creativity

[tommyfilmist]

What has creativity become, but a meaningless phrase?

 

I followed a link to 500px in a different philosophy thread and went poking about. Although the site states they only have create works of photography by creative people, I must ask what creativity actually is.

 

Is it just taking a good photography? With something interesting going on?

 

Or is it merely copying old photographs and paintings as is common on 500px? Is creativity photoshopping a photo of a man sitting on a stool into a picture of an arctic ice flow to make it look like "naked man sitting on an ice flow drifting out to sea"?

 

Things that hit the cover of Vogue back in the 1980s MIGHT have been creative and different for that date, but is copying it TODAY actually creative?

[samstevens]

Sometimes, creativity is getting out of your own way.

[tommyfilmist]

l

Sometimes, creativity is getting out of your own way.

 

 

Copying what someone else is doing isnt getting OUT of my own way, its getting IN my way.

 

What point is there.. yeah sure it might look cutesy for a moment, but why the big push for conformity in order to "stand out"

[inoneeye]

]but is copying it TODAY actually creative?

 

Copying? without examples it depends on what you mean. It may be that someone is just trying out a known style or technique or if they copy with the intent to literally replicate, well that is plagiarism imo.

Being Inspired by other work - (style, technique, concept, etc) - and making it your own can be very creative. Going a giant step beyond that to make it your own and leave the connection more remote.. (as Picasso said steal it)... that adds something new and moves the ongoing dialogue into the future.

[JDMvW]

Although I was a black sheep in my family of artists (being more of a critic), I learned that originality and creativeness are neither the same nor even usually linked.

 

Benedetto Croce makes this point in his Aesthetic. "Integrity of purpose and achievement of goals" That fits in more with my personal history of being surrounded by touchy-feely types.

 

This piece of horse dung that looks like St Ignatius may be fairly "novel", but ....

[samstevens]

originality and creativeness are neither the same nor even usually linked.

+1 Important point.

touchy-feely types

But creativity sometimes demands not painting with a broad brush.

This piece of horse dung that looks like St Ignatius may be fairly "novel", but ....

Another good point. Remembering, of course that, just like originality is not creativity, a photo of horse dung is not horse dung.

[JDMvW]

ceci n'est pas une merde?

 

peut etre

[samstevens]

making it your own

A thoughtful caveat.

 

For me, creativity has an element of intimacy, not necessarily in the sense of sexuality or even human relationships, but in the sense of there being something personal at stake. I've thought for a while now that more important to me than originality is being able to be personal and to dig within. I say this with some hesitancy because some great artists have really attempted and succeeded at being as objective as possible, so I don't know how that fits into my scheme other than to say that's a personal choice, but that doesn't quite satisfy me, lol.

 

I do think, though, historically, a lot of artists have not worried too much about originality and were happy to stand on the shoulders of others while still asserting themselves as a voice to be reckoned with. And your drawing attention to a distinction between making something your own and making it remote from its influence moving the ball forward is also worth noting.

 

Art often seems to me to be an evolving dialogue (with some intense Hamlet-like monologues thrown in for good measure).

[samstevens]

ceci n'est pas une merde?

oui et non

 

oui to the extent the picture is not the thing pictured

 

non to the extent the picture often makes us think of the thing pictured

 

And kudos both to the artist that gets our imagination to think of the thing and to the other artist that might get us to forget the thing or move well beyond it.

[inoneeye]

"originality and creativeness are [not] the same [...]"

+2. I think they are often linked in common usage. But not by definition.

 

"I do think, though, historically, a lot of artists have not worried too much about originality and were happy to stand on the shoulders of others while still asserting themselves ..."

A desire to chase 'originality' would stifle my creativity, it would only frustrate me. Being innovative has no appeal for me. It is outside my mindset and reach.

Exploring & experimenting is what drives me forward. That often includes being inspired by what others have done. That is to copy, use and process into my voice. Not original but very creative.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Neither creativity nor originality matter. Relevance does.

[samstevens]

Would be interesting to hear some reasoning along with the declarative statement. Important to bring in relevance, for sure. The question that comes to mind: Why either/or? Why do you think all of them don’t matter?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Because,Sam, if, for whatever reason, noone cares about what you put on offer, noone cares. No matter how original or creative.

 

You would be interested to hear some reasoning. That's because you might think that could matter for what you think. If you do not, no matter how original or creative my reasoning, it does not matter. And if you do, you do, no matter how original or creative that reasoning is.

The world is full of utterances (in whatever medium) that are at best recreative, so not original, that still matter to many people. Even once original uterances may not have lost their relevance, though they have become platitudes, and can't be regarded as creative or original anymore. And vice versa: many creative and original utterances may never mean anything to anyone.

Edited April 3, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[samstevens]

I consider these threads a dialogue so it matters what you think. I’m always trying to learn, not always successful. Relevance matters so does attitude.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sure, relevance matters. Tautological.

Creativity nor originality do, would you not agree?

 

You asking to hear more only served as an example.

[samstevens]

Creativity and originality matter to me, in different ways in different contexts.

 

Something can be relevant but uninspiring. Something creatively done can be relevant and more inspiring or at least more able to reach me on a gut or more emotional level.

 

Creativity suggests to me a less-tethered-than-typical use of the imagination in expressing oneself.

Edited April 3, 2022 by samstevens

[q.g._de_bakker]

Being inspiring is yet another thing, though it is nothing else but a form of relevance.

 

The level of creativity 'can be', you say, instrumental for being relevant. Inspiring. Touching. Whatever you'd like to call it.

As long as it is a 'can be', creativity also cannot be. So it's clearly not the deciding thingy. No matter your understanding of what it is or what it suggests.

So again: it (nor originalty) does not matter. Relevance does.

[samstevens]

The level of creativity 'can be', you say, instrumental for being relevant.

Not what I said or meant. I don't see creativity as instrumental for relevance. Relevance is relevance. It either is or it isn't, regardless of creativity. Creativity + relevance hits me in the gut, emotionally. Relevance on its own can sometimes do that and relevance on its own can sometimes be boring.

 

Like creativity, relevance is a can be and also a cannot be. Something can be relevant or not. Something can be creative or not. Something can be relevant and not creative. Something can be creative and not relevant. They are spheres that may overlap or may not.

 

I find in much art the two elements I spoke of ... creativity and originality ... and the one element you added ... relevance. I see them all playing off each other and with each other in different degrees in all kinds of different contexts.

 

[i do tend to speak in "can be" rather than "is" terms, trying to allow for possibilities over certainty.]

[inoneeye]

Neither creativity nor originality matter. Relevance does.

 

Here in a discussion among photographers about creativity and originality in photography both matter.

“if, for whatever reason, noone cares about what you put on offer, noone cares. No matter how original or creative.”

obvious yes… if we take it from a viewers or readers perspective, assuming that they see no relevance.

We are not bound to only consider viewers reactions. How we experience it as photographers is relevant.

[samstevens]

Good to bring in the photographer's perspective.

 

_________________________________

 

I've been a little slow on the uptake here. Relevant = Matters. So if creativity matters it's because it's relevant, which becomes primary. A word game. Fairly useless to me. I was discussing photography and art, not the self-fulfilling meaning of words or the triviality of asserting a tautology in order to avoid talking about art and photography. and what goes into it.

 

I should have listened to you last week, Q.G. Definitely worth ignoring. Thanks for the advice.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Good, Sam. Please do.

 

Creativity/originality and relevance obviously are different things. There can be relevance because of creativity. If that is what you (photographer or viewer, doesn't matter inoneeye) are looking for, inspires you, makes something meaningful.

But it would be rather naive to think that creativity/originality (etc.) would be the only thing that can make something relevant, touching, important, etc.

And that: there being a reason to take note of anything, having an impact, in short: be relevant, is the important thing. The either-or thing. Either it is something people take note of, care about. Or it is something that does not, cannot, is ignored, not even noticed. Using the words from the OP: there must be something interesting going on. Else it might just as well not be.

And yes, i agree with the OP in sofar as there indeed is way too much pretending to be "interesting" (and usually through the use of too many words that make no sense either), while not being worth even a second of our time.

 

It is indeed as simple as understanding that what matters matters, Sam. And of understanding that not everything matters, even though it might sometimes.

If anything wants to be "interesting", it must have a 'hook'. And that hook might well be something very different from being 'creative', or 'original'. Reducing human interest to either or both of these two is something noone really would want to do. Right, Sam?

 

If you think this is a word game, you're indeed rather slow.

 

And again, inoneeye, that is no different is from either photographer's or viewer's perspectives.

Edited April 4, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[q.g._de_bakker]

Here in a discussion among photographers about creativity and originality in photography both matter.

“if, for whatever reason, noone cares about what you put on offer, noone cares. No matter how original or creative.”

obvious yes… if we take it from a viewers or readers perspective, assuming that they see no relevance.

We are not bound to only consider viewers reactions. How we experience it as photographers is relevant.

That "if" you emphasize is not a hypothetical. Neither being creative nor being original is sufficient ground for being relevant. That there is room for such an "if" shows that.

And re perspective: see my reply to Sam above: it does not matter, is the same from both perspectives. Both are human perspectives. Neither one is separated from what else we get involved in.

Edited April 4, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[inoneeye]

Neither being creative nor being original is sufficient ground for being relevant.

 

As I said, in the context of this thread discussing creativity is relevant. No one has said being creative till now. So if your reworked equation is as it reads now in your last 2 posts, I agree, our work does not become relevant simply because of our creativity or originality.

[tommyfilmist]

creativity does indeed need some originality to it.

 

Truly, if a person can write, why not be creative and create their own world.. instead of just doing star wars fan fiction story 94.679 million?

Why do yet another clone of the most popular vogure or harpers bazaar photo cover portraits?

 

If one has the ability to DO,, why COPY all others?

 

If your idea or concept of originality is in doing what the PPA says to do, "follow the curent trends to stay competitive and relevant", why even BOTHER? Your doing neither of those things by copying everyone else.

[q.g._de_bakker]

As I said, in the context of this thread discussing creativity is relevant. No one has said being creative till now. So if your reworked equation is as it reads now in your last 2 posts, I agree, our work does not become relevant simply because of our creativity or originality.

That's it.

 

And no: no equation is reworked. Creativity and being creative cannot be those two separate things you try to suggest they are.