Creativity

[aplumpton]

<p>Charles, although Mr. Rodia's creativity is singular in purpose it seems composed of many elements each of which have their own creative forms. Reminds me of Ferdinand Cheval (Cheval the postman or "facteur" Cheval) who, like Rodia, designed his ideal place (a palace) of unique forms. A construction worker and a postman (who tripped over a fascinating stone that incited his creativity) who each created memorable art (André Breton, Max Ernst and and Pablo Picasso each recognized Facteur Cheval).<br /> http://twistedsifter.com/2011/09/ferdinand-cheval-ideal-palace<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval</p>

<p>Maybe the 2nd face of creativity, researched, singular and complex, for Rodia and Cheval, was not without fun. But also it is inthese examples a bit like the first case, as craft plays some important part as well. Is the difference between the two simply the power to surprise the viewer? The result of research and a heightened creativeness? That I imagine would depend upon the viewer's experience and what he or she considered to be unique rather than just embellishment.</p>

[dan_south]

I wouldn't separate them. It all seems like one idea to me, i.e. to achieve some result given some set of knowledge and

some set of available elements. Whether the inspiration comes from thoughtful research, technical understanding, or

natural inclinstion or instinct is not possible to determine, as these factors are all filtered through the same brain.

Inspiration is probably almost always rooted in multiple sources.

[MichaelChang]

<p>Dan, I like what you wrote as a general principle, but I think inspiration is often derived from the creativity of others thereby building a vertical addition to it, or a horizontal alternate. </p>

<p>I can think of such examples in most disciplines - a scientist or philosopher develops an initial theory while those who come after are inspired to come up with expansions or alternates to that theory. The initial work is creative while the derivative work inspired by it is less so. </p>

<p>Some of these characteristics are harder to identify or define in art. I was pondering this question while looking at Picasso's "<a href="http://www.pablopicasso.org/girl-before-mirror.jsp">Girl before a Mirror</a>": is the reflection in the mirror a stroke of genius, creative, or is it predictable or even expected? And if he was commissioned to paint a girl in a house of mirrors, how would he "creatively" do so? </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>An aside, a picture I thought was quite creative - that of an ordinary sunset shot through a light bulb; two every day experiences together in one picture making it extraordinary:<br>

<a href="http://imgur.com/zifiR">http://imgur.com/zifiR</a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Michael, imagine how that image would better "extraordinary" if the framing was greatly curtailed to show only part of the light bulb with the same background. As it is, and despite its fine exposure, I think it leaves not enough for the viewer's imagination.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>For me, the photo is very much what it is because of the way the light bulb is dealt with and the hand that holds it. It is a more directed and specific photo this way, which some photos are meant to be. Where my imagination comes in here is not in wondering about a partially unseen context but rather in the actual juxtaposition of two quite "everyday" (to use Michael's apt word) experiences. In this case the enigma is not in the "what is it", which it might be if we didn't know we were looking through a lightbulb and didn't see the entire lightbulb so obviously, but rather in what we make of the "what it is"--which is presented so starkly--in what I see and how I see it. The riches of this photo, for me, are in the sense of scale, the sense of the man-made against the natural, held by the human, the emphasis of color and center, the human intervention of the hand in almost a sci-fi fashion. For me, the photo, to be what it is, needs the entirety of the lightbulb as a known and easily-recognizable form imposed on the landscape. The lightbulb also exists metaphorically, for me, very much due to the fact that I know just what it is. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I agree with some of these good points, Fred, but ultimately the image for me is too evident in its delivery and message. Too practical or "scientific" in its intent, leaving me with a feeling like OK, very nice, well done, but so what? Something more enigmatic or one forcing the viewer to think about what he is seeing would be less "physics 101" and more successful. Anyway, I do hope the photographer, whoever he or she is (not mentioned), continues with the subject matter and tries other less evident ways to convey the visual message. I do love to hear how photographic examples affect each of us and how those evaluations vary so much. As a former gallery owner and advocate of art expression I am familiar with the great variety of serious art appreciation that is so variable from one client or viewer to another. I think that is a very healthy situation and shows the multiple faces and impacts of creativity and invention. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Nicely said, Arthur. It brings to mind something important to mention about creativity. IMO, it is not only in the making of something that I or anyone else can be creative. Creativity also applies to the viewing of photos and art and things in general.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I could ask myself of the photo Mike presented, "What are the significances within the significant space created by the photographer in the form of that photo?" If I ask myself that question of that photo, I can't come up with a clear answer. What is the idea or concept that the photo implants in the mind of the viewer, to borrow a thought from Floyd in his bio (apologies to Floyd for that borrowing). The photographer is holding a globe-like object, has the world in his hand while standing again on a globe, the earth. Or does the photo announce the demise of the incandescent light bulb, replaced by more earth friendly fluorescents, incandescents the setting sun, fluorescents to come in the new day? Or, a light bulb is often used to stand for an idea, as in 'the bulb went off in my head'. But in the photo the bulb isn't turned on, except the sun's placement suggests the bulb is turned on, the glowing filament being the sun. What would be meant by that placement? Anything? Still, perhaps the photo of the bulb implies <em>idea</em>, conveys recursively "this photo is my <em>idea</em>". I'm afraid that "I the photographer had an idea" is all that the that photo says to me.</p>

[Brad_]

It is creative in the sense that it's analogous to visual puns seen in many street photographs. In the end, for

me, it communicates little beyond cleverness, rather than being a strong photograph that moves and stirs

something within.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I'm in NY for a week and was at MOMA today where I ran across Dali's <a href="http://www.imageof.net/bulkupload/wallpapers2/Art/The_Persistence_of_Memory_Salvador_Dali.jpg"><em>Persistence of Memory</em></a>, which made me think of the photo we're discussing. Here's something interesting to consider about Surrealism:</p>

<p><em>". . . many Surrealist artists and writers regard their work as an expression of the philosophical movement first and foremost, with the works being an artifact."</em></p>

<p>I have my own limits with a lot of surrealist work, including the photo we're discussing, but something I do find compelling about surrealist work is that, for me, it's less about ideas than it is about reality . . . I should say realities, the unconscious more than the conscious. "I have an idea" may be too reflective a way to approach it.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>From the comments for that picture on its display page: "It just dawned on me..." Now that's funny. Can be viewed as a visual pun, as Brad says. One thing I see I now do like about that photo is that it is a performance, a show, and Dali was in part a showman too.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The bulb is a <em>symbol</em> of idea.</p>

<p>It is a <em>sign</em> of light.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate creativity from ignorance commonly seen in disciplines where new ways of doing things are celebrated. </p>

<p>The patent office is filled with bogus claims of ideas that either simple don't work or not as advertised. Free energy, perpetual motion, and (literally) better mouse traps are also constantly being claimed, often in good faith by genuinely ignorant people who either don't understand the problems they're attempting to solve at a high level or simply can't be bothered to research prior art. </p>

<p>These people do think outside the box, but unfortunately they do so fruitlessly, so even though they are creative in spirit, their misapplication of it renders their creative efforts moot. </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>These people do think outside the box, but unfortunately they do so fruitlessly, so even though they are creative in spirit, their misapplication of it renders their creative efforts moot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, you may be right that a number of patent applications and patents go nowhere. But that is simply something we must accept as part of the invention cycle and human attempts to better something. Who knows, maybe their "pointless" invention may inspire others to do better or maybe it will work someday under as yet to be discovered conditions.</p>

<p>Expanded graphite, whereby graphite atoms are intercalated with other chemicals was patented in the mid 19th century. Such intercalation compounds went unapplied until the middle to late twentieth century when a gasket material was required for nuclear reactor piping connections whereby a long-lasting gasket was needed to avoid having to open the joint with exposure to dangerous radiation. By rapid heating the graphite it expanded many times its native volume and upon recompressing it a durable gasket was achieved. They have since been used in some motor vehicle engine gaskets. The seemingly purposeless invention in the 19th century is no longer such.</p>

<p>Patents more often show inventions showing creativity of a very high order.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Arthur, I fully agree that many conceptual ideas have merit even if it's not realizable at the time of conception or even apparently impossible - space elevators come to mind. </p>

<p>I was referring more to people who pursue relatively known art with bodies of precedent work without knowledge of these works, yet they sincerely believe they're on to some sort of breakthrough. One example I came across recently is the idea of making a friction heater whereby the output energy generated is said to be greater than the input power needed to run it.<br>

<a href="

</p>

<p>Some of these bogus ideas are seemingly sensible enough to attract the attention of many followers thereby perpetuating bad science/engineering and defying logic, and as often the case they are so invested in these idea that abandoning it is not an option. YouTube is full of this type of stuff. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Michael, I agree. It's a mixed bag, like most areas of human endeavour. Critical thinking is required to separate dead end or fallacious ideas from the good ones. Having been involved in a few ideas of inventions of very limited success (in one case a complete flop, notwithstanding the technical rigor involved) I can attest to the fact that holding on to one's direction can be quite obsessive and not necessarily useful. Knowing when to let go and when to pursue is also not always evident. Standing back in order to better judge creativeness and usefulness is not always very easy, especially when the unknowns are abundant.</p>

<p>What bugs me is when excellent projects get derailed for reasons other than their creativeness and value. In my own small country (Canada) we once produced the first protype jet airliner (At Canadair, in the late 40's, before the issue of the British Comet and then Boeing's 707) which was cancelled and probably for lack of funds, and more significantly, the most advanced military jet fighter of its kind in the 50's/60's, the Avro Arrow, which our government of the time cut as it had its eyes on purchase of Bomark missiles. Some 2000 highly qualified engineers and other workers immediately out of work and hired by other jurisdictions. All aircraft produced to that point and their tools and plans were destroyed. Such shortsightedness (a generous term!) is the enemy of creativity.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Michael: "If you build it, they will come."</p>

[gilles_lacoste]

<p>In my humble opinion. Photography (like all arts), only ' is not a path to creative freedom, a path toward yourself to meet the others?<br />What is for the public of laughter or tears, we need to shape it in our souls and pull us - even. Photography fixes nothing; on the contrary it exalts the fugitive, it is fleeting, she plays with this impalpability taste. " The joy of concern is the creative part of be, this creativity free is guided only by the depth of soul, is that trace us the path for the simple continuity of our approach.<br /><br />A path forward to meet the others, one path to others in the meeting itself.<br>

This path belongs to us. It is essence of creativity.<br>

Gilles.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>How could you get this far in the discussion without addressing originality? On the one hand I do or make something I've never made before, and, on the other, I do or make something no one has ever made before. I think that the process leading up to the result and the experience of realizing it for the maker (artist?) is much the same for both, but the potential for recognition and appreciation is far greater for the latter.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Albert, you've brought up a good reflection. Originality and invention are quite close in type. When I referred to the latter in former comments that was similar to what I think you are relating to, is it not? The bottom line is that we cannot all be inventors or sources of original ideas, but creating something that has already been done by someone else can still be fulfilling, as the pleasure is in the process that we may well be discovering while on that route.</p>

<p>One can think of some inventions that were made a few months after a similar invention of another. The Hall and Héroult invention of Al process electrolysis smelting of bauxite ore was created almost simultaneously by two independent workers in 1869 (I think that was the year, but the process is still relevant today in improved form). Daguerre and Fox-Talbot divised two photographic processes in the same year, or nearly, with differing advantages at the time. I think all of these four inventions are universally acknowledged to be original, despite similar on-going work by another. A Canadian invented basketball, but an American or Americans perfected it. Both are creations. Ice hockey was likely developed early by indigenous peoples, but the game was later perfected (also adding rules) in Montreal. Again, two cases of original thinking in achieving a result, but based on the same product.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Your remark concerning the fulfillment that comes from making things is certainly true, Arthur. </p>

<p>I've thought that it is strange how similar things come up in human endeavor at the same time. Your examples are very good. Ancient examples such as the worldwide use of carved stone to make buildings and monuments including pyramids come to mind as well. I suppose one could ask how else to stack stone blocks except in the form of a pyramid; you have to climb the work already done to get to the rest of the project after all. How can so many apparently disconnected people be doing the same thing at the same time? It's a mystery for sure.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It may be because so much change, creativity, invention, and art is cultural, social, and as communal as it is individual. There are societal needs, understandings, and situations that will aid in many people coming to the same sort of invention at the same time. Even as individuals, we feed off each other and off the whole of society. The times are sometimes ripe for a certain invention or way of thinking, made current by historical, social, political, and cultural factors. We are all affected by these less individual mechanisms, IMO.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"It may be because so much change, creativity, invention, and art is cultural, social, and as communal as it is individual. Freddy.</p>

<p>It is a feeding process but then then there is that magic spark of individuality.</p>

<p>That is the creativity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen,</p>

<p>My name is Fred. Please call me that. Thanks.</p>

<p>You may or may not have noticed that I was specifically responding to Albert's wondering why so many individuals might come up with the same creative idea at the same time, and at the moment was not talking just about "creativity" <em>per se</em>.</p>

<p>Fred</p>