Rationality versus Creativity

[Julie H]

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>Thanks (I was waiting for you to answer). It's my feeling that the rational/creative difference is somewhat like the difference between the intelligent design and evolution. The former works to a goal. The latter is generated by the process. A scientist generally has a specific -- or at least a general -- goal or problem that he can pursue or attack or proceed towards.</p>

<p>On the other hand, while a photographer may have a general goal, in my case at least, the process of making photographs has ITSELF generated my direction (I hesitate to use the word "goal" because it suggests an end). Think of how evolution works; it's not goal-directed.</p>

<p>I would guess that this sort of process self-generation might be an uncomforable or at least unfamiliar way to work for someone trained to work to an externally fixed or at least consistent external goal.</p>

<p>(When I say that the process generates my direction, I mean that, somewhat like evolution, I respond to the pressures of my own interests/drives/beliefs. I "evolve" toward a desired or satisfying image in a way that is similar to how I described the eye-doctor finding my correct lenses; by trying, correcting, trying, correcting; incrementally closing in.)</p>

[stp]

<p>I don't think rationality and creativity are mutually exclusive, not are they at odds in the realm of photography. They simply produce different kinds of photographs. Rationality tends to produce an "I was there" type of photograph, and it can be beautiful (or not) depending on the light and composition. Creativity (and I'm on shaky ground here because my photography definitely tends to be based on rationality) leans away from the "I was there' and produces photographs that can't be visited, that instead inspire feelings based on the representation of a concept or based purely on the aesthetics of the elements in the photograph.</p>

<p>What disturbs me in many "creative" photographs is the excuse that just because it's "art" it's above criticism from people who don't like it. Surely there is "good" art and "bad" art; i.e., there are "good" representations of creativity and "poor" representations of creativity. This is especially true when a rationally based photograph has an element of creativity injected into it, and when it is criticized its defenders fall back on the "it's art" defense. A recent example was a beautiful sunset with clouds in the sky and ice in the foreground, and a full moon that was very poorly pasted into the photograph. It's an impossible combination in the real world, the color and tones were poorly matched, and it looked like a hack job even in the thumbnail. Yet the defense was, "Hey, it's art." Surely some degree of rationality and some degree of aesthetics have a place when viewing and evaluating creative-based photography. I really think a discussion of rationality "versus" creativity in photography needs to incorporate a discussion of aesthetics to be complete.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>This is a link to an article about the Ansel Adams exhibit at Lacma in 2003 . The most interesting thing I found about Adams work is that his creative vision evolved over the years. That completely changed my view of his work. It was no longer the work of a cold hearted technician. I think what that meant to me was that there was an emotional component behind his work, and he was a genius in the darkroom. His darkroom work on Moonrise, Hernadez New Mexico evolved greatly over the years. The 1941 version looked like something I may have been able to come up with, but the later versions were obviously the work of a master. I think creativity ebbs and flows as we age. So if you don't feel creative now, just wait a few years, it may change. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yflk563">http://tinyurl.com/yflk563</a></p>

[jakenorcross]

<p>Having an art degree and pursuing a biology degree [with a specialization in microscopy], this is something that comes up for me a lot. Art and science, or creativity and rationality, are neither mutually exclusive nor opposed to each other. Both sides have rules, yes, and those rules are different on either side; but both are mechanisms to explore- be it the inner workings of a living cell or the inner workings of the human psyche.<br>

A lot of my own photography is 'documentary'- events or people, or a history of my life in the first person. I leave this, in the words of the writer, to several [but not all] futures. In taking these, I document what's going on; in the portrait studio, I can direct a pantomime where my thoughts can be explored.<br>

My point is, they serve different parts of the same purpose: to explore the world around us. So those rules that apply to 'rational' or 'creative' photography are only really suggestions- mess them up as you see fit.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Think of evolution: It is not goal-directed."</p>

<p>Leaving so-called "Intelligent Design" aside, the main reason evolution is in fact goal-directed is that it works with the goal of making a particular species survive. Each species is driven to that goal and evolves in a manner to maximize the result. Mountains become plains or valleys in sufficient time as we know from the thermodynamic theories of Gibbs, but what controls evolution in living creatures is not seeking to increase the degree of disorder or Entropy, but to improve the ability of the species to survive, the goal (which humans are pretty poor at understanding) . I try to photograph in that evoluatory way, albeit on a much small time scale, but not without a goal. With no goal, I might just as well put the camera on a tripod and let a random number activated timer make pictures.</p>

<p>"I would guess that this sort of process self-generation might be an uncomforable or at least unfamiliar way to work for someone trained to work to an externally fixed or at least consistent external goal."</p>

<p>As usual, you seem to be refering to the scientist. Self-generation occurs every day in the life of a good experimental or theoretical scientist. He is fighting with his paradigms, the credibility of what he learned yesterday, how to integrate new knowledge into his thoughts and how to attain some goal which he accepts may be a moving target. Photography for me is not too different from that. What i said about rational <strong>and</strong> creativity compared to rational <strong>versus</strong> creativity of the original post also acknowledges that type of human subjective and rational process. The two cannot be separated, except by current day robots.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>" ... evolution is in fact goal-directed is that it works with the goal of making a particular species survive." That is 100% wrong.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, if what you say is so, how would you describe what evolution accomplishes, and what is causing it to happen? Some random orientation? I am interested (not being a biologist). I may have to await that as I am on my way out for this sunny afternoon (amazing, 70-77F in central Quebec at Easter).</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Evolution is the result. Natural selection is the method. Mal-adapted bloodlines fade away. There is no goal, there is simply survival of the fittest (including, and during times of change especially, the most fit mutation). <br /><br />A <em>goal</em> implies a purposeful process, and an actor. Natural selection requires none such. In many cases, natural selection means not the survival of a species, but its displacement by others. Well more than 95% of every species that has ever existed has ended just so. Sort of like classic cameras (don't tell the guys in the Classic Camera forum!).</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Arthur, the spitting out of mutations has no goal. It's random, and as a result, over 90+% of all mutations are fatal. The rest are weeded out by natural selection, which is also not goal-oriented. The survivors determine the future genetic make-up of the species.</p>

<p><strong>Julie: "</strong>On the other hand, while a photographer may have a general goal, in my case at least, the process of making photographs has ITSELF generated my direction (I hesitate to use the word "goal" because it suggests an end). "</p>

<p> Julie, it sounds like a cliche, but it's true: If you listen, the work will tell you where it wants to go. Most photographers are either not listening, too busy imposing themselves on the work, or both.</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Rationality alone is boring. Creativity alone is also boring. They need to be tied together to be great. Why is AA always in this forum. I prefer Robert Frank. He knew all the "<strong>rational</strong>" rules and broke them all with his "<strong>creative</strong>" poetry.</p>

<p>Superior Swiss technician by trade, changed photography by his personal, outsider's experience and view by art.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>This thread reminds me a bit of the old story of the blind men and the elephant--except that I'm not sure we are all talking about the same elephant.<br>

If we're speaking of rationalism in the Cartesian sense, systematically applying a set of logical transformations on a set of first principles, every outcome is in principle predictable and working each one out should be the furthest thing from creative. But a proof like Perelman's resolution of the Poincaré conjecture is on the face of it an intensely creative and groundbreaking piece of work.<br>

Perelman's work differs significantly from "creative" expressions in music, art, and literature in that it can be tested and found to be true or false. It requires thinking that converges on a particular standard, rather than divergent thinking which produces objects or collections that establish their own standards.<br>

Is this convergent-divergent distinction what Wouter has really introduced? Is this what we mean to talk about?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Wouter,<br>

When you say rationality obstructing creativity: I associate creativity with play time and find I have within many rational arguments that disfavor play time. I don't know if my associations to rationality and creativity are off topic though.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p><em>"Ansel Adams photos to me seem reasoned, Galen Rowell's far less so. Adams says perfect exposure, Rowell speaks a love of nature." -</em> These seem artificial and mistaken reductions of both. </p>

<p>I worked with and in response to (served from a custom photolab perspective) Galen early in his career: he was a technical perfectionist, just like Ansel Adams. It's silly to suggest that one "loved nature" less than the other.</p>

<p> Galen was, perhaps more than photographer, an extreme athlete, a climber (K2!), incredibly physically strong and tough. Ansel Adams seemed to me interested in broader issues around preservation of "wilderness" ( the politics around natural recreational wonders..."wilderness" has ceased to be an accurate term for his places).</p>

<p>Adams was at the heart of Sierra Club, particularly in California..the first AA prints I ever saw were in the Sierra Club's HQ in San Francisco. around 1967...he gave them to the club to support it financially. Galen was more international and I think his closest friends were other climbers. Both were romantics in their own ways: ultimately very similar men.</p>

<p>Rational Vs creative is like watermelon Vs seven. </p>

 

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Mmmmmmmm...beer!</p>

[rob_shane]

<p>With all that rocket science that it took to get us to the moon what do people remember? A photograph. The Earthrise over the Lunar landscape spoke to all of us. Some have called the beginning of the modern environmental movement, as we realized what a beautiful and fragile place we live. Photography is at the intersection of art and science but what I'm curious about is Rational vs Creative? Does this to imply that creativity is irrational or at odds with rational thought? Art is every bit as reasoned as science. Irrational Art as with irrational Science makes little sense.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"Creativity is not opposed to rationality, and that's not so much the point I tried to raise. The point is that at a moment in one's development, do you feel whether your rationalism hinders or obstructs creativity. Is a normally rational approach a 'speed bump' in development of your creative vision? Can it feel like a box you need to break out of?" </em> (Wouter)</p>

<p>Reading back to some mid-point posts I discovered this reformulation by Wouter of what he was asking us. In that sense, and related to that precision, I think this is a more interesting question than the initial "versus" condition, and more related to how each of us work. Because creativity is such a subjective quality, compared to the more objective (ideally) one of rational thought and process, they are sometimes opposing as well as complementary forces. In the ideal case they work together, but in varying degrees. The equilibrium between the two depends a lot on my approach at the time and what may be required to realise my intention (that goal word again, although sometimes my intention is not realised until very late in the process). There have certainly been moments when my photos would have benefitted from a greater dosage of subjective thought and creativity, and other moments when they would have benefitted from a bit more rationality in the overall approach to make it work in the context of the intention and the subject.</p>

<p>After several years of making photographs, I feel that the rational approach has become a part of my method. It consists of both variable and invariable methodologies, but mostly invariable ones. I tend to be conscious of the rational component, but not overly so. It is mainly the question of applying what I know about handling light, exposure, composition, chiaroscuro effects, focus variations, balancing of volumes and masses in an image, the contrasting or pairing of visual forms, and other visual elements that can be applied, or made absent as a function of the type of subject and a generalised intention of what I may wish to communicate, if successful. Thinking too much about the use of these elements can definitely be a "roadblock" or a "speed bump" as Wouter puts it. The rationality sometimes creates paradigms of visualisation which I must fight against at times to avoid falling into a style of photography that takes on its own colours, not those of my feeling for the subject.</p>

<p>In attempting to override the rational approach of analysis and synthesis of an image, I try to leave my mind open to personal emotions and feelings in regard to the subject. Any instincts or thoughts of fantasy I might have are not ignored but explored and I attempt to see in the subject what others may miss. What is the conventional way of looking at this subject and how might I approach it in some new and intriguing way? What possibilities exist to portray it in a new light or to evoke previously unexplored aspects of it? If I am not curious about the subject, what the "h" am I doing photographing it? What does it make me feel that I haven't felt before? Is it a metaphor for other bigger things? Will my approach be a surprise to others, and why? I find that such subjective thoughts can jolt me out of a more rational aproach or at least complement the rational aspects in a more creative discovery and portrayal of the subject.</p>

<p>Have you looked recently at paintings of serious and gifted amateur painters in your region? Despite the appearance of well executed works, I am often impressed by the banal subject matter and the lack of subjective inspirations in many of the works. They often raise few questions, although they may exhibit lovely technique. Of course there are the exceptional works that surprise, that enlighten, but I think that the problem of the rational "speed bump" hindering creativity is not particular to photography.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>John, you're probably very right about my statement on Adams versus Rowell. I worked with neither of them for sure. For me, though, as a personal taste, this is how I perceive their creations. Not in the way they were created, but in the way the results speak to me. A highly subjective analysis, therefore.</p>

<p>The idea of evolution in this respect is a very interesting one. It's often assumed that imagination is what sets humans apart from most other animals. While I'm personally not too sure about that, it is significant that humans seem to be the only species occupied with creating items just for the sake of their beauty, significance or message. The creation of art as evolutionary sign, or just the luxury of being high up the foodchain and hence having less pressing worries of survival?<br>

By the way, whether or not evolution is goal-designed is one of its ultimate questions and discussions. Selection of the fittest implies a gradual improvement towards the adaptation of circumstances. One could argue it has a goal to perfect the design.</p>

<p>Anyway, back to the topic I originally envisioned, thanks Arthur for a great post underlining the direction I had in mind with the question. Some of the "internal" questions you point out are indeed things that come across my mind every now and then:<br>

<em>What does it make me feel that I haven't felt before? Is it a metaphor for other bigger things? Will my approach be a surprise to others, and why? </em><br>

In taking photos, I found I am often watching and studying more intense then I would do without a camera. It instill a deeper interest and insight, and often reveals new or oter beauties. It's the metaphorical 'placement' of a photo in a bigger whole that is still missing in what I do, but I think it is a matter of development and growth, and one that takes significant time.<br>

But the element of surprise, that is one of the sparks that made me start this thread. In an attempt to surprise and to seem original, I often go and search a different viewpoint, different subject than the most expected (fail mostly at doing so too, but again, time and training). However, the more I do this, the more 'studied' photos sometimes appear to me. It seems like loosing some of the original way I had in taking photos, far less considerate but maybe a bit more honest out of my own surprise at what I saw, more intuitive. It's in this aspect that I feel the trade-off between the rational search for originality against a more intuitive and spontaneous appraoach.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Wouter: "</strong>One could argue it has a goal to perfect the design."</p>

<p> I can see where this is heading, but no, you miss the point. It has no more "goal" than two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen have to make water.</p>

<p><strong>W: "</strong>In an attempt to surprise and to seem original..."</p>

<p> Just be yourself. If you're a dullard, and I'm not saying <em>you</em> personally are, your work will reflect that. At least it will be <em>yours, </em>and that's as close to originality as you or any of us will ever get. If you want your art to change, you have to change.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>it is significant that humans seem to be the only species occupied with creating items just for the sake of their beauty, significance or message</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just as a bit of horizon-broadening, you might enjoy reading up on bower birds. The males make statements about their place in the world, and their suitability as mates by contructing elaborately intricate nesting/breeding sites, and decorating them in unique ways. There's a general shape to most of them, but individual birds get very creative with the decor. Here's a more or less random link to some visuals: <strong><a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bowerbird%20nest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi">Google image search on the subject</a></strong>. It's enough to make one question our supposed monopoly on the arts, especially interior decorating and architecture. :-)<br /><br />Back to the larger subject at hand: I was mindful of this thread while I was out shooting yesterday. In keeping with a lot of my camera time, I was with a client and his dogs out in the field (literally, in a field). The objective: a collection of images that would serve as portraiture of him, his dogs, and their relationship. A secondary objective was the general celebration of the lifestyle they collectively persue.<br /><br />I found myself being <em>very</em> analytical about how camera position/perspective and timeing were contributing to the romance, excitement, intimacy, and sentimentality of the resulting images. I had to be very rational about time of day, light, and also a thousand little details I already knew about the behavior of dogs, partridges, and humans using shotguns a few feet away from me. But I was having to be creative, as well, while reacting to completely un-plannable events and circumstances.<br /><br />While I was able to produce the expected images (stoic companion dog, on the job with proud owner), the most gratifying images - for me - where those of serendipitous unforeseen moments that defied planning and deliberation on my part. My favorite images were gut-response shots that might have seemed a bit irrational in the making, in that they weren't on the agenda, and defied premeditation.<br /><br />But I'm mindful that the only reason those images <em>worked</em> was because of the untold hours I've spent internalizing the technical and circumstantial aspects of shooting that type of subject matter. The <em>creative</em> moments yesterday were really the fruits of thousands of hours of dues-paying hard work that have liberated me from the in-the-foreground technical thinking I have to do while at that sort of work. The careful, "rational" stuff is still happening, but it's largely internalized at this point, and no longer distracts me from feeling a bit lyrical while I work (and dodge birdshot!). <br /><br />I found no dichotomy, yesterday, between the careful thinking and the creativity - but I found that their relative weight on my mind shifts dramatically with simply doing lots of it.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>Interesting thread. I feel you can be creative in a rational way. Just putting 2 and 2 together to make...anything' is creative. It does not have to be emotional.<br>

There where plenty of very rational painters and photographers in the past (and now).<br>

I feel what the OP is really asking is more about the relationship between (that's often at odds with) what I regard as 'improving' creative practice, more a process. This is the difference between what our rational thinking mind tells us we are tring to achive (often based on some fixed idea) and the ability to make something more unique. To move forward?<br>

Something like that, But I could be wrong. </p>

<p>I watched a cut of DUNE recently that included a lot of deleted scenes. It was interesting, You can see how the finished version was developed from this cut, and why the director chose what he did in the final cut. It gave a real insight into the rational behind what he wants you to consider, themes that became his signature in subsiquent films (Twin peaks, Blue velvet etc). All a very rational process in some ways, but creative none the less.<br>

In fact some would say it's crucial to examine things to learn how you want to move forward. But then there is also being open minded to new things. </p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Just curious...what did you think of Inland Empire, Ishmael?</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>

<p >One of the most enlightened and important figures in physics and chemistry completely ignored in the history of science in western societies is Ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham. He was one of the pivotal enablers of the fundementals of the “scientific method”. Those who came centuries later to lay claims on developments in mathematics, physics, optics and chemistry that he had already laid the ground work for are the ones popularized in our historical records.</p>

<p >The processes of art and art itself depend on science. Even our perception, the way we experience and synthesize art, at the physiological level, can be deconstructed and measured.</p>

</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ofey, the importance of science in the subjective as well as rational realm of art is partial only and I would not attribute the cause of all art to science. Thank you for mentioning Al-Haytham, who is probably the first experimental scientist. I quote from one of his biographies available in the West (www.<strong>ibnalhaytham</strong>.net).</p>

<p><br /> "Known in the West as Alhazen, Alhacen, or Alhazeni,Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham was the first person to test hypotheses with verifiable experiments, developing the scientific method more than 200 years before European scholars learned of it—by reading his books."<br /> <br />"Born in Basra in 965, Ibn al-Haitham first studied theology, trying unsuccessfully to resolve the differences between the Shi'ah and Sunnah sects. Ibn al-Haitham then turned his attention to the works of the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians, including Euclid and Archimedes. He completed the fragmentary <em>Conics</em>by Apollonius of Perga. Ibn al-Haitham was the first person to apply algebra to geometry, founding the branch of mathematics known as analytic geometry."<br /> <br />In regard to human biases, he wrote (again quoting from the biography) "The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them," the first scientist wrote, "but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration."<br /> "In his massive study of light and vision, <em>Kitâb al-Manâzir</em> (<em>Book of Optics</em> ), Ibn al-Haytham submitted every hypothesis to a physical test or mathematical proof. To test his hypothesis that "lights and colors do not blend in the air," for example, <strong>Ibn al-Haytham devised the world's first camera obscura, observed what happened when light rays intersected at its aperture, and recorded the results </strong><em>(my emphasis in bold print)</em><strong>.</strong> Throughout his investigations, Ibn al-Haytham followed all the steps of the scientific method."</p>

<p>You are right, we should know more about him, and the other Arabian mathematicians. Our traditional studies of ancient scholars passes via the Renaissance, and the religious and political connections to knowledge of that time.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"The processes of art and art itself depend on science."</em></p>

<p>Ofey, I don't find that to be the case. The process of art depends on those things that science deconstructs -- brain function, perception, etc. Science is a discipline. Art as a discipline is not dependent on science at all. It is dependent on the objects science studies. We need eyes and brains to create art. (Of course blind people can make art as well.) We don't necessarily need to study science, or even need science at all, though some artists do study it and benefit from it. People were drawing long before they understood the physiology behind it.</p>

<p>P.S. Arthur, we posted simultaneously.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I watched a cut of DUNE recently that included a lot of deleted scenes. It was interesting, You can see how the finished version was developed from this cut, and why the director chose what he did in the final cut.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's more the other way around, with the deleted scene's being more in tune with the directors vision than the actual final cut , which David Lynch never got, probably because the studio wanted something more rational.</p>