Thoughts on creativity

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A+

Best way to combat pretentious condescension is with the truth.

Its the font all my friends flow from. Wait! I have no friends!

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Presentation and balance is how creative people learn to refine their art so that it is consistent. But there's nothing "balanced" in certain works considered highly creative. "On the Road" anyone? How about "Howl" or the works of William Burroughs? As you say, creative people aren't necessarily good with presentation, but that doesn't mean they need to learn presentation/balance to connect with an audience. And that's is really all any creator needs: "an" audience.

Putting it another way, when Van Gogh painted his pictures, he couldn't give them away. No one wanted or needed them. So, clearly, how he presented them was wrong. And he certainly had no balance, at least so far as the current art viewers of the day were concerned. And he never, ever learned how to find either, not for his time. Yet he always painted what he wanted/needed, didn't he?

And in doing that, he discovered a want/need that was not only in people within a generation, but has stayed with people from that point on. And that is why he is one of the greatest artists who ever lived.

Perhaps you are right but remember that van Gogh spent a long time in a psychiatric institution. Once he chopped off his ear. He also suicided. I have read that he wasn't so creative, what made his art different was that he had glaucoma and he painted what he actually saw. I think that if it wasn't for his story and his brother,Theodore, no one would know of him now. Remember that lady who a few years ago died in France aged 120 years? She knew van Gogh and when she was asked about him she was extremely unimpressed. I have the feeling that even if he was creative, all his pictures were consistently similar in the way they were painted. Does this make him creative? I wonder.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Um...that's why artists hang with other artists. That's who I hang with and I'm never lonely, and I never get pity. I get berated and told to "man up" at times because I'm wallowing in self-pity ("Woe-is-me, my story isn't understood..." I whine, and my fellow writers say, "that's cause it's not right yet and you know it. Go back and edit, you lazy girl!" ), but like a boxer in a corner whining about how tired he is, I don't get no pity from these fellow boxers who've been in the ring themselves and know what it takes to win the match.

So, I'll have to disagree that the worst thing about creativity is loneliness. It's not that hard to find creative people who understand you perfectly and who go through exactly what you go through every time you create. And if you find those who are equal or better than you, then you'll be more than understood. You'll be having lunch with the the coolest kids in school--and you might end up being the envy of all the other students (Algonquin Round Table, anyone?). But you do need to pick wisely in that. If you pick other creatives who aren't as good as you, you'll just end up with a different sort of fawning pity from them rather than creative camaraderie.

As for the worst thing about creativity? Your work not being valued. Isn't that the worst thing of any task we undertake with all our heart and soul? And it's hard either way if you're a true creative. It not being valued by the wider audience even if your peers love it, or it not being valued by your peers even if the wider audience loves it (can we say "50 Shades of Gray"?). That's always what is hardest.

I guess it's about what is deemed creative. It can be labelled eccentric. A lot of what we are told is creative is one person being repetitious. It is difficult to know. It's about perceptions. Oddly, picking up with creatives could be thought of as conformity. Interesting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I guess it's about what is deemed creative. It can be labelled eccentric. A lot of what we are told is creative is one person being repetitious. It is difficult to know. It's about perceptions. Oddly, picking up with creatives could be thought of as conformity. Interesting.

CREATIVE means what it says. CREATIVE isn't a copy of something. Creative is original.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

CREATIVE means what it says. CREATIVE isn't a copy of something. Creative is original.

Original is the word!

 

[desertslave]

Perhaps you are right but remember that van Gogh spent a long time in a psychiatric institution. Once he chopped off his ear. He also suicided. I have read that he wasn't so creative, what made his art different was that he had glaucoma and he painted what he actually saw. I think that if it wasn't for his story and his brother,Theodore, no one would know of him now. Remember that lady who a few years ago died in France aged 120 years? She knew van Gogh and when she was asked about him she was extremely unimpressed. I have the feeling that even if he was creative, all his pictures were consistently similar in the way they were painted. Does this make him creative? I wonder.

Bear in mind that Van Gogh and a few others of his generation were also poisoning themselves with their pigments. He made some of his own colors, grinding the dry elements into oil. Some of the popular colors were toxic to one degree or another...cadmium, lead, cobalt...beautiful and deadly.

I'm not sure that madness, whether internally or externally derived, disqualifies creativity. How many artists, writers, and musicians have had some sort of mental illness? Off the top of my head there's Hemingway, Beethoven, Michelangelo, Goya, Virginia Woolf, Janis Joplin. If anything, I think mental illness might give otherwise ordinary creative urges a push in some way.

I definitely agree with artists hanging with other artists as a catalyst to creativity. There's a wonderful symbiosis that happens on most creative forums. Someone poses a question (on a glass forum where I visit often, for example) and people reply with answers or more "I dunno, maybe try this?" or someone else sets out to find a solution.

What makes it art? That's enormously subjective. I've always figured that if it inspires a reaction (positive or negative), a creative endeavor becomes art. I'm easy like that.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Bear in mind that Van Gogh and a few others of his generation were also poisoning themselves with their pigments. He made some of his own colors, grinding the dry elements into oil. Some of the popular colors were toxic to one degree or another...cadmium, lead, cobalt...beautiful and deadly.

I'm not sure that madness, whether internally or externally derived, disqualifies creativity. How many artists, writers, and musicians have had some sort of mental illness? Off the top of my head there's Hemingway, Beethoven, Michelangelo, Goya, Virginia Woolf, Janis Joplin. If anything, I think mental illness might give otherwise ordinary creative urges a push in some way.

I definitely agree with artists hanging with other artists as a catalyst to creativity. There's a wonderful symbiosis that happens on most creative forums. Someone poses a question (on a glass forum where I visit often, for example) and people reply with answers or more "I dunno, maybe try this?" or someone else sets out to find a solution.

What makes it art? That's enormously subjective. I've always figured that if it inspires a reaction (positive or negative), a creative endeavor becomes art. I'm easy like that.

And the absinth they drank. I use the worm wood that is derived from as bug killer in the garden.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

While browsing the net I ran across this quote from Alan Moore, the well known author of comics and graphic novels. It sums up my philosophy of writing fairly neatly and here it is:

"It's not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they needed, they wouldn't be the audience. They'd be the artists. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need."

Agree? Disagree? Opinions? Discuss.

I don't think it's possible for an artist to "give the audience what they need." I think the audience discovers what they need/want. Your local trendy coffee shop is filled with more artists than you can hit by swinging a Selectric typewriter around your head. So many artists, so little art. Why? Not enough artists with a unique vision? Hardly.

I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-most answer. Anti-hero's will be fun for a while before the audience decides they want happy endings again. Fashion changes while some are still busy jumping on the band wagon. I believe we should write, paint or film our visions in hopes of being discovered and appreciated for our efforts. Along the way, hopefully we've satisfied ourselves.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think it's possible for an artist to "give the audience what they need." I think the audience discovers what they need/want. Your local trendy coffee shop is filled with more artists than you can hit by swinging a Selectric typewriter around your head. So many artists, so little art. Why? Not enough artists with a unique vision? Hardly.

I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-most answer. Anti-hero's will be fun for a while before the audience decides they want happy endings again. Fashion changes while some are still busy jumping on the band wagon. I believe we should write, paint or film our visions in hopes of being discovered and appreciated for our efforts. Along the way, hopefully we've satisfied ourselves.

WRONG Duck Breath.

Its all about doing something new and orginal, like finger painting with elephant dung mixed with merlot. 99% of its stillborn but different. Mendel comes to mind.

Gregor Mendel discovered genetic selection before genes were heard of, the world yawned, and that was it for a long time. Then 3 Dutch boys discovered genetic selection, and were seriously pissed to learn that Mendel had beat them long ago.

 

[TxRad]

WRONG Duck Breath.

Its all about doing something new and orginal, like finger painting with elephant dung mixed with merlot. 99% of its stillborn but different. Mendel comes to mind.

Gregor Mendel discovered genetic selection before genes were heard of, the world yawned, and that was it for a long time. Then 3 Dutch boys discovered genetic selection, and were seriously pissed to learn that Mendel had beat them long ago.

Wrong, Trash King!

Original is nice but not necessary for art in any way, shape, or form.

Art is about fad and fashion. Great art continues to be great when fad and fashion move on.

The second part of your answer has nothing to do with art. It has to do with discovery. A totally and completely different subject.

 

[horrorotica]

When discussing creativity and art etc there's a fine line where people with fancy quotes just sound like self important pretentious twits.

 

[TxRad]

When discussing creativity and art etc there's a fine line where people with fancy quotes just sound like self important pretentious twits.

Self important pretentious twits come in several flavors and a lot of colors.