'Is creativity required to create art?"
To manufacture images, no.
To create art, yes.
Your response is easy to agree with if one assumes creativity is based on an Absolute. I have come to believe that creativity is relative. Someone(or a child) who is attempting something for the first time may indeed be creative within their realm. However in relationship to a larger picture, the result may be rather dull and unexciting and in no way revolutionary.
There was a time when the color blue was not visible to the human eye. Perhaps perspective was not seen and therefore impossible to represent in a painting. The "artists" who had evolved/become more aware and had the vision/ability to see what no one else could and discovered a way to express it in their work were at the cutting edge of a new level of consciousness(creativity) for the human race. Their works were considered seminal as Da Vinci was when he painted the Mona Lisa and imbued her with a life and personal emotion that had been previously absent in stiff, wooden religious art of the past. Today if someone copied a previous style with great mastery, the art may be incredibly beautiful, but not particularly creative. Creativity involves discovering a "place" that has not been visited before.
If it is all relative and one can see that (not just say it), doesn't it imply one has an absolute point of view?
Here's what T. S. Eliot says about "all that" (creativity and its origin), his "Four Quartets" have been with me everywhere I have gone for many many years:
"Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
With shabby equipment always deteriorating
In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot
To emulate--but there is no competition--
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business."
(East Coker, excerpt from part IV)
quoted from an old article of mine found here
If, as Merleau-Ponty stated, each one of us is a brand new point of view on the world, every attempt is indeed a new start, and likely a new kind of failure. In that sense, each one of us, given an honest approach to work, to life, is (like) a child.
Each time (some go even as far as saying that this is the case with each breath...).
But what would the "larger picture" you mention be?
Is that an absolute? If so, you may have to look at your original statement again, or is it a relative thing, thus being meaningful to some, but not others?
If the latter is the case, how can art, and the emotions it can trigger, be shared?
To be sure, that can be, that is shared.
Maybe we could try another way: is creativity found, or created?
Jean and 73x15,
Since we live in the world of words, the limits of those words would be the grave site for any Absolute. For the Absolute as I understand it at this point in my lifetime (it is always changing) is a Cosmic Essence, an Unmoved Mover that is eternally evolving, with perfection, imperfection,including the darkest Dark the brightest Light, all shades in between and perhaps a formless form that which transcends all Light. What is All is None, especially in a dualistic universe. Words, as Elliot alludes to have limits that are discovered by those who would choose and use them. Words as most of us use of them in a ever changing environment (we are part of that environment), can not directly or perfectly represent a "truth," or any Life form that is constantly changing. Words are in fact seeds, and our relentless efforts to understand and get to the core of their meaning is a life long process that "opens" the core of the seed to the depth of our being.
One of the most profound books I have ever read was from the Princeton Bollingen series by Carl Jung... "Answer to Job." My interpretation of it has been that God needs man to evolve as much as we need God. As individual rays of God's Cosmic Consciousness, as we evolve God evolves. In other words, if God is Absolute in the static sense of the word instead of the organic living sense of the word, God (which I understand as The Creative Principle) would be dead. In other words, no movement (rigor mortis), no life. God, ie, the Absolute, is ever changing and evolving as Darwin has described as the Evolution of all life forms. How does one limit an Absolute when that Absolute is not rigid or even knowable. Perhaps Zen and Buddhism has a better way of using words to describe the indescribable. If Creativity is, as I am inclined to believe, an expression of a God or Cosmic Consciousness, how could one ever come up with a definition (ie, limit it) any more than one can define God? What was is no longer in Timeless Time. The Presence of the Present is all consuming.
I do not confuse Creative with originality in the sense you are speaking about it
What is reality? Certainly not the physical world as is so convenient to believe. The physical world is but a mirror of something far more profound.
Creativity, I contend, is an encounter one has with God, as the vessels we can be and are especially after peeling away the layers that block and limit our freedom(us)... Edison's perspiration fits here. As Artists we channel a transcendental energy which takes form as art or life in a myriad of different ways. The greatest paintings tend the be the mirrors that reflect great breakthroughs in the consciousness of mankind and are universal in nature.
My feeling is that our greatest creativity occurs during the course of our lives in which we are "the canvas or sculpture" that we create and manifest. Great souls leave great footprints. And those who recognize this would follow in the footprints of the masters, hoping to glimpse and realize Nirvana. We see this all the time as artists who seek to learn the techniques and understand the secrets of the Masters. If one is fortunate enough to live life as a true artist one is coming from the HeART" and is practiced in the "Science of Being." Great artwork reflects this.
OSHO, a very controversial guru who has long since passed, has a wonderful book called "Creativity" subtitled "Unleashing the Forces Within." It is a wonderful book and I highly recommend it. The subtitle implies, I believe, that essence (creativity) is within.
I will leave you with a short quote from OSHO that touches my romantic soul:
"Creativity is the fragrance of individual freedom."
This thread has, for me, reached the point of "too many words."
I'll end my participation in it with a link to an article on Milton Resnick, "A Question of Seeing."
I met Milton a few times when I was living and teaching in NY (1978-1984), and during a conversation that dealt with "creativity," he said the following: "All my life, I have battled with the brush, and the brush has always won."
Indeed, that seems to be the "plight" with the good ones (I have had the privilege to meet a few of those), they reach(ed) a level at which they no longer (if ever?) do/did the driving.
Their strength is not found in/coming from "control," but rather, in/from "surrender."
Paul, aren't you confusing 'creative' with 'originality'?
i am thinking of this person in the act of copying an original, evaluating how much of this and that color to mix, how much pressure on the brush, for how long, etc. All this questions
seems to require an answer that involves somebody or something imbued with some kind of intelligence or capacity to self stop and restart, insist til consider the job done. Simply put, creativity is the basic act of interacting with reality. The Quality or Value or originality
is another matter altogether. Even the latest reproduction of the most copied image in history: 'the gioconda', can be a masterful expression of creativity... say i t were done
(very much a'la Studio Artist) using the stars that the Hubble Telescope has capture in its sublime pictures of the cosmos, as paint!. Would it be original? Probably no in the sense that the original idea for that precise fisical configuration is a Leonardo's one. But in it's own merits (as in the 'artistic eye' needed to select just the precise kind pixels (stars in this case) to emulate certain shade) would grant its deserved status of a creation and even an original one to that. Using a telescope as a brush! Am certing Leonardo wouldn't be insulted And even John migth feel a little bit of pride. And all becase a magnificentely done copy of an original.
sorry john, you mean to say to that i have post this reply it in the wrong thread
(lol, am i lost?!)
sorry then, but for what is worth, i just was trying to define what is (and not) creativity, and i was wondering: shouldn't the form be in sync with it's content?
the doble door thingy eludes me...
'is creativity required to create art'? Well, seems to me that the answer to that question is an unconditional: Yes.
creativity IS required to create. (art, babies, replays, etc) and it is also the same answer to the reverse question: Art must be Creative.
What's not absolutely necessary is INTENT. Is, i submit, totally irrelevant. e.g. the intent of the Classical Greek Sculptor when so perfectly recreating the human shape, that was able to go much further and also create its soul.
(and even further yours, mine and most of the contemporaneous global cultural spirit )
Or the Medieval Mason Master Builder when erecting it's fabulous Cathedrals with its massive humbling beauty.
In all this cases there is a doing (intervening and interacting with an objective reality)
and is the only thing that clearly remains. The intentions are buried on interpretation or totally forgotten. Creativity needs action no intention. Action resides in the future because the future is build out of time. Time is the dimension where creativity duels.
Intent resides in the past, in its vast space of memories.
We have no need of the motivations, nor of it's intention of an artist in order to recognize the artistic quality of her work.
The subjectivity of 'Intent' is , well, subjective and much more open to debate. In creating there is no trying, there is no such a thing as 'Yes, i intent to'
Only: Yes, I Do.
An Artificial Intelect can trully produce creative art and for that mater, so could a monkey. Or an elephant with its tail.
any act became artistic when an audience is engaged: To witness (as in been present -in its presence- and because of it been ablee to atestiguate of it)
A much intriguing pondering for me is to wonder When is Art been created? and by Whom?. Where?
Is it on the Mind of the artist or in the audience's. Or in the Mind of the Piece itself (been such thing possible)?
I fully believe that any kind of act of creation (artistic ond/or creative)
needs of an audience and of a art piece and an of its creator. All 3 simultaneously interacting in this dynamic and mystical dance that produces art.
At night the museum truly is a big empty container of shadows and echoes,
devoid of its artistic value by virtue of the absence of the audience to channel it forth ward.
the doble door thingy still eludes me...