What is creativity?
Here follows a long and pretentious discussion that involves the philosophy of mind and arts, done in a very informal and sketchy manner!
Actually it's just a mash-up of different ideas I've had about it recently. Might be give you some new thoughts if you're into this stuff (didn't you hear? all the cool kids do philosophy these days!).
Beware wall of text before you click!
I find this much more compelling than defining art, etc. I believe that if one were to find clarity in this it may well provide answers to both the nature of mind and the arts.
It does however seem to inherit many of the problems that are linked with the definitions of both art and the mind, which makes it ridiculously hard to examine. Is creativity physical or abstract? Is it defined objectively or subjectively?
I’ll try to define it by itself as much as possible, for the lulz. I’ll concentrate on these approaches of definition:
• a trait (e.g. that is a creative person)
• a state (e.g. I feel creative now; that person is creative)
• a resource (e.g. I have run out of my creativity)
• a process (e.g. I am, uh, creativiting?)
A trait is the easiest one to understand, but not to argue for. It presumes that creativity is a talent, or something that a person has/is in a, more or less, permanent state. I could say that my sister is creative, for she draws a lot of new things, and so on.
This also creates a lot of problems: is creativity something you are born with, something you can learn, or both? If you are born with it, it should mean that genetic code specifies whether one is likely to draw a picture and whatnot. This seems ridiculous. Of course a family may seem to have creative minds in common but this is much more likely to do with upbringing and encouragment of similar interests. Does this mean it can be learnt? This is much more likely, but not in the sense of simple facts and similar. Rather it could be seen as a skill, which in turn can be encouraged. Like maths, or football, or whatever. This would explain the time it can take to become creative, why children are not as highly regarded for what they create (though I suppose this has to do with loads of technical things like composition theory), and so on.
To call it a state feels much more relevant in the sense that artists often require inspiration and certain late hours to come up with results. I, for one, like to write silly texts in the middle of the night (of course the quality of the result can matter). Supposedly, the frequency and capability of creating things can be increased as a skill. This motivates writer’s block, the requirement of inspiration and so on, while still keeping a possible benefit of the trait part.
If creativity is a resource we have some highly problematic issues. Since I believe in duality of mind and that creativity in turn is an abstract result of it, this introduces some quick philosophy of mind.
See, an idea, or abstract ‘matter’ can reproduce indefinetly, while physical matter reproduces by resource. Millions of people can share an idea without mentionable use of resources (here one could argue of energy being used by the body to perform all those synapses though - this is also where digital immaterial rights discussions can become very interesting, as we in fact do use resources and therefore some level of personal monetary effort to copy works, like making an own version of something already existing, for example making an own frying pan modeled after someone else’s frying pan for personal use, which is totally okay, just that digital resources are very cheap and do not require much effort) while making two bottles of Dr Pepper requires materials and so on for both.
If creativity was to be seen as a resource, it would probably also imply that it is physical rather than abstract, which in turn shows all the difficulties of what’s up with the mind. Like, where is it? Can I sell it in a can? Is it possible to remove it with surgery? Can I teleport it like in Star Trek?
Rather, one could take the cheap way out and say that creativity as a resource is called inspiration, which is a whole other subject.
A process is the most believable system in my opinion. This is also the most documented aspect, as I have heard, to view it from. See, the mind is pretty much all about making connections between subject A and subject B. This can, on a low level, say that the sky and the color blue have something in common. On a high level this may be a matter of emotions, that blue skies make me feel happy. Making those connections is however a much more mysterious aspect.
Some connections are purely inherited traits of what we experience, or the more obvious types of defining. For example, one can look at the sky, and see that it is big, blue, maybe has some clouds in it, and a sun, and some flying lazor kittehs, and so on. But if one starts to make deeper thought of it, one may think, what if the sky was green instead? What does the sky smell like? Is it cold or really warm up there?
This is when we really start to use our imagination (ok, using that word was kind of cheap of me) and experience connections that are not necessarily true but can exist in our mind. From this, we may create worlds that one can only dream of, or just make silly flying lazor kittiehs that look awesomely monochrome. This can also be applied to maths, football, gaming and other aspects of creativity that are not necessarily connected to the arts.
Now we get to the compromising ending. If we assume creativity to be a process, we can see it as a process which is used as any skill or trait. For example, maths is something that one can be good at. Being good at maths means that one can think in a specific way very well, and not only a knowing loads of facts about how algebra works and so on. Being good at photography, in general, means that one has great eye for details and easily forgotten or hidden objects and situations: apart from color theory and the mathematics of composition and so on.
The conclusion is that creativity works much in the same way: one creates in a process, but this may also be trained and encouraged, as well as inspired from an external resource.
Here follows a long and pretentious discussion that involves the philosophy of mind and arts, done in a very informal and sketchy manner!
Actually it's just a mash-up of different ideas I've had about it recently. Might be give you some new thoughts if you're into this stuff (didn't you hear? all the cool kids do philosophy these days!).
Beware wall of text before you click!
I find this much more compelling than defining art, etc. I believe that if one were to find clarity in this it may well provide answers to both the nature of mind and the arts.
It does however seem to inherit many of the problems that are linked with the definitions of both art and the mind, which makes it ridiculously hard to examine. Is creativity physical or abstract? Is it defined objectively or subjectively?
I’ll try to define it by itself as much as possible, for the lulz. I’ll concentrate on these approaches of definition:
• a trait (e.g. that is a creative person)
• a state (e.g. I feel creative now; that person is creative)
• a resource (e.g. I have run out of my creativity)
• a process (e.g. I am, uh, creativiting?)
A trait is the easiest one to understand, but not to argue for. It presumes that creativity is a talent, or something that a person has/is in a, more or less, permanent state. I could say that my sister is creative, for she draws a lot of new things, and so on.
This also creates a lot of problems: is creativity something you are born with, something you can learn, or both? If you are born with it, it should mean that genetic code specifies whether one is likely to draw a picture and whatnot. This seems ridiculous. Of course a family may seem to have creative minds in common but this is much more likely to do with upbringing and encouragment of similar interests. Does this mean it can be learnt? This is much more likely, but not in the sense of simple facts and similar. Rather it could be seen as a skill, which in turn can be encouraged. Like maths, or football, or whatever. This would explain the time it can take to become creative, why children are not as highly regarded for what they create (though I suppose this has to do with loads of technical things like composition theory), and so on.
To call it a state feels much more relevant in the sense that artists often require inspiration and certain late hours to come up with results. I, for one, like to write silly texts in the middle of the night (of course the quality of the result can matter). Supposedly, the frequency and capability of creating things can be increased as a skill. This motivates writer’s block, the requirement of inspiration and so on, while still keeping a possible benefit of the trait part.
If creativity is a resource we have some highly problematic issues. Since I believe in duality of mind and that creativity in turn is an abstract result of it, this introduces some quick philosophy of mind.
See, an idea, or abstract ‘matter’ can reproduce indefinetly, while physical matter reproduces by resource. Millions of people can share an idea without mentionable use of resources (here one could argue of energy being used by the body to perform all those synapses though - this is also where digital immaterial rights discussions can become very interesting, as we in fact do use resources and therefore some level of personal monetary effort to copy works, like making an own version of something already existing, for example making an own frying pan modeled after someone else’s frying pan for personal use, which is totally okay, just that digital resources are very cheap and do not require much effort) while making two bottles of Dr Pepper requires materials and so on for both.
If creativity was to be seen as a resource, it would probably also imply that it is physical rather than abstract, which in turn shows all the difficulties of what’s up with the mind. Like, where is it? Can I sell it in a can? Is it possible to remove it with surgery? Can I teleport it like in Star Trek?
Rather, one could take the cheap way out and say that creativity as a resource is called inspiration, which is a whole other subject.
A process is the most believable system in my opinion. This is also the most documented aspect, as I have heard, to view it from. See, the mind is pretty much all about making connections between subject A and subject B. This can, on a low level, say that the sky and the color blue have something in common. On a high level this may be a matter of emotions, that blue skies make me feel happy. Making those connections is however a much more mysterious aspect.
Some connections are purely inherited traits of what we experience, or the more obvious types of defining. For example, one can look at the sky, and see that it is big, blue, maybe has some clouds in it, and a sun, and some flying lazor kittehs, and so on. But if one starts to make deeper thought of it, one may think, what if the sky was green instead? What does the sky smell like? Is it cold or really warm up there?
This is when we really start to use our imagination (ok, using that word was kind of cheap of me) and experience connections that are not necessarily true but can exist in our mind. From this, we may create worlds that one can only dream of, or just make silly flying lazor kittiehs that look awesomely monochrome. This can also be applied to maths, football, gaming and other aspects of creativity that are not necessarily connected to the arts.
Now we get to the compromising ending. If we assume creativity to be a process, we can see it as a process which is used as any skill or trait. For example, maths is something that one can be good at. Being good at maths means that one can think in a specific way very well, and not only a knowing loads of facts about how algebra works and so on. Being good at photography, in general, means that one has great eye for details and easily forgotten or hidden objects and situations: apart from color theory and the mathematics of composition and so on.
The conclusion is that creativity works much in the same way: one creates in a process, but this may also be trained and encouraged, as well as inspired from an external resource.
No comments:
Post a Comment