Working definition of creativity per Rex Jung [ http://onbeing.org/program/rex-jung-creativity-and-the-everyday-brain/1879/audio?embed=1 ]: Some thing novel and useful, novel and useful within a social context. Antagonism not for antagonism's sake, but for the sake of something, which would be constructive antagonism. Can we have creativity in photography without constructive antagonism? Is it the case, or to what degree is it the case, that imitation only yields to creativity via a process involving constructive antagonism? Is a creative product in and of itself antagonistic constructively? If a photograph isn't antagonistic to a degree, is it imitative only? Imitation can be ultimately boring, as in group-think, mass manufacture, commodity production, etc. An example of one of my processings influenced by constructive antagonism. http://www.photo.net/photo/14524616 I'm so constructively antagonistic toward what I perceive to be an over emphasis on the eating habits of predators, hence, my exaggerated treatment of such. If it were conversational I would be saying, as part of a dialog with other bird photographers "Enough already." By which I would have meant "Why must the money shot be the kill?", although there are plenty of examples of bird photographers who don't emphasize eating. Even so, those other examples aren't necessarily also examples of constructively antagonistic treatments of a subject, may instead be primarily imitative. In your work, where does antagonism come into your process? Or in dialogs between photographers as they contributed to and advanced photography as an art form, as communicating novel and useful information within a social and historical context?