What is Creativity and How May it be Understood Philosophically?
I am raising this question partly as a result of reading 'Philosophy Now: The Creativity Issue' (November 2022/ December 2023). I am also interested in the nature of the creative process. At the moment, there are the many creative writing threads of micro fiction, which some readers may find hard to frame within the context of philosophy. I am interested in the relationship between the creative processes, and these may not be exclusive to the arts but relevant to all aspects of innovation. In the magazine mentioned, in the editor, Grant Bartley, says,
'Creativity is fundamentally the ability to come up with new ideas. An alternative term for it might be free imagination.'
Bartley mentions the idea of genius in relation to those who come up with unique visions. I am amazed at the unique visions of some of the most unique minds, ranging from Van Gogh, William Blake, Charles Dickens, Einstein, and many who seem to have developed unique perspectives and ways of seeing. However, I do wonder how ideas of creativity are socially constructed and to what extent do some pursue their creative quests in relation to social circumstances and luck. I see John Lennon as so inspirational, but was his creative quest dependent on meeting Paul McCartney and other members of the Beatles, and Yoko Ono. I am not adding Yoko as a mere afterthought, because love and evoking the 'muses' has been considered important for some, although may be dismissed by some in the context of scientific materialism.
I am raising this thread to ask where does creativity fit into the picture of philosophy? How may the sources of the creative processes be understood in society and on a personal basis? To what extent is creativity valued or undervalued in the twentieth first century?
'Creativity is fundamentally the ability to come up with new ideas. An alternative term for it might be free imagination.'
Bartley mentions the idea of genius in relation to those who come up with unique visions. I am amazed at the unique visions of some of the most unique minds, ranging from Van Gogh, William Blake, Charles Dickens, Einstein, and many who seem to have developed unique perspectives and ways of seeing. However, I do wonder how ideas of creativity are socially constructed and to what extent do some pursue their creative quests in relation to social circumstances and luck. I see John Lennon as so inspirational, but was his creative quest dependent on meeting Paul McCartney and other members of the Beatles, and Yoko Ono. I am not adding Yoko as a mere afterthought, because love and evoking the 'muses' has been considered important for some, although may be dismissed by some in the context of scientific materialism.
I am raising this thread to ask where does creativity fit into the picture of philosophy? How may the sources of the creative processes be understood in society and on a personal basis? To what extent is creativity valued or undervalued in the twentieth first century?
Comments (98)
Maths and formal logic are exemplars of disciplines that don't afford much importance to creativity. They are very A to B.
On the other hand, poetry, riddles, parables and figurative language that may on the surface say "one thing literally" but beg to be interpreted outside of that restrictive field, are perfect examples of creativity.
Creativity is for this reason often associated with abstraction. Concreteness is contrarily objective in nature.
While firm logic/reason argues for an occams razor type approach. Cut out the middle man. Speak plainly Dear, creativity butts its head and says "why go straight from A to B when you can meander through C-Z on your way?
The idea of 'the less trodden' may be important because it may take an important step in innovation to seek innovation. It may correspond with evolutionary pathways, and difficulties or conflict may be the starting point for the search for new possibilities.
It is interesting that you see creativity in connection with abstraction because I have always seen it as being about the breaking free from abstractions, especially in the way in which experience often challenges the nature of theory.
I definitely see concreteness of thinking as being opposed to the spirit of creativity. Thinking creatively, as a part of philosophy, may be like a form of mental gymnastics. It can include the many variables, ranging from the logical, rational, aesthetic and psychological dimensions of human understanding.
I see your point here. Very much so. I understand that theory is technically abstract in the sense that it is not yet established or agreed upon as logical, sterile, simple and concrete fact. Facts being usually devoid of creativity.
Except perhaps the "fact that creativity exists and is useful."
However, theories are usually well defined. They tend to be attempts to tie loose ends together in a flow of reason. And are thus specific and do not deviate. So it can be equally argued that theory is not creative based on its sole aspiration to be taken as verbatim, as fact.
Copernicus' theory that the Earth actually revolves around the sun in the histórical context of mysticism and religion, can be seen as an abstraction reaching out far beyond the purview of the "rational" - what is assumed to be true, the status quo, dictated by the church. Therfore it was considered absurd, heresy.
Now of course it is a basic fact that lacks creativity. It's logical. It's concrete (through demonstration and experiment, and it's ability to predict things much better than a terrestrial-centric solar system would.
Therefore, it is my opinion that there is a playful dynamic between creativity/imagination, the abstract (a novel proposition) and the paradigm of "established" facts, of best knowledge to date.
What was once abstract, considered far fetched and the realm of pure imaginary indulgence, is now fact.
What was once fact, is now absurd, the realm of creativity and far-fetchedness - like flat earthers.
What counts as creativity?
In a way, creativity can be a blurry concept philosophically. However, the idea of innovation, the 'new, as well as modification of ideas may be important. In understanding, both mythos and logos may be essential too, because divisions of reason, emotion and intuition may be partial aspects of creativity in the nature of understanding
Of course, all the aspects of business, politics and health are important as aspects of creativity?
My own questioning would be how this relates to the deepest aspects of creativity. I have a bias towards the arts, but acknowledge my own bias. So the question of creativity and its understanding of it may come back to the underlying one of what does it mean to be human? The ideas and ideals generated by people rest on so many assumptions and ideals of the idea of 'creativity' and other intrinsic values.
.
But its also interesting (and instructive, imo) that Nietzsche is using the language of religious revelation or mystical experience to describe the aesthetic experience of creative inspiration, despite his being very explicitly both an atheist and an anti-theist/anti-Christian; for Nietzsche, it is the aesthetic experience that is the true religious experience... more traditional religious or mystical experience being an illusion or a second-best thing.
This thinking is so shallow it sinks below wrong. :roll:
Well then enlighten me. Please elaborate.
Creativity: The Essence of Mathematics
Understanding Creativity in Mathematics
An example of minor creativity
The notion that creativity is limited to a certain group of activities is wrong. People are creative all the time, no matter what they are doing.
The scope of the understanding of what it means to be creative may be restrictive, just as the value of other ideals and goals may be. It may come down to the construction of values, including those underlying philosophy and science. It may be asked to what extent is creativity important?
Take for example the forum we are posting on. Every time I write something, even out of habit or mistake, I'm being creative.
Wouldn't it depend upon the venue we're being creative in, to evaluate to what extent creativity is important?
If we want a traditional meal from our childhood, we wouldn't value creativity as much as sameness. It's the habit, rather than the novel creation, that is attractive.
But if we want something novel, for whatever reason (I can think of too many), we'd value creativity.
This is exactly wrong. Pure mathematics is nothing but creativity. That's why math is usually classified as an art rather than a science.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Platonists would account for creativity by saying that new ideas are "discovered" rather than created. Ironically, Plato himself demonstrated this description to be inaccurate, turning instead to "the good" as the source of creativity. Appeal to "discovery" is like a cheat, avoid the difficult question of how a new form comes into existence, by saying that it already existed eternally, and was merely discovered. Determinism and "eternalism" use the same cheat, anything which appears to be new is said to have been predetermined for all time.
Interesting topic Jack. Creativity & philosophy are to be found in novels, movies, plays, etc. Didn't know this until I saw a review of Sartre's play No exit online.
I was probably fortunate in having the English teachers which I had, especially in sixth form. They opened up a world of philosophy in Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. I also remember reading Blake's 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' many times as it raised so much to think and worry about. And, it really was 'worry,'. My school friends probably got fed up with me moaning and groaning about such ideas, just as I go on about things on this forum!
It is interesting how some philosophers also write fiction, including Camus and Iris Murdoch. But, it may be that fiction comes from a slightly different place or state of mind.
Great! What about aesthetics, allegedly a branch of philosophy?
Aesthetics appreciation is important as well as the philosophy ideas in the arts. I know people who have studied art based degrees and they have looked at aspects like aesthetic tastes from the point of view of phenomenology. I have a friend who did an art MA and wrote a paper on transience in still life.
Too, do you recall there was a thread on Marcel Duchamp's urinal (Fountain)? Art, philosophy, art, philosophy. Interesting, oui, mon ami?
What I do remember is having a discussion with you at some point, in your former reincarnation identity, about urinals as art, because I had a friend who used to have many in his art. He used to create designs on them to make them look like gothic temples. This was a statement about religion and sexuality. Actually, one of my English 'A' Level teachers has written a book, 'Sin, Sex and Psychology.'
On the subject of art...I am curious about your new picture, wondering if it is really YOU. However, you may wish to keep quiet in case someone with the technology gives you a sex change...
On the topic of Plato, the question about where images come from is a question which I do wonder about a lot. That is because Plato's idea of Forms or archetypes corresponds with Jung's ideas of the collective unconscious and archetypes.
Based on my own experiences of not just dreams but also on borderline sleep experiences and lucid dreaming, I would say that they come from some kind of objective source. At times, I have visionary experiences which are like intricate art work and they seem as if they are far beyond my own rational creative power. I would like to do art based on these but it is difficult because I can't recall the exact details when my eyes are open.
However, if one does believe in the existence of the collective unconscious as objective, the realm between the personal and collective sphere may be complicated. That is because characters in novels may be sub personalities of the authors.
Generally, I think that many do not believe in the validity of the collective unconscious and the forms. This is connected to the predominant influence of physicalist models of the mind. I am aware that my own point of view is not a common one within philosophy and is more in line with esoteric ideas, especially the Hermetic tradition.
.
Creativity - you should watch TikTok or the shorts section on youtube. Need I mention memes? Bullseye after bullseye after bullseye - it should be made into an Olympic sport (mind games?), medals, endorsements and all.
Believe it or not, I can't get into You Tube. I like listening to albums on CD and reading books, especially paper ones. To some extent I think that the internet is changing the shape of art. There may be some positives, especially in the way that many fiction authors who would probably have never managed to publish are able to do so. Also, Kindles are wonderful. I managed to download so many classics a few years and read them, and probably would not have done so.
With music, even though you are not a pop and rock fan, one of the problems which many people find is that on music made digitally is that it is different from that made in studios. In particular, the vocals often are often muffled in what may be regarded as soundscapes.
If anything, my biggest gripe is where the arts become light entertainment as opposed to being made and appreciated as works of art. One of the reasons why records may be popular is that they give scope for sleeve artwork and lyrics to be part of the creative process.
If I were you, I would not assign the creative power to the rational element. The rational element, by what it means to be "rational" is quite simply conformed through training and societal forces. Training and habituation robs the rational element of the capacity for creativity.
I discussed this briefly recently in the thread called "The Will". the need to separate the will as the initiator of action, from the rational mind, as the judge of which course of action to take.
In this case, where you are looking to promote creativity, originality, it is imperative to separate the will as the creator, from the control of the habituated rational mind which stifles creativity, in order to let the creative juices flow. Meditation might be a good practise, but your description of borderline sleep, and lucid dreaming provides another approach. In sleep, the creative mind is freed from rational influence, so to harness the creative power you would need to have the rational mind play the role of a passive observer, without influencing the direction of the creative power. What I do sometimes is when I wake up after a dream I memorize key ingredients of the dream which appear to possess creative potential.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I look at the unconscious as the instinctual, the intuitive, what is given or inherited through genetics. In this sense it is "collective" as what has been collected over millions of years of being, but this might not be "collective" in the way you are using it. Each person's collection of past experiences (prior to one's birth) is unique to the person, and so it is not "collective" in the sense of a person being a part of a united whole, rather "collective" in the sense of being a united whole composed of a collection of parts. It is interesting though, how different people share many identical parts (indicated by genetics), having common ancestors. And then there are mutated parts, which are the source of creativity within the being, and the essential aspect of evolution.
I keep the widest possible understanding of what creativity means. It may be subjective. I may have a slight fixation on the notion of creativity as the two activities which I chose to do within my nursing job were creative art or creative writing groups. Of course, many may see so many activities as having creative potential and funnily enough, I don't remember any science based activities In the hospital where I worked. If I ever go back to work in mental health, perhaps I should do a creative science group. I am not sure about a philosophy group in a psychiatric setting, it may be too overstimulating and it may even provoke conflicts and literal fights!
I don't disagree with your understanding based on evolution and even Jung was ambiguous on the matter. He was juggling between biological naturalism and Kantian metaphysics. Schopenhauer tried to bring Kant's idea of the transcendent down to human experience and the will. This would be equal to understanding the numinous down to creativity in the realm of the arts. However, the question as to whether there is anything beyond is another matter and it could e lead into the quantum level of the notion of the multiverse. There is also David Bohm's idea of the explicate order and the implicate order.
It is interesting to think whether the idea of aesthetic taste is evolved or not. Certainly, I have always gravitated to the arts and inner reality. I am a daydreamer and don't like practical tasks or sports, especially as I have poor physical coordination. To some extent, everyone is wired uniquely and it may go back to early patterns of learning.
Some may see the evolution of aesthetic taste as being about 'culture' and there are different perspectives. It was during my time of studying art therapy that I discovered nu metal and it felt like an encounter with 'the shadow'. Marilyn Manson was interested in Jung's ideas. In his autobiography he said how at one point he did believe that he was 'the Antichrist' literally. He got to the point where he concluded that it was symbolic. There is the question how dark should one go? Even though I still have a lot of metal and emo music I wouldn't listen to it constantly and try to get a balance. It may be about going to what shamanic practitioners describe as the upper and lower worlds.
I just read your second post to me from yesterday. I agree about playfulness in relation to imagination. I have always loved playing because my mum encouraged so much fantasy. She used to act in plays and even once worked as a magician's assistant on stage. She also loved teddy bears and I may have come close to being called Rupert. A friend criticised her so much for her love of teddies, saying before I was born that I would probably look like a teddy. I didn't but I did like teddy bears.
One important writer on creativity is Donald Winnicott. He even brings teddies into his thinking. He sees the child's blanket and later, the teddy bears as transitioning objects. He refers to these as being important in symbolic understanding, creativity, and as a starting point for communication with others.
Imaginary friends and projecting personhood onto inanimate objects is an integral phase of child development. It's actually considered a red flag if children don't go through this phase of imaginary friends. A sign of autism or neuroatypical cognition.
It's believed that it is the social brains healthy development, exercising itself, practicing social interaction in a controlled setting. Preparing itself for real social encounters.
It makes a lot of sense actually, as the ability to socialise is the natural next step to language acquisition, the ability to self express.
Children imbue self into their dearest toys or teddies so they can converse, think aloud as it were and roleplay.
Society is about roleplay in essence. Everyone has a part to play. Children recognise this through the exercise of having an invisible or inanimate best friend. A parent need not be concerned as it demonstrates their child has social intelligence, an invaluable skill.
I wish I could understand what you're trying ta get at, but I wouldn't know how - I lack the knowledge & experience to do so. Anyway, I just worked with what I had - that many people associate creativity with art and art falls under the rubric of aesthetics, a subdiscipline of philosophy. Also Duchamp's Fountain piece is allegedly the philosophification of art i.e. it represents the birth of a new movement in which aesthetics is deprioritized. I read all that a long time, so I can't guarantee how accurate the info is.
I think philosophy is has in some sense always been about 'conceptual and moral creativity' insofar as it problematizes exposes and calls into question how 'ways (habits) of living' and 'ways (habits) of thinking' incorrigibly fail to be creative (adaptive).
IMO, this is too large and varied a topic for a post. Consider (if you haven't already, Jack) this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
I suspect creativity is "valued" today mostly in forms of economic or monetizable 'innovations', quite "undervalued" throughout primary-secondary education (certainly in the US and other theo/neo-fascist countries) and devalued as threatening in classist, national & international 'politics' everywhere. The Frankfurt School's critiques of the culture industry and (it's knockoff) the Wachowskis sisters' The Matrix have some insightful things to say about this 'fetishistic-p0m0 use of creativity' to reify ideologize sociopolitical status quos.
I am glad to see a reply from you because I was surprised that you hadn't submitted an entry for the micro fiction, so I was worried
Thanks for the link and I will read it later and I haven't even finished reading 'The Philosophy Now' issue on creativity. It probably is a topic that is too wide for a thread but I wanted it to be fairly broad because it often seems science has monopoly over the arts in philosophy. There are not that many arts based philosophy threads on this forum and the one which I enjoyed in particular was the one by @Gus Lamarch about a year ago on 'The Metaphysics of Poetry'.
On this particular forum there do appear to be so many extremely creative people and that is why I thought that it was worth making a thread on it. I do agree that the question whether creativity is valued is a very worthwhile one. My own answer is that it varies so much.
Certainly, when I was working in mental health nursing I felt creativity was being squeezed out of importance. The arts therapies were almost being phased out, for financial reasons and I found that on a day to day it was like work was becoming more and more robotic. I felt that staff were meant to be able to do just about all tasks except for arts and creativity. Even writing reports were done on templates with such strict guidelines.
Even some areas are more creative than others. I am not very keen on the area I live in because it is so lacking in art activities of any kind. If I can I prefer to spend time in places like Camden Town, but even this has become far less bohemian and arty than it used to be. Most of the record and bookshops have been closed down and so many venues where creative people used to go. Part of this may be related to so much being done online. I do like a certain amount online, such as this forum, but I do like face to face activities too.
It may be that creativity is valued by many still but its platforms are changing. Also, there is often an idea of the arts as recreation, as opposed to it as a source of meaning, which is the way in which I value the arts, and from my understanding of your approach, you are interested in a far deeper way than just as entertainment as a way to wind down from so-called 'important' tasks. About the worst work experience I had was with a manager about a couple of years ago who seemed to dismiss the arts and my interest in this in working with patients. She thought assisting them with cooking and cleaning tasks was far more important.
Some people seem to have more interest in imaginary friends than others. Even as an adult I often find that fantasised romances are often more helpful than the real ones. This may even relate to the concept of the 'muse'. As a child I used to pretend to be various pop and rock stars and play all kinds of fantasy games. It was such fun and all this may be the essential aspect of fantasy and its role in imagination.
On the topic of autism, I have done art groups with people on the autistic spectrum. They are often very concrete in thinking and have difficulty understanding other minds. This is not just based on my experience of working with them, but important areas of research. They also benefit a lot from art therapy, often finding it easier to express themselves through art than verbally.
I haven't interacted with you before, so I am glad to do so. I really like the name, 'Magic triangle'. It does seem that you describe the creative processes so well.
The people who stand out as geniuses are such a phenomena. It is one of the reasons why I do wonder about the possibility of reincarnation because some of the greatest writers and thinkers develop so beyond the realms of others that it makes me wonder if this development could have been achieved in one lifetime.
Of course, on the other hand it is likely that most people develop such a fraction of their potential. The 'tweaks' which some develop may bypass others habitual patterns, possible at the level of cognitive wiring. Also, with some of the geniuses it is as like they have a distinct way of seeing, like Salvador Dali. One interesting example may have been Stephen Hawking who developed such understanding, especially with his debilitating physical health issues.
You mention "art and creativity" almost interchangeably when art is, in fact, only one type of creativity. Science, history, play, etc are also types of creativity. Philosophy too, as I've pointed out. If your concern is specifically art or aesthetics, then you may find the thread discussion in which this old post comes from interesting.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344963
You query what I am getting at, probably in the idea for the thread. I am interested in art,including aesthetic taste. There is the question whether such taste is objective or subjective, or intersubjective. This goes back to discussion by Kant to the ideas of the phenomenological tradition. I find the approach of the phenomenologist thinkers particularly useful in this respect in relation to the experiential aspects of sensory perception. It also relates to qualia and how perception arises.
However, my main interest in the philosophy of creativity is in connection with the creative process. The understanding of the process may be so important for fine tuning one's own creativity rather than just as a theoretical discussion. I would like to become more creative, in writing and art, and all aspects of life.
:ok: :cool:
I did wonder if there was some reason why you had not been involved in the micro fiction because you are usually present. So, I hope that the medical interventions improve. I have been less involved because I have been trying to find somewhere to live for over 3 months and it is not easy to find anywhere, so I am still looking. At the moment in England it is colder than it has been in years and I am finding it hard to do most things.
As far as creativity is concerned it is most definitely not exclusive to the arts. Sometimes, people do see it that way and so many scientists and inventors are astoundingly creative. In some cases the creativity can encompass the whole spectrum, with individuals like Leonardo de Vinci. It is probably the situation that disciplines have become so specialised that it hard to be an all rounder. The one advantage of all the information on the internet is that it makes it so much easier to read around such a vast amount of literature on many topics allowing for a general background knowledge, as a starting point for unique innovation.
It is just so hard finding somewhere in London. The reason why I have to find somewhere (and the others here) is because the landlord, who was subletting, has gone missing in Pakistan. The owner is repossesing. Mind you, I do want to move anyway because the bed here is so broken i that I slide into the base. I try to keep some humour over my bed. When I try going to the top it is like climbing up a hill. It is also such a gigantic bed that it is hard to find sheets which will fit.
I hope that you are able to read fully again and don't strain your eyes reading on a computer. Even though the stories are short there are a lot of entries and reading on screen is a strain on the eyes. Reading and writing are such a main part of your life, but music can help. it is amazing how many people have participated, and@Amity is doing so much reviewing again. At some point, it would be great if we see a story from her as well.
I would say creativity is the reordering of things that exist into a concept that you have not encountered before. So for example, I take a bunch of legos and come up with a new structure or way of putting them together with glue that will decay after a day. I make this nice lego structure, then film the blocks falling one by one as the structure decays in real time. I then note that if we represents that the glue of society must continually be refreshed or it will decay.
Now is it popular, effective, or profitable creativity? If I presented the format correctly, maybe. Being creative doesn't mean what you've created will be appreciated or valued by anyone else but you. Because you are putting together something that very few, or perhaps no one else has done before, you need to put it before lots of people to see if its something they appreciate or value.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The reality is that creativity is most often a failure in the eyes of many people. Something too alien or outside of one's comfort zone makes many people uncomfortable. Creativity often times breaks unspoken and sometimes spoken rules and norms of society. How do I know this? I am a creative person. Its gets me in trouble, a LOT. Some people despise or do not want to see my view points. Other times you might hit gold on something creative, and some may love what it brings to the table.
All people have strengths and weaknesses. To be creative, yet understand what society wants, be socially stable, good looking, have access to money, and charismatic is a combination needed for success that extremely few people have on their own. The reality for most of us is people succeed through collaboration. Most of the individuals who received recognition throughout history had a team or friends that were just as important and a part of their success as that individual was. One person may get the "credit", but they could never have done it by themselves.
For a creative person to have success, they need friends or business minded people around them who can help find the valuable bits of creativity within the mounds of trash that are produced. They need people who are NOT creative, who understand how the world exists today, and what people today want and need. Further, the creative person needs people around them to provide them acceptance, time, and many times money to provide an environment where a creative person can just focus on their work.
Creative people in such an environment are invaluable to society. Creative people outside of such an environment may be seen as crack pots, socially inept, or failures who need to go get a real job. Good question Jack!
What is art therapy?
Art therapy is the practice of art expression as a way of facilitating therapy, which may be done individually with a therapist or in a group. There are various approaches to it, and the one which I am familiar with is that the psychoanalytic based one. That is because the course, which I did, but did not complete due to personal circumstances was art psychotherapy at Goldsmiths College, in South East London.
In art psychotherapy the relationship between the therapist and the patient is a central focus. Individual sessions also adopt the 50 minute hour. Throughout training all students are required to be in personal therapy and for almost a year I had therapy lying down on the couch, which I found to be an extremely unusual experience.
All art therapists, trained at the various institutions are on a register of the British Association of Art Therapists and if someone runs groups as an art therapist without undertaking the training it is actually illegal, because it is a recognised profession. So, when I was running art groups in my nursing jobs I called them 'Creative art', as opposed to calling it art therapy. Nevertheless, the term art therapy is sometimes used in a very casual way, which I am sure is frowned upon by professionals. In particular, there are various colouring books for adults which have the words 'art therapy' in the title.
I was surprised to discover that in spite of his emphasis on objectivity in general, Kant, in his discussion of aesthetic judgment places a large emphasis on its subjectivity.
Do you see the yin and yang as representing "ugly disfigurement'. I see it as being about the essential nature of opposites. Without the interplay of opposites there would be no good, heaven or happiness. Of course, there are shades in between the two.
Even with intersubjective aspects of consensus there is a lot of variation in aesthetic tastes. Even with physical appearance of people, and recognised standards of beauty, not everyone is attracted to the exact same people. Also, with even people who not attractive to many, they usually have some kind of beauty if people try to find it. One of the saddest stories is probably that of 'The Elephant Man', John Merrick. One thing which I read about him though was that he had beautiful hands.
Many don't appreciate creative people and have the attitude that they should get a 'proper job'. It is also difficult to make money out of creativity although people who are creative in science and technology probably manage to do so much more than in the arts. I do have a couple of friends who try to make money out of art and painting. However, they do struggle to do this, and have to teach classes as well as do their art. Apart from people who are really successful in the arts, and get to the top, the majority don't make much money from it and do it more az a hobby. Some have day jobs and a lot of arty people are a bit bohemian and find it hard to fit to fit in to the point of holding down a job, Even with scientists there is the archetypal picture of the eccentric professor, although that may be a bit of a stereotype.
It's interesting that you're also a subscriber to the yin-yang channel. It does fit with what we observe doesn't it? I, for some odd reason, remain in the dark as to the nub of the idea - there's a missing piece of the puzzle which I'm unable to locate. Too bad, :sad:
I first came across the idea of the yin and the yang in Jung's writings. The idea of poles come into it and Heraclitus's concept of enantiodromia is important, with the extremes having been reached leading to the opposite. I am not sure how this would follow with beauty because what is seen as ugly doesn't necessarily become beautiful. However, familiarity may be important and taste being acquired. There have been songs which I hated on first listen but over a time grew to love.
I haven't read much on advaita but I may try to do so at some point. Some philosophies seem so dualistic, including Christianity. As far as beauty is seen there are some contrasts such as the gargoyles in churches and the Gothic.
Gracias for lettin' me know - didn't know that yin-yang has Greek roots too. Enantiodromia, nice!
:chin: Good day Jack! You've been most kind & equally if not more helpful.
Creativity, how does yin-yang help you in grasping the idea?
The Greeks don't discuss yin and yang as such but Heraclitus's ideas of opposites are fairly parallel.
As far as my own understanding of yin and yang is connected to my own grasping of creativity is in thinking about destruction as the opposite process. I am aware of having an inner saboteur and see myself as my own worst enemy at times. For example, I am rather chaotic. I often get my room so messed up that I hate being in it. I also do get into negative states of mind.
In thinking about the battle between destruction and creativity it connects with Jung's idea of the integration of the shadow. I read about this in Jung's book, ' Answer to Job' which I am sure I have spoken about in other threads. It does look at the collective shadow but is also relevant for thinking about the personal issues with the shadow. It was in the discussion of opposites there that I read about the ideas of Heraclitus.
.
I guess it does depend on what one understands opposites to be. It is a fuzzy concept because they are not aspects with clear distinct boundaries. That is because to some extent they are socially constructed rather than 'out there' metaphysics. This applies to concepts like good and evil, masculine and feminine as well as love and hate. It may be that Jung himself ignores the social construction of ideas with a tendency to treat the ideas as actual metaphysics. This probably stems from how he blends so many ideas together and this may limit the scope of his arguments from a critical philosophy perspective.
I think there is a Yin/Yang relationship in design. The imitation of symmetry and patterns we encounter in nature are transformed into the formal element that emerges in what we make. What is beautiful is not, however, the artificial replacing the natural. Too much structure is oppressive. Leaving everything to chance is a kind of submission. Repetition of some things is ugly, even if not oppressive by themselves as rare events. The inability to repeat other events is a source of much torment.
So, the one who makes, lives in a complex web. The balance depicted in the symbol of Yin and Yang is usually envisioned as a gift. The speaker in Homer asked for the Muses to sing.
As I've often said, with a heavy heart I might add, I really don't comprehend duality (yin-yang and all). Heraclitean duality (enantiodromia @Jack Cummins) is basically Taoist yin-yang dichotomy (splitting the world into opposites and observing their interaction). Like in Aristotelian philosophy we have the aurea mediocritas, the point is to reach some kind of equilibrium between, sensu latissimo, light & dark. The Heraclitean (panta) rhei (flux) probably describes the transformation of light into dark and vice versa (cyclical change?). It appears to me as a pendulum - the interchange between kinetic energy (actual) & potential energy (potential).
Nice!
What do you make of the Hindu Trinity?
1. Brahma (creator)
2. Vishnu (preserver)
3. Shiva (destroyer)
From a yin-yang perspective, Vishnu (2) doesn't exist - the period of "preservation" is but the (Heraclitean) rhei (flux) we know as yang of growth ([math]\uparrow[/math]) and the yin of decay ([math]\downarrow[/math])
I have always loved the yin and yang symbol. I once had a hoodie displaying it. The idea of repetition being ugly is important because it does seem that monotony is problematic. We even need the swings to the poles to make life interesting, although I often feel that I don't get enough in between times. Often, there are more downs than ups. Also, I find that so often after a positive comes a down, almost leading me to fear what comes next after an up. But, it may be that creativity and aesthetics is about arranging all the patterns in one's mind eye.
An interesting comparison- creativity being like pornography. There is also the question as to what extent is pornography creative? Here, it could be argued that pornography reduces bodies to being sex objects for display. However, what about erotic art and the potentials of the erotic imagination in creativity? Colin Wilson, most famous for 'The Outsider' looked at the sexual impulse in relation to transcendent states of consciousness in some of his writings.
The idea of the Hindu trinity is interesting. Personally, what I find most interesting is the fantastic imagery of Hindu art more than simply the specific concepts. The various images represented by the different deities are so powerful.
In regard to the experience of heading up or down, I have been long influenced by the perspective of Stanislavski given in his work An Actor Prepares. The work of maintaining and developing the instrument is not the same as what emerges through performance. Finding a balance between the two is, perhaps, what the "unforced" quality of the Dao is about. It is more sustainable as a form of life than burning oneself up at the bonfire of Dionysus.
Thanks for the reply. Creativity is in high demand from what I can gather, the need being felt not only in the art world. I have this line from a movie that's rather funny once you think about it - "don't get too creative!"
Jack, I meant my post to be humor - the line by Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 reverberates through time. For me, to try to pick apart acts of creativity is like efforts to create computer programs to produce new mathematics. Perhaps AI will indeed subjugate us all in the future.
I hope you find a suitable place to live. I know that's got to be a big concern.
I think that we need to keep a sense of humour to survive and as a source of creativity. Yes, I am still looking for somewhere to live but it may not happen until after Christmas. In the meantime, I will try to plod on leaning on the broken bed and my chaotic room, as my underlying chaotic demiuurge, as a source of potential creativity, as Nietzsche said : 'Chaos gives birth to a dancing star'.
To be too creative, or not creative enough may be the question.. How may this fine tightrope walk be trodden cautiously, bravely and safely?
I have read some writing by Stravinsky and it is probably useful to think about the processes of performance and acting. At age 10 or 11, I was due to take part in a school drama and got so hung up getting on the stage, which involved crossing a gap across the floor. This may have been the end of my acting career, possibly a disappointment for my mum who acted in many plays. But, she was pleased by the way I pursued drawing and painting.
Reflecting on my fear of going on stage in relation to creative performance it leads me to ponder the nature of creative blocks. Many be afraid to draw, paint and there is also the issue of writers' block. Even when I used to write essays I have often had to psyche myself up. There is the fear of the blank page, and the fear of performance, especially in relation to the ideals of perfection of being a failure or success, in other people's estimation and in in one's own. This may hold back experimentation and spontaneity.
I grew up in a parallel set of expectations regarding performance. My mother was a performer of song for a good while. My father was deeply engaged with Mathematics. While I had good and bad experiences in the Theater, I tend to view the matter mostly through the lens of my work life in construction.
When I accepted the work as performance, it stopped being something I did to just to get along. It became my own, to lose and win.
The seeds of creative expression most probably stem from childhood. Apart from being an actress my mother went through a stage of writing song lyrics. It started when she used to read the lyrics to songs with me, and she began replying to ads in the NME and had many of her lyrics put to music. My dad used to get really cross about it, but I thought the songs were good and remember some, ' Paper Boats', 'The Waves Roll On', and so many more.
My dad did work in construction and he would have liked me to go down a Maths direction. I didn't like Maths at all. The arts, especially drawing was what I found to be an interest. However, visual art can be about performance. I remember how stressed out I got a few times when I couldn't get my art as people expected me to be able to. The painting I did of a playground for my art GCSE didn't turn out as I wished. I think that I rushed it and then overpainted it in the exam conditions.
Being watched performing can also be stressful. One thing which I learned in art therapy was that aiming for excellence can be a stumbling block. However, it is complicated because as human beings performance is measured according to standards and is also an act of communication. Even on this forum, writing philosophy is done as an act of public performance and goes online which makes it rather different from the way ideas are jotted down in a private diary or journal.
I agree there is a dynamic between public and private that is difficult to understand.
Aiming for excellence depends upon how that is conceived. If it is always beyond what can be achieved, then it is a monkey on your back. If it is something you get close to now and then, the picture changes.
One hasta be creative 24/7 or else ... the world isn't all that friendly from what I could gather. Balancing is key, but there's one common enemy we all must face, either together or alone, E-N-T-R-O-P-Y, right @180 Proof?
Creation is a struggle to bring to light ideas that might emerge from the formless depths of one's mind. Some ideas are merely new rearrangement of cultural memes and these can be judged according to some odd standards. Ideas that truly brake new ground will not be judged.
Creativity must be more than just a simple reordering of parts because it produces a unity out of things (parts) which were previously not unified. This is why a whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Prior to the creation, the things which will become the parts cannot be said to be "parts" because their existence is completely separate from each other, and independent. The creative acts makes them into "parts" by unifying them.
So the creative act, by being an intentional act, gives something to the creation (the whole) which cannot be attributed to any of the parts, nor to the sum of the parts. Often this is called "meaning", or it's sometimes called "beauty", sometimes "function", and there are various other terms which are used to describe what the creative act gives to the created thing which cannot be attributed to the parts themselves, and therefore must be the product of the act itself, or the intention of the act.
In any attempt to understand the nature of creativity it is very important to recognize the reality of what intention gives to the creation, as a separate aspect, independent from what the material parts give to it. This importance manifests in the choice of medium, as each possible medium (material aspect) presents the artist with different restrictions (impossibilities), along with different freedoms (possibilities).
There is an artistic exercise which can be carried out to help one understand the important role of intention. We can attempt to completely remove the role of intention from the creative act, proceeding without any prior images or ideas of what will be created. Then we work completely "in the moment", creating in a random way, doing whatever comes to mind as time passes. Through this exercise the disunity of bits and pieces caused by lack of intention becomes very evident.
The process of bringing forth creative ideas may be like digging in the ground. But some seem to have got it down to a fine art. To some extent it may be possible to improve by practice but it does seem that some are so much better naturally, just as some have natural ability at football and cooking. There are many books on creative writing but this can also be procrastination about writing. Even my thread may be so, but I do find it helpful to discuss the creative process and it seems that so many people on this forum are so creative and probably a lot of untapped potential.There are some that take up a task like watercolour painting or poetry much later on and discover an entire side to themselves when was undiscovered previously.
To be able to be creative 24/7 is something which may be possible but is not easy to achieve. I certainly don't find that I can be. I get stuck so often, end up sitting at the bottom of my bed, staring into space, as well as meandering around the charity shops. I know some people who watch so much television and I don't do that. But, I definitely need wind down time, lying down listening to music. Some people go as far as reading about and trying to use time management, which I find to be too regimented.
But, I would like to be able to get down to more creative tasks. Also, unfortunately I sometimes spend too much time reading, and writing on this site instead of vacuuming my room, and doing basic chores and this can be counterproductive as my jumbled chaos doesn't create an environment conducive to creativity. But, I guess on a deeper level creativity is also a wider perspective on how we cope with life experiences, decisions and, even then, while these may involve regrets, the mistakes may be part of the experiential learning process and the raw material for creative changes.
:100:
I think that's one important dimension: but to be creative, problem-solving has to involve imagination and novel solutions, and not all creative work is problem-solving in any strict sense.
Creativity is just a word for a platonic abstraction of a mind process we share with all living animals of bringing to action or to words hidden meaning arising from deep forms of thought not directly available to conscious awareness. The creative process is autonomous until we choose to exercise it by force, digging directed with purpose and intent for extended periods. My wife fixed up a poetry closet for herself to shut out the world while she mulled over, wrote, revised and rewrote. A friend walks in the park in the mornings telling children's tales to a voice recorder. My best ideas pop into awareness out of the abyss when I lie in bed in the middle of the night seeking to get back to sleep.
If memory serves, creative people aren't the happiest people. Some are diagnosed with serious psychopathology. The late Robbin Williams (miss him), Disney Aladdin's genie, was on a different level of spontaneous creative talent and he ended up killing himself. They said it was due to *koff* *koff* depression.
:100:
It definitely seems that many creative people aren't happy. Colin Wilson's, 'The Outsider' is filled with the stories of the torments of the unhappy creatives, including Van Gogh, Camus and Nietzsche. The singer, Todd Rundegrun, made an album called, 'The Ever Popular Tortured Art Effect'. There is decadent glamour of the sufferings of the creative bohemians. Sufferings come in the form of many troubled creatives, including the trials of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and some philosophy thrown in. Tbe philosophy is not a mere afterthought because it may be that is what is needed to balance all the fire of the creativity before it explodes or implodes.
Answer this question: Are men more creative than women or is it the other way round?
No and no.
You cannot possibly generalise whether men or women are more creative. Historically, women may have been given less opportunity, just as other socially disadvantaged groups were. Also, I remember a history teacher saying that at one point it was believed that men have souls and women don't...
Many people aren't happy. Is there good evidence, other than popular mythology, that creatives are more miserable or messed up than the rest of us? This does not comport with my experience.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think anything can be creative, from sculpture to murder. If creativity is a mix of skilful and inspired problem solving, then absolutely anything can be executed with creativity (if you'll forgive that word).
I am not sure that creative people are more 'messed up' than others. It may be more of a myth and a not particularly helpful one. It is associated with the products of creativity, such as the masterpiece and the notion of genius. In reality many would like to reach such heights but many seek it and only a minority achieve it. But for most of us as 'ordinary' people wishing to be creative it would probably be rather foolish to think about creativity simply as works rather than a creative approach to living.
I am not sure that the statistical analysis of creativity would be particularly worthwhile. It would probably involve as much bias as IQ tests. Creativity is subjective to some extent. The one gender issue which might be relevant is the question of technical vs emotional intelligence within the creativity equation.
There is also a risk of stereotyping and, as far as gendered aspects of creativity are understood, there is the question about how much is innate and how much is dependent upon social learning and cultural expectations. Some people who have been creative, ranging from Virginia Wolf, Oscar Wilde, to some of the flamboyant pop singers, may have been gender outlaws.
There is also the possibility that creativity may be about the yin and yang as the integration of the anima and animus. However, as June Singer argued in her book, 'Androgyny', this does not have to include physical gender ambiguity and may be about going beyond the psychological aspects of the self stemming from stereotypes.
All sheep are black (based on a sample of 1 of course)
All people have straight black hair
Shakespeare is alive and well in China (most people who ever lived are alive today)
Why would you think it "not worthwhile" to analyze data on creativity. There's a point to statistical, sensu amplissimo, averages - they're a kind of knowledge and isn't knowledge useful? They say it is. How many times in a day do you do statistics even when you don't know what z-score means? Quite a lot in me humble opinion. Enough about statistics.
Gender?
I am not opposed to statistics and evidence based research on creativity. It is simply that it can sometimes be so reductive and the spark of creativity and its depths may be beyond empirical investigations. Statistical analysis may have some importance but the aesthetic embodiment of creativity and numinous experiences may be important in the arts, and even in science. Even though science may be based on the empirical it also incorporates metaphorical thinking.
Gender? It may be that the issue is not simply about this division and all aspects of difference. I know an art therapist, Vicky Barber, who has written on art therapy and race. In thinking about all experiences in daily life, as well in aesthetics and reasoning, culture and difference have such an impact. This may involve the various cultural meanings and backgrounds which shape our own symbolic worlds, alongside the political aspects of equality and inequalities which come into play in the realisation of creative expression in social life.
Well, if I were Ronald Fisher, I would say "now you see the light!" :grin:
You have a point though, but if you look at how mathematicians have (attempted to) solve(d) the particularly vexing problem you perhaps allude to, you would be going "damn, that's creative!!"
On gender I have no further comment! Au revoir mon ami!