Creativity

<p>I am posting this thread on behalf of Arthur Plumpton. These are his thoughts, as expressed in a Casual Photo Conversation thread I posted. <strong>Creativity seems to have two faces or sides to it, one being the often craft ability to foresee and assemble such complex subject matter and sometimes the artistic sense to make it all work, and the other being the photographer who does research on his or her subject matter, with resultant creative flashes that can accompany the simplest of scenes and which can have considerable visual power.</strong></p>

<p>I wonder whether the artistic sense also applies to the second part of Arthur's dichotomy. Since I suspect that anyone yet has a firm grasp on what constitutes this sense, I get the feeling that it is exceptionally broad. Consider the research into different types of intelligence, or the variety in the manifestations of creativity itself. </p>

<p>Without wanting to affect the way this OP might develop, I should nonetheless make it clear that I was simply reacting to the very complex type of studio shot with a subject adorned and embellished with multiple additions of elements to its basic form, as in the image of Mrs. Mitchell shown by Michael as an example of creativity, and the value or nature of such creativity compared to a much simpler yet highly researched theme and subject that is presented in an image not as "it is", but as the photographer sees or imagines it. Creative images that I appreciate are often very simple in their design and message and perhaps the heavily adorned and complex studio images are equally creative to some although generally not to me. A question of values, but also of taste.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.<br>

<strong>Edward Weston</strong>:</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[<em>this is Charis Wilson, writing</em>:]<br>

Stop the car! Out with the cameras! for a race between the photographers and the elements. Every second the light is shifting as the cloud-shadow patterns go racing by down in the valley. At one moment the Alabama Hills are a sooty menace of silhouette; at the next they are dazzling in a downpour of blinding light. Ansel and Edward work feverishly, stopping down, setting shutters, pulling slides, making negatives in split seconds. Rain sweeps over our mountain perch. Between negatives the photographers wring out their focusing cloths like wet towels.</p>

<p>Then the crisis passes. The clouds roll back to form a single grey band against the Inyos. We dry off the cameras, roll on down to the valley, in that strange storm light that turns all the roadside pebbles yellow and violet and endows the most commonplace objects with supernatural radiance. As we look out over the desert valley a tiny silver airplane comes dropping out of the cloud bank, flashes and dips, curves up against the blue sky, dives into the grey cloud mass once more.</p>

<p>The following afternoon we found an abandoned soda works on the edge of Owens (mostly dry) Lake. There were tumbled-down kilns, rusty boilers, a fascinating assortment of wrecked machinery — but in addition there was a relentless wind blowing powdery white dust that soon left you gasping and choking. Edward made several negatives -- in one, of a wrecked car, he used part of the camera's shadow to complete his composition. And here we discovered the shoes to end all shoes: they had been fancy footwear in their day — high button shoes, the button strip was still red, the rest had been transformed by desert exposure to a brilliant coppery green. We took them back to the Alabama Hills were Edward looked for the proper rock ledge on which to photograph them, while I explored some of the side roads that wound among the rocky hills.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>*****************************</p>

<p><strong>Gregory Crewdson</strong>:</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[<em>here, Crewdson is talking a little bit about his production crew (for his still pictures)</em>]<br>

Saskia Rifkin, the line producer who organizes all the budgets and does all the logistics, and Sarah Crofts, who is the location manager, are also there. Those [along with Rick Sands, his 'cinematographer'] are the three people at that first tech [location] scout. At that first meeting we talk almost nothing about content. Let's say we go to fifteen locations. I'll basically say at that meeting, 'So the camera is around here,' and I'll just map it out a little bit, I'll say, 'Frame will start just at the edge of this house, and then go to that house over there. The tree is central. There will be a nondescript car.' Then at this point I say, 'There will be some narrative, some figure by the shed.' That's all.</p>

<p>[<em>next is Saskia Rifkin</em>] It's my job to channel Gregory's vision. I make my production decisions based on what would serve his vision. I treat each photograph like an individual film script, working around the logistics for this one-frame universe. I create a framework in which Gregory has to articulate what he's going to do.</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>[<em>now Costanza Theodoli-Braschi, one of Crewdson's crew</em>] ... The collaboration is great — that's why everyone has been around for so long. But it is also intense. Gregory's sets are like small movie productions, and there are so many variables in his pictures, with no room for any kind of compromise. If he's going to have a pill on the side table, it has to be the exactly perfect pill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

If you're not familiar with his work, Crewdson's pictures are not close-ups; these are wide scenes, of which a pill would be just a few pixels in the final image.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well. I would say this artistic sense is pretty much nothing but circumstantial necessity of rather trivial kind.</p>

<p>Ilia:</p>

<p>I took a quick glance at the 3 photographs you most recently posted. Are you saying that you created them by means of " . . . circumstantial necessity of rather trivial kind?" I take this to mean that you are likening creativity to serendipity.</p>

<p>Of course, I am drawing my own conclusions regarding what you meant. If you explain a bit further, this might be helpful.</p>

 

<p>Thank you, Michael. Yes, that would be right assumption in general. Give me little time to phrase an extended answer. While we'd have to understand: a). creativity is very broad term encompasing the whole of human activity and b). serendipity is rather special word describing [curious] accident with no perceived predetemination.</p>

<p>Back in the 80’s I was beginning a career in studio photography. I had a small table top set up in my home and I was getting jobs from ad agencies. I was using a 4x5 mainly, studio flash with a soft box and umbrellas, etc. It didn’t take me too long to realize this kind of creativity did not appeal to me. I then sold all the flash gear and some cameras, and went to grad school in psychology. Still, to this day photography is my main “creative outlet.” Today I still do the kind of photography that appealed to me in my teens: spontaneous, natural light documentation of people and things. I have a lot more fun just waiting for the right moment and capturing it. I did a post in this forum a while back about “not interrupting the flow of the events around you (too much)” as you are making photos. For me this is the crux of it. It is the opposite of “setting things up,” which still takes a lot of creativity, but it is different. I don’t like photographing people candidly without them being aware of what I am doing. I still want some eye contact and recognition that I am taking their picture. I believe this imparts an “energy” than you don’t get if you subject is unaware of being photographed.</p>

<p>Little tight on the clocks, folks but in few words --</p>

<p>"... that you are likening creativity to serendipity" -- to some extend yes but not entirely, partly because of creative endeavours and art making are not necesserily springs out of pure positive emotion source (say, Joel Witkin, F. Goya, S. Mann ao). Perhaps one can substitute "serendipity" for intuitive search for emotional resolution for instance. Or attempt on complex, mediated socializing or messaging. Personal thing, eh.</p>

<p><strong>Creativity</strong> as a term is very broad and if we want to neil any IMO it has to be narrowed to some specific, say creative photography, artwork, visual communication or something.</p>

<p>Was checking my thickest English dictionaries on <strong>creativity</strong> - turned out Cambridge ED list no such a word, there are only <strong>create, creative, creation</strong>. The Oxford ED only list it as last derivating one from the headword <strong>creative. </strong>As I have suggested before, there hardly any human activity which is not creative in its nature.</p>

<p>Interesting definitions and point of discussion, Ilia. I think I like the word inventiveness, or the related words invention or inventor, instead of the over-used word creativity. Invention relates to the process or work itself and not to some quality of the doer (creativity) who would possess inventiveness. Creativity is associated often with the person although I suppose one can speak of a process involving creativity (inventiveness), but there we often see the verb create (like invent), or sometimes used in regard to the end product, a creation.</p>

<p>I've always thought of creativity as a totality of ingenuity, resourcefulness, inventiveness and similar characteristics which are usually applied to approaches toward problem solving. In this way, creativity can be equally attributed to a philosopher pondering a difficult question, a legal scholar interpreting constitutional law, an engineer faced with technical challenges, or an artist's approach to his creation.</p>

<p>I also agree with Ilia's statement: "there hardly any human activity which is not creative in its nature."<br /> <br /> Creativity is to me an attribute specific to every individual as opposed to something that requires broad consensus. A child who cleverly applies known art to solving a particular problem can be a demonstration of creativity as significant as an adult solving a far more difficult problem at a high level of abstraction. </p>

<p>Michael and Ilia, creativity and inventiveness lose their impact I think when applied to every human endeavour and at every level of ingenuity. The universality of its application renders it's value a bit mosh.</p>

<p>Micheal (the other Micheal) Linder has brought this OP as a result of some comments made on a former OP (creativity at work, in casual photo conversations) dealing with intricate art assemblages. Yes, they are creative or inventive, to some degree (I am adding the taste evaluation), but the attribution of the word creativity should probably also have some idea of level or quality of creativity, even though such attribution would still be fairly subjective and dependent upon the observer.</p>

<p>Arthur, I think any attempt at a broader consensus on a higher definition of creativity will suffer the same difficulties as attempts at defining aesthetics. </p>

<p>Intangibles attributed to art can only be valid to the observer making the attribution. An art piece is often said to be creative when its process or result is outside the bounds of an observer's experience, but the process or result can also be quite common in different circles. </p>

<p>An elaborate setups to achieve a photo is everyday practice in the motion picture industry where it's common to spend hours on makeup and wardrobe involving the collaboration of many artists from diverse disciplines simply to acquire a few seconds of film. What we're in awe of as observing photographers can very well be picked apart by those from a different discipline functioning at a much higher level. </p>

<p>As far as I see it, I agree somewhat with Michael Creativity, when it comes to artistic work, exists on all "levels" and can be defined from the standing point of the individual or on a global scale. In all cases thinking and acting outside the "box", might be the best way of illustrating what creativity is. When it comes to esthetics, there is, however, no "box" to consider; only varied historical ethical and historical contexts and present and future contingencies. </p>

<p>Correction: Cambridge ED also lists <strong>creativity</strong> as third der. of <strong>creative</strong> suggesting idiomatic use.<br>

Sorry. Bad eyes.</p>

<p>There seem to be two trends we got her: one by Arthur - seem to be building the logic to prove the point of creativity as a personal gainable vallue which comes in grades and another one offering logical ground for considering creativity as universal human condition in a way unescapable which manifests it self in various ways depending on circumstances.</p>

<p>I would like to build a little on Arthurs logic and substitute further on from <strong>inventive</strong>[ness] to <strong>activity</strong>. One can try to take any good sentence from above texting and replace word <strong>creativity</strong> with <strong>inventiveness</strong> than <strong>activity</strong>. Old good cut-and-move thing.</p>

<p>In playing music, once the fundamentals are rote or automatic: it's kind of like in sports where you perform best when you aren't thinking about it. It's where the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true, if you come out, come out wherever you are: to create an entirely individual result.</p>

<p>Charles, I like your analogy, and it took a bit of pondering to realize that what you are really referring to is "style", which can be a habit developed through repetition, or a "creative" interpretation of others' work as in the case of a classical musician playing the music of dead composers. </p>

<p>Interestingly, with a symphony orchestra, a play, many sports, and other endeavors the individual result is actually collaboratively achieved. Creativity is often a give-and-take among several people, who build on and riff off each other. Dorothy had the wizard, the tin man, and the cowardly lion to work with, backed by a chorus of munchkins, not to mention a witch or two to work <em>against</em>. To cause something to exist (create) often requires some kind of tension, an explosion of sorts, like a big bang. Point and counterpoint. Harmony and discord. Anticipation and resolution. </p>

<p>It's too bad, in some ways, that photographers are more akin to solo artists having to (mostly) shoulder an entire "show" on their own. </p>

<p>That's why I love doing portraits and photos with people, Michael, because they are usually, at least in part, collaborations.</p>

<p>Collaboratively achieved: there's description of that in Thanksgiving Day's Democracy Now <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/28/a_tribute_to_blacklisted_lyricist_yip">http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/28/a_tribute_to_blacklisted_lyricist_yip</a> , a tribute to lyricist Yip Harburg. His lyrics in Over the Rainbow: he was brought in to fix the show and he did fix it by bringing theme to what had been a disconnected sort of show that had been working. He connected image and words in a highly collaborative effort that wouldn't have what we came to know had he not been there working with them. Nice interview, well worth the time.</p>

<p>Charles, collaboration can also refer to schools of art and dialogues of artists over time. A school of Impressionism or Expressionism develops because of some collaborative effort, less structured and personal, on the part of contemporary artists working. Scientists and philosophers also join in. We see trends in various disciplines at various times. Influence, IMO, is collaboration. A culture at any given time and over time is a collaborative effort. Creativity is as social as personal, IMO, as public as private.</p>

<p>I wonder about your last sentence, Fred. </p>

<p>Something that is the result of inspiration through a collaborative effort is a natural process of creation usually through consensus, but not necessarily creative. It is also frequently the case that the best ideas come from a single individual within a collaborative effort. </p>

<p>Also, standing on the shoulders our predecessors to build on what came before us is a process of creation, and creativity is not necessarily a component within it. </p>

<blockquote>Also, standing on the shoulders our predecessors to build on what came before us is a process of creation, and creativity is not necessarily a component within it. </blockquote>

<p>

A "process of creation" is by definition "creative". That is what the words mean.

<p>

But even if we replace "process of creation" with another word, such as "production", isn't that a bit harsh?

<p>

I would think of any effort to "build", to "produce", to "create" or whatever, whether on top of or to the side of or inspite of anything previous, is by definition creative. The question is only how much quality and quantity is there, not if creativity exists. The quoted statement suggests a threshold and that if the quality isn't up to one's personal standards then it doesn't exist. That won't fly though, because while the standard for greatness applied by Picasso might be very high and mine might be very low, in fact we should both see the creativity in every creation.

<p>

I see it much like art itself, where it need not be the greatest example to have ever come down the pike to be either creative or art. It needs only to be, not to be great. And keep in mind, when applying this to "creativity", what Picasso said when asked what is art, and answered "What isn't?"

<p>Arthur's thoughts in the OP: First: "Creativity seems to have two faces or sides to it, one being the often craft ability to foresee and assemble such complex subject matter and sometimes the artistic sense to make it all work,"</p>

<p>So the artistic sense to make the movie The Wizard of Oz work thematically came from Yip Harburg. I think too of my favorite guitar player, Keith Richards: his rhythms made a lot of those songs work. How he came up with the rhythms, he has explained his technique, the barred A form with the first finger across the frets on the B G and D strings; then all at once with the first finger still in place across those three strings: 2d finger down first fret above the bar, 4th finger down 2nd fret above the bar, open tuning alternatives, etc. I'm thinking of <em>Beast of Burden</em>, correct my fingering if I have it wrong: but the issue is when to alternate and when to go to tonic. Damn if I could have come up with all his variations across all the songs where he uses variations on those changes: so call Keith Richards inspired, creative in Arthur's first sense of making something, a song, work.</p>

<p>Arthur 2. "...and the other being the photographer who does research on his or her subject matter, with resultant creative flashes that can accompany the simplest of scenes and which can have considerable visual power."</p>

<p>I don't get or understand the 2nd of the two in Arthur's dichotomy, it sounds too much like work whereas in the 1st case, it sounds like more fun. Of course I accept Fred's point about collaboration, etc. That makes sense because I'm finding even in the solitary work of woodworking, there is a performance aspect to it, without which, the woodworking would suffer, believe me.</p>

<p>And to Michael's idea of style: that makes sense, thought I wasn't specifically thinking of style, and style schools of art is a good expansion of the ideas being discussed.</p>

<p>Well, maybe an example of the 2d in Arthur's dichotomy is Watts Towers <a href="http://www.wattstowers.us/">http://www.wattstowers.us/</a></p>