The fields you worked in have different objectives. Website design, advertising, marketing, they’re driven by pure ‘use-value’, a monetary value and measures of success. There’s very little subjectivity here, it’s all market driven, measured against costs and returns. Fine arts, theatre, they reside in pure subjectivity, there’s no real value to a painting or a play except that attributed to it by those who like it. — Brett

The objectives are different, but the creative process is essentially the same. As I said before, creativity is always constrained in some way, whether by the materials and discourse or the value systems and measures of success. This is the difference between them. Subjectivity drives the creative process in both.

In website design, advertising and marketing, there are many more scientifically generated constraints but in my opinion they can present more of a creative challenge than a painting or a play where you’re choosing many of your own constraints as part of the creative process. The capacity to produce something ‘new and different’ - to have a broad vision of the potentiality - in such a narrow scope demands a high level of creativity: a more flexible subjective view, if you will.

Fine arts and theatre, on the other hand, demand the ability to constrain your own creative process according to the changing social climate - parameters that are much more difficult to pinpoint, and rely on having a subjective ‘feel’ for what resonates with your audience. It can be a lot more hit and miss, and there are many more poor artists and writers than there are poor website designers. The music industry, I imagine, makes use of both market data and that ‘talent’ for connecting with a given market (the ‘it’ factor), to constrain the creative process of artists and produce creative work that has ‘real’ value. Artists who have the flexibility to shift their own constraints on creativity according to changing markets have a longer career (eg. Madonna).

'd like to take the opportunity here to discuss the philosophy of creativity . . . what constitutes the creative animal, as it were, of todays modern age. — kudos

This is partly what I’m trying to address, today’s creative animal. And this:

We have opened the door to new forms of creativity, creating works without use-value. The creativity of today is both against monetization, — kudos

This statement seems untrue to me. My point is that creativity is about ‘use-value’ and always has been. If it’s not then it’s something that exists in a rarefied, artificial atmosphere.

Picasso’s creative act was in painting, or sculpture, he was playing with ideas about painting and sculpture, looking at how far he could push it. The idea of painting, its actual creation, had already happened on the walls of Lascaux (perhaps).

Pattern-Chaser: “We can say that all cars are assembled from similar parts, but each new design is ... new; novel. If it's just a rearrangement, the creativity is minimised, surely? If it's just a rearrangement, why are we bothering? What we end up with won't (can't!) be significantly different from what we already have. Sometimes, with cars, a simple facelift seems to be what is required. A new look to a product that remains substantially unchanged. But this is almost the trivial case of design, whose most significant and useful purpose is to create something genuinely new, at least in some respects.”

But in the end it’s still a car, already invented. The designer is just pushing the idea of a car, modifying it.

Once man learned to create fire it was always fire, after that it was for different ‘value-use’.

But these ‘sub categories’ of creation still work to serve us or to benefit us. Over time style is added to them, styles which come and go every year, which just confirms their pointless existence and confirms how non ‘value-use’ creativity dies by its own hand.
This ‘non-value’ use is what ‘art’ is today: a contrived, artificial environment, kept alive by oxygen fed through superficial desires and elitism.

So yes, the creative act today is monetised, and it’s value is concrete, but it’s always been concrete, it’s always served a purpose. It’s success in the world contributes to its creator’s chances of survival, and those associated with the creator. Once it was the person who could make fire, now it’s a corporation that can own a market.

The creative act is amoral, and pure only in its intent.

Who is today’s creative animal? Not the ‘artists’.

Subjectivity drives the creative process in both. — Possibility

This is not true. The creative process in advertising, marketing etc., is driven by a) a brief, b) budget, c) market research, d) a deadline, e) the medium. None of this is subjective on your part. You don’t decide what the client needs, the client does.

Fine arts, it’s true, you can do whatever you feel like.

I'd argue that it being new and different is a property of originality rather than creativity. — kudos

Because obviously, creativity has as it's aim to produce an original new thing. — kudos

For the purposes of this discussion, it seems easier to assume that creativity achieves its aims, even though we know it might not.

But it's not a definitive quality inherent in the product, but in the intention — kudos

This doesn't really matter, does it? As part of a successful creative process, something is created, something new and different. If this wasn't the case, then the thing 'created' would not be new, it would be derivative, and we could not reasonably describe it as anything other than a reproduction.

So what do you think that I'm doing as a creative person other than what I'm describing? — Terrapin Station

I'd love to know, but you haven't told me. I know only that you work with 'creative' people, and that it has something to do with music.

I agree with your first statement, but your perspective of exactly what constitutes ‘new and different’ implies ‘something from nothing’ that unnecessarily mystifies the process. I don’t think Terrapin Station is denying the central attribute of creativity at all - ‘new and different’ relates essentially to awareness and perspective, not to actuality. — Possibility

So being "creative" doesn't necessarily involve actually creating something? <baffled> Then we should coin a different word for it, one that doesn't communicate actual creation.

The fields you worked in have different objectives. Website design, advertising, marketing, they’re driven by pure ‘use-value’, a monetary value and measures of success. There’s very little subjectivity here, it’s all market driven, measured against costs and returns. — Brett

Agreed. There is little subjectivity here ... but there is creativity (and actual creation).

In website design, advertising and marketing, there are many more scientifically generated constraints but in my opinion they can present more of a creative challenge than a painting or a play where you’re choosing many of your own constraints as part of the creative process. The capacity to produce something ‘new and different’ - to have a broad vision of the potentiality - in such a narrow scope demands a high level of creativity: a more flexible subjective view, if you will. — Possibility

Yes, that's what I mean. :up:

I'd argue that it being new and different is a property of originality rather than creativity. — kudos

“New and different”. I don’t think different can be part of originality. If it’s different then it suggests something already existing to compare it to. New must be a property of creativity.

But in the end it’s still a car, already invented. The designer is just pushing the idea of a car, modifying it. — Brett

Yes, and in modifying it, part of what the designer does as she follows the creative process is creative. The modifications are new. The car itself is not, of course. Not any more.

Agreed. There's very little subjectivity here ... but there is creativity (and actual creation). — Pattern-chaser

Yes, absolutely. And it has, or is, ‘value-use’. So the creative act, and the creative animal today, works with ‘value-use’, as the creative act always has, otherwise it dies in a vacuum.

The creative process in advertising, marketing etc., is driven by a) a brief, b) budget, c) market research, d) a deadline, e) the medium. None of this is subjective on your part. You don’t decide what the client needs, the client does. — Brett

Yes, that's what design is about. My client specifies what, but my job is to discover how it can be achieved, within the specification. That's where the creativity is.

:chin:

There is some creativity in the creation of the specification by the client...

What I’m trying to say (i think) is that the only true creative act today is one that has ‘value-use’, because creating is an instinct for survival. It has to have a purpose that benefits survival or movement forward, otherwise it’s indulgence.

So the creative act, and the creative animal today, works with ‘value-use’, as the creative act always has, otherwise it dies in a vacuum. — Brett

I wonder if you're giving this more attention than it deserves? Everything any human has ever done has value - to them, if no-one else - and some sort of use or purpose (again, to them if no-one else). This doesn't just apply to the creative process, it's universal. What you're saying is not specific to creativity.

I’m meaning a value that goes beyond personal. I think it’s a huge part of mankind’s evolution. Just as a Chimpanzee using a stick to get to ants is evolution, movement forward. The creation of tools is pretty big.

I’m meaning a value that goes beyond personal. — Brett

Value is a personal thing. Something widely accepted as valuable is merely valued by a large number of persons. How can a wholly-subjective thing like value go beyond the personal? Are you touting objective value here? :chin:

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, what are the new forms of creativity that work against monetisation?

Apologies if this leaves out many people's experience who were involved in the pre-2000 creative environment, but this was supposed to refer to the 'YouTube,' 'BandCamp,' Kickstarter,' media. These forms are now causing some friction against the traditional creative structures. By working against monetization, I mean that the majority of the individuals participating, at the same time as competing with industry pros, they are also setting out with not even the slightest intention of making money, or appealing to others for their appetites, but rather has greater emphasis on the appetites of the creator, and the pleasure it brings them to take on a social identity, feel wanted, etc. The question I was trying to reveal is, 'what constitutes this pleasure and these appetites?' But obviously describing the creative process itself if important to gain an concept of it.

What I’m trying to say (i think) is that the only true creative act today is one that has ‘value-use’, because creating is an instinct for survival. It has to have a purpose that benefits survival or movement forward, otherwise it’s indulgence.

So by this you are saying that small time YouTubers are in a sense setting out in the lottery of being discovered among 1.8 billion users, in order to turn this into a survival mechanism. Or it has some survival purpose beyond social use, such as helping them think more creatively when picking up women, and increase their chances of sexual selection. What would be some examples of the survival purpose of this?

I'd love to know, but you haven't told me. I know only that you work with 'creative' people, and that it has something to do with music. — Pattern-chaser

I've made a living as a musician, composer and arranger since the early 80s. I've done a lot of film work, but not only. I've done some film work outside of a musical context, too. I also do some visual art, and I've written fiction, including some scripts.

So you do work, labour, for a client. Besides profit, what are the characteristics of the the social exchange? Do you receive different levels of individual satisfaction from having the identity of a composer, or receive greater insight into the lives of others? The world?

So being "creative" doesn't necessarily involve actually creating something? <baffled> Then we should coin a different word for it, one that doesn't communicate actual creation. — Pattern-chaser

No, it doesn’t. But being creative does necessarily involve creating new and different ways of interacting with the world. This can mean rearranging elements in such a way that it changes our perspective of something. But it need not be a new product or an actual, physical thing that is new.

Creativity has value apart from use - that’s my argument. You don’t agree. You seem to see the creative act as producing something ‘objectively’ useful, but this often only occurs at the end of an industrial creative process. The rest of the creative process looks like playing to you, because you don’t recognise the usefulness of open-ended play in creativity. A child playing with blocks is still being creative - creating new and different (from the child’s perspective) ways of interacting with their world.

What I’m trying to say (i think) is that the only true creative act today is one that has ‘value-use’, because creating is an instinct for survival. It has to have a purpose that benefits survival or movement forward, otherwise it’s indulgence. — Brett

I get that you have a problem with the apparent ‘indulgence’ of Art. But I disagree that creating is purely for survival or moving forward. In order to move forward, we must have the capacity to see a way forward that no-one else sees before we take a step, or we must be prepared to take a step ina direction that no-one else has taken - to play with new ways of interacting with our world. This is the creative process, and it cannot be an instinct for survival because it often runs counter to survival. It’s hard to be truly creative when we’re focused on survival or productivity. A work environment that genuinely inspires creativity, therefore, must be one that values and trusts the creative process: where not all time, effort, thought or research is evident in the end product.

being creative does necessarily involve creating new and different [X] — Possibility

Exactly. Creativity involves creation. :up:

I've made a living as a musician, composer and arranger since the early 80s. I've done a lot of film work, but not only. I've done some film work outside of a musical context, too. I also do some visual art, and I've written fiction, including some scripts. — Terrapin Station

Your thesis is that your song-writing involves nothing but rearrangement of existing 'components'.

First, I accept and agree that songs comprise melody and tempo, and that songs which precede them also comprise melody and tempo. So your new song uses only pre-existing components. Most people would agree that this is pedantically true, but also trivial and useless.

Then we might consider what happens if I take a song of yours, and change/add one note. I have produced something new and different. Most people would agree that, pedantically, I have created something. They might also continue by observing that what I did wasn't creative enough to count. And I would agree with them. My song is literally a new creation, but doesn't really justify that description.

But RL songs are not like mine. They use words that have been used before, and notes that have been used before, but it is still reasonable to describe them as new and different. Something has been created, not just rearranged. The song is not wholly unique, rearranging certain components, as you observe. It is not created from scratch. But it does contain new and different things; something more than mere rearrangement has occurred here, or this could not be so. This is the common-sense version, and I think most people would agree. You don't agree, but for the life of me, I can't see why. :chin:

A work environment that genuinely inspires creativity, therefore, must be one that values and trusts the creative process: where not all time, effort, thought or research is evident in the end product.

This is interesting, so someone who arranges a photograph with an AI program and another with their eye. Though to the viewer there is no conscious difference these are nevertheless not equivalent.

I think what you may be getting at is the meaning of the creativity. Being distinguished from it’s self contained rules for its existence.

But RL songs are not like mine. They use words that have been used before, and notes that have been used before, but it is still reasonable to describe them as new and different — Pattern-chaser

Early on, I wrote: "What I mean by 'rearranging' is that with the car, for example, you're taking some metal and plastic and rubber and electronics, etc. that already exist and you're putting them into different relationships with each other to make something different."

Something has been created, not just rearranged. — Pattern-chaser

I'm describing "creation" as a rearrangement. I'm not saying that something hasn't been created.

So you do work, labour, for a client. — kudos

Sometimes I work in a work-for-hire/journeyman capacity. Sometimes I work in more or less democratic or partnership capacities. Sometimes I'm the contractor and I have others working for me in a work-for-hire/journeyman capacity. Sometimes it's a combo of two or all three of these.

Besides profit, what are the characteristics of the the social exchange? — kudos

It would be very difficult to exhaustively list "the characteristics of the social exchange."

Do you receive different levels of individual satisfaction from having the identity of a composer, or receive greater insight into the lives of others? The world? — kudos

I'm not sure I understand the latter part of that. I get satisfaction out of doing what I consider good, creative work under the set of limitations at hand. (And there are always limitations, even if you're the boss and you're self-imposing them.)

would you then say that the work is successful in it’s own right but doesn’t seek to have meaning in the sense that the delivery of your creativity and its reception forms a closed, conserved system?

. . . seek to have meaning in the sense that the delivery of your creativity and its reception forms a closed, conserved system? — kudos

I have no idea what that is saying, really.

I mean you said you gain satisfaction from doing ‘good creative work.’ Apologies if this is in any manner offensive as thats not my intention at all. But that the context of the work within a discourse does not create pleasure or isn’t motivated from it. This being that you can’t really have the purpose of creating meaning out of pure survival, but through interaction with something like what Berkeley calls ‘spirits’?

Aren't you coming from something of a continental background? My confusion would be because of that. A lot of continental stuff makes very little sense to me.

For example: "The context of the work within a discourse." I have no idea what that's saying.

Re "Does not create pleasure"--for whom? For me? The work creates pleasure for me, sure.

"Creating meaning out of pure survival"? Again, I don't know what the idea would be there.

At any rate, I would say that "creating meaning catalysts" is one motivation, though certainly not the only one. In my view, re my ontology, it's not possible to literally project/display meaning, but one can project/display something that catalyzes meaning creation in other individuals' minds.