creativity

[q.g._de_bakker]

[...] Seems like you would consider that as a waste of your time.

"Seems like" i "would"?

[inoneeye]

What's new under the sun with photos? Don't we mean newness when we speak of creativity

 

Not ignoring but setting aside the white noise and naysayers i think this comment Allen may expose the crux & underbelly of this discussion starting with the opening question.

What has creativity become, but a meaningless phrase?

If creativity is considered from the vantage point of nothing new under sun or in the context of photography, under the sun since the mid 1800s, then creativity may be a meaningless word. It's been done and now we rehash what's already been done. But that limits, closes the door which as a viewsr & photographer i choose not to. I am open to consider creativity as flourishing among the rubble of the past.

But then i take the under the sun expression less literally, as hyperbole.

 

And from where i stand on my little piece of ground looking around there is a lot of creativity moving about. although it does require a lot of filtering.

We have new technology that can and does move us forward to new ways to express ourselves. Photography itself is an innovation that I consider a door to new ways to express creatively. I am seeing new things emerging in photography. As a photographer i am constantly finding new ways to be creative and communicate in ways I did not before. Among the masses of non distinctive repetitive photos I am also finding new creative voices out there.

 

Whether i like them or not they may inspire me creatively as a photographer to explore in new directions with new ways to express myself.

Creativity is a tangible for me both as a viewer and a source to be used to communicate.

Edited April 5, 2022 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

on my little piece of ground

This brings me back to the idea of the personal or intimate. From the standpoint of the universe, there's nothing new about a baby picture or a portrait. From the standpoint of the personal, on the other hand, there is something new.

 

My motivation for making a portrait is not to make something new but to make something (and express something) personal. Using my imagination doesn't ensure originality, but it does move me toward authenticity.

 

So, no, when I am moved by a photographic portrait, I am not led to the Ecclesiastes quote. Rather, I'm led to personhood and individuality, inspired by an empathetic response I have to the human visage and expression and what it means and how it feels to me to portray and experience that. I can appreciate creativity ... and embrace any tension between the fact that it's not the first portrait ever to have been made and that it's also new in a significant enough sense to me.

 

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it."

—Jim Jarmusch

 

my poet friend, jim, photographed and post processed with some ideas stolen from annie leibovitz

Edited April 5, 2022 by samstevens

[inoneeye]

Nice eye contact, nice portrait of Jim. Makes me want to know him.

[Ricochetrider]

"Nothing is original." - Jim Jarmusch

I had a fleeting thought about originality in the context of this discussion but can't really pull it together. :cool:

[Ricochetrider]

Nice eye contact, nice portrait of Jim. Makes me want to know him.

Agree, that's lovely indeed. And I'd bet Mr Jarmusch is a gas to hang out with.

[samstevens]

When you look at a photo of someone you love, you fall in love all over again.

How about when you take a picture of someone you love? What’s that about for you?

[AlanKlein]

This brings me back to the idea of the personal or intimate. From the standpoint of the universe, there's nothing new about a baby picture or a portrait. From the standpoint of the personal, on the other hand, there is something new.

 

My motivation for making a portrait is not to make something new but to make something (and express something) personal. Using my imagination doesn't ensure originality, but it does move me toward authenticity.

 

So, no, when I am moved by a photographic portrait, I am not led to the Ecclesiastes quote. Rather, I'm led to personhood and individuality, inspired by an empathetic response I have to the human visage and expression and what it means and how it feels to me to portray and experience that. I can appreciate creativity ... and embrace any tension between the fact that it's not the first portrait ever to have been made and that it's also new in a significant enough sense to me.

 

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it."

—Jim Jarmusch

 

When you look at a photo of someone you love, you fall in love all over again.

[Ricochetrider]

I feel like creativity is alive & well. Not only in photography but in so many other areas too.

OK so what if “nothing is original”. Doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t mean people are purposely “copying” stuff in their creativity. We humans are thousands of years into existence. Creativity is possibly exactly as old as we are. People are going to “create”. They always have and always will.

 

People draw upon available sources for inspiration, and that’s the way it goes. Even the best artist of whatever genre or medium has their influences, mentors or muses.

 

To dismiss creativity IMO is to deny oneself the pleasure of enjoying (and/or creating) art and many other things in life. Is to deny the existence of creativity, to assume you’ve seen everything? For if one has NOT seen “everything” (and who has?) then how does one fully and actually KNOW what is or is not “out there”?

 

OK but taking this another direction:

when you slot people into the category of “creator” then you ascribe an air of artifice to the whole thing; for example on social media (Instagram for photography, if that’s where we’re at) where people are dubbed creators or influencers- IMO the difference here amounts to approach and energy invested and a bit of luck? Not to say they’re doing anything that isn’t being done elsewhere or by others, maybe not as good as or better than anyone else (but they could be)-

they are definitely more successful in getting noticed - which in my estimation is no mean feat in todays world of billions.

Creative marketing, to put it succinctly.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

an air of artifice to the whole thing

 

Social media spoils everything, lol.

 

For the moment, I have to leave Instagram and Facebook to others because I don’t partake, but artifice can also be important in a somewhat different sense.

 

Artifice very much pertains to art and creativity, its use more or less present and apparent in varying degrees. There’s already built-in artifice in the picture of the thing not being the thing itself, in the limitations and possibilities framing a scene offers, in a 2-dimensional rendering, and photographers can build on these as they like.

 

The imaginative use of artifice is where some of the magic lies. It’s through artistic devices and even tricks that artifice can reach down and show both inner (personal) and more universally-felt truths.

 

Art is the lie …

[samstevens]

I'm the same as everyone else. Of course, I fall in love all over again. Don't you feel the same way?

No.

 

Anyway, what I was aiming at was to find out if there's a difference for you between looking at a picture of someone and taking a picture of someone. I also wasn't limiting it to taking or looking at pictures of people I know, one of the reasons "falling in love again" doesn't ring a bell for me, unless Marlene Dietrich is singing it! Though it would make a nice Hallmark card slogan, lol. :)

[AlanKlein]

How about when you take a picture of someone you love? What’s that about for you?

I'm the same as everyone else. Of course, I fall in love all over again. Don't you feel the same way?

[Allen Herbert]

"I know, one of the reasons "falling in love again" doesn't ring a bell for me" Sam.

 

Ring that bell, Sam it is never too late!

 

 

[inoneeye]

Creativity is possibly exactly as old as we are. People are going to “create”. They always have and always will.

Certainly makes sense that creative thinking would have a hand in our getting to this point. I think artistic creativity is also hardwired and existed long before we gave it a label.

and surely whatever force motivated the first humans to imagine, create and express for the ‘need’ to express beyond the pragmatic necessity to create... is what drives many now.

The difference here and now is the addition & consideration of the differrnt common usages of the word creativity. and the clutter and oscillation of definitions that surrounds us making any clarity elusive.

 

Creativity is a big and potentially expansive word and can be assessed in many ways depending on vantage point. it is not meaningless unless you choose to close the door all that it offers.

Context and perspective matter.

I think creativity thrives today! albeit so does lack of creative work.

[Ricochetrider]

Certainly makes sense that creative thinking would have a hand in our getting to this point. I think artistic creativity is also hardwired and existed long before we gave it a label.

and surely whatever force motivated the first humans to imagine, create and express for the ‘need’ to express beyond the pragmatic necessity to create... is what drives many now.

The difference here and now is the addition & consideration of the differrnt common usages of the word creativity. and the clutter and oscillation of definitions that surrounds us making any clarity elusive.

 

Creativity is a big and potentially expansive word and can be assessed in many ways depending on vantage point. it is not meaningless unless you choose to close the door all that it offers.

Context and perspective matter.

I think creativity thrives today! albeit so does lack of creative work.

 

Well stated. We know for sure that the world at large is becoming more homogeneous - certainly in the mainstream. All that is in the immediate forefront force-pushes all else to the back burners of our consciousness. It’s like trying to hear the sound of a pin drop in the din. One really needs to go deeper to discover the eclectic, esoteric, creative 21st century world. If one stays near the surface then all one sees is bullsh*t but a deeper look reveals so much more.

[samstevens]

Certainly makes sense that creative thinking would have a hand in our getting to this point. I think artistic creativity is also hardwired and existed long before we gave it a label.

and surely whatever force motivated the first humans to imagine, create and express for the ‘need’ to express beyond the pragmatic necessity to create... is what drives many now.

The difference here and now is the addition & consideration of the differrnt common usages of the word creativity. and the clutter and oscillation of definitions that surrounds us making any clarity elusive.

 

Creativity is a big and potentially expansive word and can be assessed in many ways depending on vantage point. it is not meaningless unless you choose to close the door all that it offers.

Context and perspective matter.

I think creativity thrives today! albeit so does lack of creative work.

Well stated. We know for sure that the world at large is becoming more homogeneous - certainly in the mainstream. All that is in the immediate forefront force-pushes all else to the back burners of our consciousness. It’s like trying to hear the sound of a pin drop in the din. One really needs to go deeper to discover the eclectic, esoteric, creative 21st century world. If one stays near the surface then all one sees is bullsh*t but a deeper look reveals so much more.

Two really nice posts.

 

It occurs to me that so much of all this got started with myth. Art owes so much to mythology, both in terms of initially representing the specific content of myths and also in developing imaginative possibilities to explain the world and how it works. Myths were so often inspired by observation of natural occurrences, less understood at the time than we do now, and they were a portrayal of the otherwise "unexplainable."

 

To make expressively tangible the ineffable. That's part of creativity.

[inoneeye]

We know for sure that the world at large is becoming more homogeneous - certainly in the mainstream.

Good op point. And that is unfortunate. But also at some point as in the past that will help trigger a leap on to new ground. Like a stream to a river becoming a waterfall and continuing on to the ocean.

Edited April 6, 2022 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

trigger a leap on to new ground. Like a stream to a river becoming a waterfall and continuing on to the ocean.

Thus, the famous ancient saying about not being able to step in the same river twice. I love the counterpoint involved in thinking that change is constant. Nothing new under the sun? Everything's new every moment ... and that's nothing new!

[Ricochetrider]

Guys, I live very close to a massive river, the Susquehanna, one mile wide here with a drainage area of roughly 25,000 square miles and a flow rate (downstream at Havre De Grace MD) of about 18 million gallons per minute….

suffice it to say y’all’s River analogies touch my heart.

[AlanKlein]

No.

 

Anyway, what I was aiming at was to find out if there's a difference for you between looking at a picture of someone and taking a picture of someone. I also wasn't limiting it to taking or looking at pictures of people I know, one of the reasons "falling in love again" doesn't ring a bell for me, unless Marlene Dietrich is singing it! Though it would make a nice Hallmark card slogan, lol. :)

Well, falling in love again doesn't have to be between partners or sexual at all. It could be the feelings of love you have towards a parent when you look at an old picture of them. It brings a warm feeling in your heart that we call love. Pictures have that power. I doubt if many Ansel Adams pictures do that with people. This is why most shots stored in cellphones are of family.

[samstevens]

the Susquehanna

Many moons ago, I spent many an hour staring into the waters of the Susquehanna while at college in Binghamton, NY.

[samstevens]

Well, falling in love again doesn't have to be between partners or sexual at all. It could be the feelings of love you have towards a parent when you look at an old picture of them. It brings a warm feeling in your heart that we call love. Pictures have that power. I doubt if many Ansel Adams pictures do that with people. This is why most shots stored in cellphones are of family.

Alan, I know you meant more than sexual partners and you needn’t convince me to feel like you just as you needn’t have claimed everyone feels like you in order to justify your own feelings. I just consider the sentiment of a portrait making one fall in love again a rather simplistic cliché though, like most clichés, there’s an aspect of it that rings true in some instances. Were it accompanied by a bit of spice in addition to the saccharin, it might mean more to me. But as a summary of portraiture, for me, it’s woefully lacking.

 

Example: Karsh’s portraits of Casals and Churchill. Neither makes me fall in love, let alone all over again. But they do reach me in other expressive and emotional terms, one in tune with the mysteries of music and musicianship, the other with statecraft and sobriety.

 

CASALS

 

CHURCHILL

[samstevens]

I doubt if many Ansel Adams pictures do that with people.

I have stronger emotional reactions to photographers like Brassai and Sudek, but there have been times when Adams's Yosemite has really reached down inside me. I do experience art in very personal terms, your doubts aside.

 

As to family portraits, there's often as much bittersweetness as love.

[hjoseph7]

The dictionary defines it like this : CREATIVITY

NOUN

1. the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work:
   

[inoneeye]

Now check the #1 definition of or.

Or I’d suggest A different dictionary to make the point I think? you are trying to make.

Edited April 7, 2022 by inoneeye