clive_murray_white

<p>Checking back Charles I realise that you are correct, my word game was not described with any purpose other than just playing it for its own sake - sorry.</p> <p>Fred - I've always found art history interesting and taught it for many years, it can be done in a variety of ways, my own particular method relied to a large extent on trying to impart to my students a sense of the time, a kind of overview of how society was changing and how those changes manifested themselves in art. I have always found the convenient sequential run of one after another art movements approach quite unsatisfactory - for the simple reason that many of the movements were actually concurrent. As time goes on many of the reasons for change in art are often forgotten and edited, German Expressionism, just gets shortened to Expressionism. And then we have to acknowledge that many of the names of the movements were coined by people other than the artists themselves. We can also add that quite often the artists didn't sign up in any formal way to the movements they are often associated with - and in some notable cases were very upset by this.</p> <p>Advances and charges in science had a far greater effect on art than is commonly stated - the idea that matter was composed of empty space and moving particles had a profound effect on realist painting - the question of how you might "truthfully" paint a table (or anything for that matter) in light of the new information meant that many art minds clicked into full forward and set out to "solve" these problems.</p>

<p><em>The definition of creativity I cited is making meaningful new things. The word game may unintentionally produce something new, but not something meaningful, being a game and not a modeling of a process that can produce meaningful new things frequently enough to matter.</em><br /> <br /> Charles - I think you've just described one of the many possible outcomes of the game/activity that is a very close relation to "brain storming" - a process credited with often producing many new, meaningful and useful creative results. <br /> <br /> It is also interesting that you have introduced 2 additional value judgments, the idea that a game may be less useful than a modelling process - which I don't agree with, and the notion of frequency of useful outcome - I'm not sure that this is actually so, at best we could can only say we just don't know. <br /> <br /> My personal feeling is that structuring a question in the form of a game can be one of the most useful aids to creativity - I think the important thing here is that in playing and games people often leave their preconceptions and prejudiced beliefs behind and are therefore more likely to think and act freely with the result that creativity frequently occurs.</p>

<p>In defense of the little word game, it's sole intention was to see where you could get to from a single source - I'm sure we can devise a process that could find ways of getting to "before" or "behind" a first word.</p> <p>Over the years I've made "artworks" that illustrate aspects of creativity, in teaching terms they would be called "teaching aids" , these fall outside what I think of as my "real" work.</p> <p>Here is one that goes to the core of what I think we are talking about, It is "logical", it makes sense and worst of all it includes a component that we haven't talked about much, but have alluded to, the questions that many people think should never be asked and the answers that change the questions (possibly for all time)- a very important component of creativity, by my way of thinking.</p> <p><img src="http://halfa.smugmug.com/Earlier-Sculpture/Sculpture-60s-70s-80s/i-BLwx5bQ/0/L/2014-03-22%2013-52-51_0016-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="185" /></p>

<p>I think we're definitely on the same page, Re: your Einstein and Fromm quotes.</p> <p>I think Einstein would have been better to say "one of the secrets" or "my secret" because undoubtedly there are many techniques that can aid creativity and can even be be taught.</p> <p>A quick way to replicate what I think Einstein is saying is a variation of an old and often amusing game - Think of the first word that comes into your heard, say it, I respond by saying the first thing that comes into my head, next person does the same - I'm sure we've all done it and been surprised at where it all ends up.</p> <p>The variation is to respond by saying the second word that comes into your mind instead of the first, which means, in a way, that we travel further from the source word far more quickly - or the source becomes more rapidly hidden - just a simple example first word: black, I then think, white, but then have to think of another word after white, I say "stripe" </p> <p>The very interesting thing about the Fromm letting go quote is that it is another way of saying that creativity often involves "risk", a (dangerous) leap into our own unknowns - a subject that Julie brought up some time back but some people objected to - a few pages on and it is perfectly understandable now!!</p>

<p>Hi Fred - you've got my poor old brain working too hard for this time in the morning approx 6:00am here!</p> <p>I've grown so used to using the word "work" in relation to every conceivable art, concept/idea, craft, architecture, design, photography, drawing etc that I must do it on auto. It's been the base word for my very long teaching career in art schools.</p> <p>I'll do my best to describe how we use it, in a nutshell, on this thread we have been attempting to come up with an idea that satisfactorily describes "creativity" and I'd say some of the ideas put forward "work" others "don't work" and many show some promise of "working" if we tune them up a bit with some extra work. So its one of those very funny words that can be an action and an end result.</p> <p><em>My car will "work" if I work on it some more</em> - the same can be said for a photograph or more specifically a concept that is going to be realised photographically.So for me, the possibly inadequate word, <em>work</em> embraces skill and doesn't have as many problems as it or craft for that matter. </p>

<p>.....maybe a slip for me to even use the word perfection - better to say something like "work" or "get right" but lurking in my mind is a more generous use of "perfection".</p> <p>There are so many concepts loosely related to creativity and as we see here "quality " may be one of them.............one of the most contentious of all especially when linked to like.</p> <p>i.e. the commonly expression, "I like it therefore it is good (or has quality)" my view is that there many people who wouldn't know quality even if they tripped over it. </p>

<p>Would you like to clarify some things a little Ramon, are you suggesting that only "good" photographs can be creative, or contain creativity?</p> <p>Here's a proposition - can failed or bad pictures be creative? - I actually think they can because all the photographer then has to do is add perfection to their creativity to make a high quality picture. To me quality and creativity are a bit different.</p>

<p>I read through this thread a few days ago and even then felt that we may be missing something, and as I'm fairly slow its taken me a while to realise what it may be. Putting aside all the evidence of artists attempting to guarantee their own immortality by ensuring that their work is prominent collections where future generations will "stumble" across it, and maybe reassess it, I'll move into a different view altogether.</p> <p>I have more than a sneaking suspicion that when we look at the work of previous generations we actually use the eyes of the present, because in effect, that's all we can do. To use a pretty extreme example I have often wondered why we are drawn to Greek and Roman antiquities, especially when we know that they were made for very different reasons than display in our museums. Damaged, eroded by time, completely out of context and, if the original artist saw them now, bound to cause a great deal of embarrassment and pain. I suggest we subconsciously see them as very adequate metaphors for how we see the state of humanity and our planet right now - so they are, for very different reasons, as new as the day they were made. </p> <p>Clearly this applies to old photography as well - just simple things like the changes in the style of lighting, that we use now, compared to even mid 20c, radically alter the "look" of anything - so we really do see everything in the "light" of the present.</p>

<p>While I was writing Allen your post came in - so I'll jump in.</p> <p><em>The world around us why should we not photograph and observe.</em><br> <em>Is there a wickedness in this or just the joy of observing our fellow travelling's on their journey of life.</em></p> <p>To a large extent I'm guided by an idea that for every question there are at least 4 reasonable responses or propositions, there is the "yes" answer, the "no", the "maybe" and the answer that changes the question for all time (or at least partially) so in answer to your question I'd happily say that both propositions could be equally reasonable......and could be performed concurrently.</p>

<p>Thanks the kind words about the pic Julie - your "different hats" explanation works perfectly for me.</p> <p>Years ago I attended a massive event called Working Papers on Photography (WOPOP), a contemporary photography talk fest, I was there by accident because a friend had brought his entire final year photography class down from Sydney to Melbourne for the conference and they were all camping at my house - much of the debate was about whether photographers should assume the right to steal people's characters - as in street photography.</p> <p>By the 2nd day the students were very depressed because they were feeling that there was nothing much left that they could take pictures of.... admittedly many had swallowed very large Robert Frank pills. I think I formed the view that photography (like any art form) can have its own PC police.</p> <p>Lex - artworks that are composed in two distinct parts often attract my attention, 2 always seems to cause conflict and comparison, with the result that the viewer is forced to dart back and forth, the result being that we stay with the picture far longer than if it was "nicely" composed - so I'm all for it. Fortunately for me I'm compelled to use lenses beyond 50mm, 90 in the pic above, because anything even a little bit wide will distort the sculpture far too much - so I never really get very close to the people while I'm photographing.</p>

<p>Having recently stumbled on this forum I thought I'd delve a little further, I'm one of those people who could hardly bring themselves to use public transport of any kind because it always seems to involve invading people's personal spaces - on the few occasions that I've thought that I may take a camera out with me just to see if humanity provides me with some interesting photographs, I soon realise that I'm feeling so awkward that really it isn't something I should be doing.</p> <p>But there is a very funny twist to it, quite often if one of my sculptures is in a public place I'll want to get useful pictures of it doing it's thing with the public and on those occasions I have absolutely no feelings of self-consciousness at all - in fact I get quite lost in my work, it is exactly the same with photographing my own community, I don't know everybody but it never crosses my mind to feel uncomfortable.</p> <p><img src="http://halfa.smugmug.com/Recent-sculpture/Clive-Murray-White-Sculpture/i-mJ8tpwF/0/L/L1011321%20copy-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="538" /></p>

<p>You do have to see the funny side of it Charles, I can imagine someone going to the last few pages of this discussion and stumbling on all the stuff about peanut butter, crackers and elephants - and thinking that maybe they should send in the guys in white coats, but in effect what happened was exactly as Julie described it a few pages ago...when talking primarily about risk.</p> <p>....an opening, a passage, a fissure, the interstices, window, door; ... whatever stimulation or or provocation or kick in the ass that shifts you off balance, into some place or condition that you haven't been able to get to before. In this case you can never point to anything and say triumphantly or happily, 'there it is!' because what you've been given is access. Serious voodoo. Or not. It's up to you.<br> <br> I think the funniest thing about trying to arrive some at consensus is that we have to use language to do it and as we all probably know that is fraught with all sorts of dangers - one person's risk could be another's growth. I think the OP's question was firmly related to creativity in photography but I think the Peanut Butter and Saltine Theory probably works for that too.</p>

<p>I'd be very surprised if the elephant got past 1.</p>

<p>sorry Charles I was writing my last post so I missed your last one.</p>

<p>Now I think we're really getting somewhere,</p> <p>If we look at Charles' peanut butter snack, with a fresh eye, next to his phases of Creative Process list, I think things start to fall rather more elegantly into place.</p> <p><strong>Creative Process</strong><br> <br /><strong>1. This is awesome</strong> = a natural excitement when we think we've created something, many people are just satisfied to leave at that and claim creativity but run the chance that, <strong>a)</strong> they may be deluded, <strong>b)</strong> their invention is not quite as good as it could be and <strong>c)</strong> thousands of other people may have done it before or simultaneously.<br> <br /><strong>2. This is tricky</strong> = is an acknowledgement that the peanut butter and cracker idea has some merit but requires some right side brain work.<br> <br /><strong>3. This is crap</strong> = left side brain, well known for spoiling the fun of the right side, starts the process of undermining confidence - well advanced by, <strong>4. I am crap.</strong><br> <br /><strong>5. This might be OK</strong>.= this is the most important stage where creativity is likely to occur because the word "might" implies inventing ways to get the most out of the idea. You start out by questioning whether you've chosen the right/best/most suitable brand of peanut butter to have with your cracker, you do the same with the crackers, maybe you accidentally pick up a knife that was used for chopping chilies and garlic and use that to spread peanut butter on cracker, and on it goes like a chain reaction, certain paths of action appeal to your taste and you are getting some idea of a genuine invention. You proceed along that path and create what is now a finely tuned product.<br> <br /><strong>6. This is awesome</strong>.= an often short lived euphoria, because you start to realise that your first answer wasn't quite as good as it could be or is deficient in someway - so the process starts all over but this time you're more ready for it............and I suspect this time you are nearer to creating a snack that really hasn't been made before and tastes delicious.</p>

<p>Charles re:- your previous comments, this why this topic can rattle along for 90+ comments. I have to use a word now that could be considered inflammatory, it is not intended that way but I can't think of a better one, so sorry in advance. The simplest way of talking about your gastronomic invention is that you would be deluded if you thought you had been creative - and you probably know that too, but the idea that we can reduce "creativity" down to "in the mind of the creator" is, as we all really know, just a little inadequate.</p> <p>Personally - I think the best way forward is to accept that there are levels of creativity and at the very bottom are gestures like your peanut butter creation, say 1-100 on the score sheet, so insignificant that most people wouldn't consider it creative at all. Best to think of it as a creative starting point. </p>

<p>Stern look look or not Julie, you may have to define your notion of genuine - I think my pics are genuine reproductions of tiny web posts or genuine web "readymades" altered by me to create illustrations that demonstrate some of the fundamentals of creativity. By the way I'm left handed too and it irks me that all of my cameras force me to use my right hand - of course I've got so used to it that if there were left handed cameras I'd probably find it quite strange. The pictures were made for my blog - and started off like this, </p> <p>"A friend on the Leica M9 forum (luf) sort of brought up the question of what makes Rembrandt great, the answer I posted follows......................<br /><br /><br> As for Rembrandt and what makes him great, easy answer - he invented the M9 of his day and used his Noctilux wide open - his was better than ours because it could focus on both near things and far things simultaneously and could infinitely vary the bokeh. Nice tool eh? He also had low light nailed! more on http://murray-white.blogspot.com.au/2010_11_01_archive.html<br> <br> The pictures rely on one of the most trustworthy creative tools that in essence replicate the structure of jokes - you put 2 bits of well known/recognisable/comprehensible information together to create something entirely new in terms of either meaning or aesthetics. No I would not claim that these little pics are or could be great art! Sadly I think you got me on the Van Gogh blue.<br> <br> It has always interested me how each successive generations of artists, curators and historian/theorists not only re-evaluate arts practitioners from the past but also reorganise the "pecking order". I suspect that the main reason for this is that we tend to look at the past through the eyes and values of the present, so in effect History can never be a static set of facts.<br> <br> I have also noticed that there is a possible pattern to what gets revived in art, it seams to run parallel to fashion, interior design, maybe popular music - art students have an uncanny knack of sniffing out great old stuff that nobody else thinks is great.<br> <br> <br> <br> </p>

<p>Charles - I think I'd have to go a lot broader than that, I'm not convinced that animals can't be creative or think creatively - my dog sings along with Pavarotti! and can sometime be heard wandering around the garden singing the same song (making the same hideous noise), birds make nests could that be architecture? and what about Old Tom the killer whale that helped whalers catch other whales by towing their boats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whales_of_Eden,_Australia</p> <p>There are too many examples of humans using things that have been made entirely by nature and using or defining them as art for us to say creativity can be restricted to making things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_scholar's_rocks</p> <p>I think you are completely right about humans being the only species that creates art - regardless of all the silly examples where humans have put paint brushes in elephant trunks etc and claimed that the animal was making art.</p>

<p>Are you still here Jake? I can't quite fathom why, so far you've insulted Julie, been reprimanded by Lex, and for reasons best known to yourself, misread virtually every word I've written, shown an inability to comprehend fairly straightforward English and have twisted all meaning into things that simply were not said.</p> <p>I cannot understand why someone with such an overtly anti-intellectual attitude would want come and play in the Philosophy of Photography Forum. Your "my gun is bigger than yours" approach wont work on me; it has been my paid job to for so long to cut unreasonably opinionated university students down to size that I can do it with my eyes closed and one hand behind my back.</p> <p>I think the best gesture you can make is to put up the most creative picture you think that you have done and explain to us why it is creative.</p>

<p>Jake - I'd say your that your personal definition of creativity is far too narrow, you may enjoy reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity</p> <p><em>Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before</em> - so the more ignorant you are about what other people have done the greater the chance you have of being creative - I think not. <br> <br> Below are a couple pics I made that, maybe, are quite "creative"and inject a lighthearted tone into our discussion.<br> <br> <img src="https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F__IzEtMuM-Ho%2FTPRH4z6evUI%2FAAAAAAAAACM%2FmpE-j4q1Um4%2Fs400%2Fr1.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" alt="" width="400" height="320" /><br> <br> <img src="https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F__IzEtMuM-Ho%2FTPVrGGr0C0I%2FAAAAAAAAACU%2Fd3oASTwfBsg%2Fs400%2Fvan%252Bgogh.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" alt="" width="316" height="400" /></p>

<p>Point taken, Julie, re: old artists as opposed to new, everyone takes their chances in their own time of becoming the creator of the images/art that are seen in retrospect as typifying a time.</p> <p>I have often thought about that process of selection and tried to comprehend it in terms of finding out what drives it and in consequence drives each new wave of thinking. For some time the best I could do is believe that the concept of what ever was considered "cool" by artists (primarily) in a particular era floated into contention for historical significance. Not very a very scholarly view I must admit.</p> <p>That has been modified in the last year or so to realising that there is a kind unspoken consensus view at any one time within the artworld and regardless of what gets thrown at it, it always prevails, only to be eclipsed by the "NEW CONSENSUS".</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8186013">Jake MacButters</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 12:34 p.m.</p> <p><em>Julie said "Creativity is about this kind of putting one's beliefs in danger."</em><br /><br /><em>Hogwash, and blather. Creativity is doing something you have not seen done before, or in a manner you have not seen before. Any other other appellation such as you lay upon it is just that, an appellation. </em><br /><em>Jargon and babble are not the exclusive domains of the social/psychology crowd</em></p> <p>Jake, maybe Julie and I are both a little guilty of having a rather selfish conversation in a dialect that we're both obviously comfortable with, you may call it "Jargon and babble" but as with everything you said, it relies on a really weird logic. You seem to be saying something that everyone knows is an obvious truth i.e that every style of profession/trade has its own "language" from plumbers to Popes so to speak....... but then you present the truth as if it should be taken as some kind of insult. A bit strange I think or should we say "creative"?</p> <p>Similarly you criticise Julie with a statement that completely agrees with hers, new is often dangerous - at least in the mind of the person about to try it.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Two minor problems with contemporary (art) photography are highlighted by your last comments, there is what I call acquiescent amnesia practiced by many contemporary arts writers who seem to almost purposely forget, or maybe never knew in the first place, that there were genuine innovators that virtually established genres, Ed Ruscha http://www.manhattanrarebooks-art.com/ruscha.htm and John Hilliard <br> http://www.source.ie/archive/issue52/is52interview_Richard_West_13_18_43_03-04-12.php<br> Being 2 of the most deserving, I particularly like Hilliard's 1972 Across the Park and gave my copies of Ruscha's 24 gas stations and Every building on Sunsetstrip to my eldest son who, to my absolute surprise went "OMG you've got those" when he saw them in a draw. He's an IT Executive and has nothing to do with art!</p> <p>We must remember in terms of Core's work that virtually all of the earliest photography emulated fine art painting but until the advent of convincing/usable colour "old master painting" look photography was behind the 8 ball.</p> <p>The other area that quite often gets completely overlooked, in terms of genuine photographic creativity is in the advertising, commercial, journalism and all non-fine art spheres, I suspect that fine art feeds off these areas far more than any art historian or museum curator is ever prepared to admit publicly. There's a few PhDs in that area just sitting there waiting to be snapped up!</p> <p>I personally think that overcoming the limitations of focus, so that pictures can be created that allow the viewer to choose what they want to look at in the order of their choice is one of the big creative challenges, it is hinted at by David Hockney but handicapped by obviously being collages rather than seamless images - http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/hockney/pearblsm.jpg.html</p> <p>My last topic is hinted at by your mention of the discontinuing of high quality papers for printing - again from my perspective one of the most engaging elements of photography, particularly B&W, was the surface character of many printed works - digital just doesn't cut it yet, it just seems too homogeneous to me but I'm sure people will start developing ways that photographers can control the surface texture/s of each print.</p>

<p>The WassinkLundgren examples are a perfect illustration of "creativity" not only because of the very clever idea of presenting 2 pictures at a time that both essentially the same, which in effect says nothing is ever the same, but also because of the somewhat subversive aesthetic and compositional choices agreed to by the artist/s. (but normal for conceptual art)<br> <br> I do remember reading a very good article once, I think it was Jame Collins, who argued that art worked on the same kinds of principle as that of a joke or pun - the putting together of, most often, 2 bits of information that are known and recognised by all to create something hilarious in terms of a joke or capable of adding something completely new to art, which when done becomes a precedent that, in effect, all artists who follow must take into consideration.<br> <br> In the WassinkLundgrens I particularly enjoyed the element of naughtiness that would be guaranteed to infuriate over 90% of all photography forum members. I can even imagine one of those "newbie" photo-critique posts with one of those pairs of pictures put up with a brief description by someone feeling they may need some assistance. And according to the prevailing "forum" aesthetic and conceptual values, comments would range from, the rude "don't bother there's no way you'll ever make it as photographer" to all the advice in the world like, get an understanding of the rule of thirds, colour is too flat, bump up saturation bump up the contrast, one picture is enough, as colour is not playing an important role maybe try B&W, buy yourself a bunch of strobes, you'd get more in the pic if you went ultra wide angle, wide open aperture would single out your subject and get rid of the unnecessary stuff or, even, use "content aware" in Photoshop etc etc. Which in a way is all perfectly fair because this is anti-photography.</p> <p> </p>

<p>In essence I agree with pretty much everything you're saying Julie, beating the bush or shaking the tree is pretty useless if you're not receptive to the possibilities. The idea of translating the glorious perfume of damage into a photograph or series of pictures has got my mind going. Olfactory photos appeal to me. (my conservatism would eliminate the idea of perfumed paper etc)</p> <p>I'm not sure that I completely agree with your view of Oldenburg - I once saw an amazing video of him, between him and the camera was large sheet of glass, he drew something simple with a large marker, possibly a piece of toast, and then followed with a rapid succession of other drawings all related in sequence to each other and traceable back to the initial idea, an impressive bit of bush bashing - that clearly took him to an unknown point.</p> <p>Coincidentally here in Australia, four wheel driving is called "bush bashing"!</p> <p>The really instructive thing about his "hard" "soft" and "ghost" versions of ideas is that thinking in terms of opposites is a very good way of shaking the tree. The really creative, near genius idea "was" the ghost version because in a sense he's proposing the opposite of an object, the notion of a "ghost art"; it is an answer to the question that changes the question for all time.</p> <p>Lex, I wouldn't denigrate hunter gatherer photography at all as it really does provide a constant array of creative opportunities - far more, dare I say, than planned craziness.</p> <p>I am very suspicious of the link that gets drawn between craziness and creativity, particularly the idea that the crazier something looks the more creative it may be - not so in my experience, but popular myths are always almost impossible to debunk.</p> <p> </p>