that scople, all human progress is nothing more than necessary steps taken to further reproductive progress. Now, to an extent I believe that this is true and that there is certainly some validity in this; but where I diverge is that I believe this "science" is no more than an explanation of certain behaviours. It is not an end (belief system).
In this vein, creativity is that which exceeds these "biologically determinent" theories into the purpose of the human race. Creativity comes from a void operating in the most random places through the most subtle people. When you look at someone like Kurt Cobain, you acknowledge that ingenuity he pumped into the music he created purely, in a way, made his music transcendent. This ingenuity took it somewhere higher where it could become culturally iconic. When we interpret this music we tap into something greater than ourselves, something outside/above.
Now, wouldn't it follow that everyone who understood (on some level) Kurt Cobain's music is creative? For in touching the transcendental we must have a seed inside ourselves, yes? Well, sure. When we connect with Art we are, in the connection, becoming transcendental. We are agents exceeding our parameters and entering abstraction; this is the very power and significance of Art. It is what defines our cultures and societies, it speaks to us about the human condition and the world itself in a language much more subtle than that which appears superficially.
But what of those that don't produce their creativity? Though capable of creative leaps and thoughts, are they creative as human beings? I don't think so. Producing your creativity: making it external, creating art and sharing it; that is creativity, because creativity isn't transcendental until it becomes an artifact. That is, it is not creativity or Art until it manifests as something outside ourselves; a salient feature in our perspectives and culture, a transcendental place to go to.
Also, in the creation of something outside the mind there is a double-sided validation/communal factor. When people interact with this creation, its strength and the power of its merits produce a wave effect that influences other people, all the way down to the fabric of their being. In this it is reinstated through people's actions; the creation becomes part of them and it guides their decisions, directly or indirectly, depending on the force of its impact. In this relationship with Art we exceed our limitations as humans and this is why creativity necessarily must exist outside our own minds.
I hope this makes sense to you.
What I realized is that the only thing human beings are capable of doing that truly exceeds themselves is the act of original creations, simply put, creativity. What of creativity beyond the obvious? Isn't art creativity, or the act of making pretty much anything? Isn't every object constructed or thought conveyed by a human being an act of creation, as Nothing comes through untouched by the idiosyncracies of a specific individual's thought or design?
In my opinion, this kind of definition of "creativity" itself is too broad and it needs to be divided up. Hence the purpose of this writing. If creativity itself just implies the act of creating something new, then we're all creative and yet you don't need a genius to tell you that this assumption simply isn't true. The creations of some far outweight the creations of others and there exists a qualitative measure intrinsic to every human being, where the validity of "originality" in these creations is weighed almost immediately.
Now originality is important when concerning this "scheme" of creativity. Too often things through human invention are considered "creative" when they are merely logical conclusions of some other "creation" that has existed before them. For example, an architect redesigns a building to use air conditionning more economically. In this case, the architect is following a directive of "creating" something, but what he is creating is not necessarily "original" because the act of creation in this case follows a prior directive or an instruction. What the architect is doing is continuing, or restating a thing, in the same way that traditions reinstate themselves throughout generations, or in the way we all write job resumes or in this example, the way in which old buildings are retro-fitted to host new technology.
Look at a writer who publishes Harlequin Romance novels. Though the novels themselves have never been written before, the act of writing them isn't essentially creative (unfortunately it is in common conception) because the fundamental characteristics of the novel (the plot structure, the lead characters, the dynamics and plot development) are all based on a template which has already existed, the only changes consisting of a few minor alterations, such as a change in scenery.
So I have defined what creativity is not. It is not anything designed to merely "carry on" (the next in a chain), it is not mechanical: it is not a simple alternation on a pre-existing thing or "the next logical step" of human progress. What creativity is not is most human beings. Some individuals seemingly exist as pure reflections of their environment; i.e., they are human beings that come into the world in a state (intrinsic nature) and through an environment their behaviour emerges as a parallel process reflecting their intrinsic nature coupled with the environment they grew up in. What doesn't arise from this is something that would appear to not be logically conclusive, something purely random; essentially something that comes out of no recognizable part of what we know of them. Creativity, in this sense, is essentially something completely unexpected, deliberating out of a human being, that does not sync with what we can know about them: rather, it is something transcendent, it is impossibly possible.
I know that when I say "most human beings" are non-creative there is a certain offense to this. I do not mean this in the same sink I meant in an earlier post about "reflex animals" (people who are what they've been shaped to be). I believe that every person in the world has had some experience with creativity, for if this wasn't the case then the world would be truly predictable. The amount of creativity between individuals varies, of course (I'll speak more on it soon), but the instances of creativity or something we have all experienced.
In the 20th Century a kind of science emerged that made us seem like we were nothing more than the seeds of future generations of DNA and that within that scople, all human progress is nothing more than necessary steps taken to further reproductive progress. Now, to an extent I believe that this is true and that there is certainly some validity in this; but where I diverge is that I believe this "science" is no more than an explanation of certain behaviours. It is not an end (belief system).
In this vein, creativity is that which exceeds these "biologically determinent" theories into the purpose of the human race. Creativity comes from a void operating in the most random places through the most subtle people. When you look at someone like Kurt Cobain, you acknowledge that ingenuity he pumped into the music he created purely, in a way, made his music transcendent. This ingenuity took it somewhere higher where it could become culturally iconic. When we interpret this music we tap into something greater than ourselves, something outside/above.
Now, wouldn't it follow that everyone who understood (on some level) Kurt Cobain's music is creative? For in touching the transcendental we must have a seed inside ourselves, yes? Well, sure. When we connect with Art we are, in the connection, becoming transcendental. We are agents exceeding our parameters and entering abstraction; this is the very power and significance of Art. It is what defines our cultures and societies, it speaks to us about the human condition and the world itself in a language much more subtle than that which appears superficially.
But what of those that don't produce their creativity? Though capable of creative leaps and thoughts, are they creative as human beings? I don't think so. Producing your creativity: making it external, creating art and sharing it; that is creativity, because creativity isn't transcendental until it becomes an artifact. That is, it is not creativity or Art until it manifests as something outside ourselves; a salient feature in our perspectives and culture, a transcendental place to go to.
Also, in the creation of something outside the mind there is a double-sided validation/communal factor. When people interact with this creation, its strength and the power of its merits produce a wave effect that influences other people, all the way down to the fabric of their being. In this it is reinstated through people's actions; the creation becomes part of them and it guides their decisions, directly or indirectly, depending on the force of its impact. In this relationship with Art we exceed our limitations as humans and this is why creativity necessarily must exist outside our own minds.
I hope this makes sense to you.