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: — Pattern-chaser

You’re correct there. I’ve been holding on to the term ‘value-use’ kudos used in the op. What I mean is a tangible benefit that enables a group, tribe, culture to move successfully forward in its development and to create the grounds for the next step. In the Darwinian sense only successful, beneficial creative acts survive because of what they offer to those who created it.

Somehow the arts have taken ownership of the word ‘creative’. My thoughts are that the creative act is a human instinct for survival. Whether it’s an instinct I’m not sure. But today these instincts (if that’s the right word) are really a watered down version of their origins and appear as acts of modification, like your car design. (It’s possible that this watered down version, like a fiddling at the edges, is responsible for the stagnation in our growth). They still have tangible benefits in that they contribute to our welfare and survival.

The ‘arts’ do not exist like this at all. They offer no tangible benefits. It can be argued that they contribute to something we need, but there’s never any hard evidence apart from some idea of “increased awareness, increased interconnectedness or increased overall achievement/capacity“.

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. — kudos

“Some friction”. What is that, how effective, what change is evident? You’re either competing against industry pros in their territory or you’re just playing at competing. What are they actually achieving, serving their own appetites? You’re placing them in the same area as ‘artists’ and talking about ideas of feeling wanted, etc.

If I read you right then the answer to your question: “ ... what constitutes the creative animal, as it were, of todays modern age”, is nothing.

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? — kudos

There’s no survival purpose in this at all. I fact there’s no reason for doing it at all.

A child playing with blocks is still being creative - — Possibility

A child playing with blocks is developing creativity.

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. — Possibility

Focusing on survival or productivity is being creative, it’s not counter to it. You seem to be intent in seeing survival and productivity as some evil aspect of capitalism and not basic to human nature.

Using evolution theory to describe things like creativity poses a deficiency problem for me. That is by what do we measure it? To say something exists for this or that reason is as much as to say how something exists and doesnt really tell us much about it besides the conditions that it is currently under. How does something come to be an effect of natural selection? There must be some agency, because it’s not impossible it could have been some other way.

I can’t say the explanation that it is that skill whereby animals came to use their brains to find new ways to survive is not incorrect but doesnt encompass it totally, this includes virtually any behaviour that favours selection. Then craftiness, betrayal, even murder are all creativity. What isn’t creativity then?

Focusing on survival or productivity is being creative, it’s not counter to it. You seem to be intent in seeing survival and productivity as some evil aspect of capitalism and not basic to human nature. — Brett

That’s not my view, but I do see survival and productivity as externally influencing and constraining an inherent creativity that underlies what you see as basic to human nature.

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. — kudos

Also someone who adjusts the settings on a camera and waits for just the right combination of subject matter and lighting before taking a photograph to enhance certain elements and someone who digitally adjusts the lighting, colour and subject matter on an existing photograph are both being creative - and to most viewers of the two final products, there appears to be little value difference. The first one, however, is more valuable - not because it has a higher use-value, but because the creative process is more demanding and time-consuming, and much of the creative act that produces this one photograph never makes it to the production stage.

however, is more valuable - not because it has a higher use-value, but because the creative process is more demanding and time-consuming

There must be more because stopping here we’d be in danger then of claiming that a work that took weeks by Salieri took more creativity than a work that only took one hour for Mozart. Even though Mozart was trained from childhood and it maybe took him less effort.

I certainly do agree that there’s a vast difference. Perhaps we are guilty of looking at what is, and not whats striven to be. The two works appear the same to the viewer. That when the viewer entered into the social contract to view and the creator to create they engaged in a sort of common undefined notion of the creation. Even if that contract fails the notion still has a magnitude of creativity in it, don’t you think?

Somehow the arts have taken ownership of the word ‘creative’. My thoughts are that the creative act is a human instinct for survival. Whether it’s an instinct I’m not sure. But today these instincts (if that’s the right word) are really a watered down version of their origins and appear as acts of modification, like your car design. (It’s possible that this watered down version, like a fiddling at the edges, is responsible for the stagnation in our growth). They still have tangible benefits in that they contribute to our welfare and survival.

The ‘arts’ do not exist like this at all. They offer no tangible benefits. It can be argued that they contribute to something we need, but there’s never any hard evidence apart from some idea of “increased awareness, increased interconnectedness or increased overall achievement/capacity“. — Brett

Personally, I don’t see creativity as restricted to the arts at all. It’s a large part of theoretical physics, for instance - but they don’t call it creativity. The work of theoretical physicists is valued not for the actual product, but for the demands of the creative process - as much for their failures and ‘nearly there’ moments as their potential for success.

When we reduce all human nature to our welfare and survival, we constrain that underlying creative process. It is this constraint that I believe is responsible for the stagnation in our growth. The creative act is instinctual (for want of a better word), but in my opinion it runs deeper than survival, and is actually constrained by our focus on the values of survival, productivity and physical existence, rather than enhanced by it.

It is when we ignore these values or are set free from their constraints that our true creative capacity is unleashed, for better or worse. The creative animal is most creative when they’re in a position where they’re not fighting for survival (financial, career, life, etc), not under pressure to produce, and not worrying about physical evidence of their creative act. That doesn’t mean they can’t be creative under pressure, but it’s really only random chance that produces success under these conditions, not creativity as such.

So when you argue that the arts offer no tangible benefits, no hard evidence of contribution, etc, you’re contributing to the stagnation you lament. For those of us who are creative, who see the universe in terms of potentiality, it is the value placed on the creative process over the tangible benefits in the arts that reassure us that what we do has value when those around us demand results.

The creative animal is most creative when they’re in a position where they’re not fighting for survival (financial, career, life, etc), not under pressure to produce, and not worrying about physical evidence of their creative act.

+1
It’s deceptive, like ‘love,’ that is all fashionable to call just another word, but always seems lacking in definition as such.

↪Brett Using evolution theory to describe things like creativity poses a deficiency problem for me. That is by what do we measure it? To say something exists for this or that reason is as much as to say how something exists and doesnt really tell us much about it besides the conditions that it is currently under. How does something come to be an effect of natural selection? There must be some agency, because it’s not impossible it could have been some other way.

I can’t say the explanation that it is that skill whereby animals came to use their brains to find new ways to survive is not incorrect but doesnt encompass it totally, this includes virtually any behaviour that favours selection. Then craftiness, betrayal, even murder are all creativity. What isn’t creativity then? — kudos

I’m not using evolution theory to describe creativity. I’m suggesting it’s an evolutionary mechanism.

“How does something come to be an effect of natural selection?” By the process of natural selection.

“ ... this includes virtually any behaviour that favours selection”. Behaviour doesn’t favour selection, selection favours behaviour. This maybe an error in your sentence or it may mean a misunderstanding of evolution. If it’s a misunderstanding then, naturally, you won’t understand what I’m getting at.

For those of us who are creative, — Possibility

Your hubris is showing here. By this you seems to be saying that myself and others, as opposed to ‘us’, you, are not creative, otherwise we would understand your point

First of all you have no idea who I am, and secondly someone is only creative according to your terms, otherwise you would not exclude me from being creative.

Personally, I don’t see creativity as restricted to the arts at all. It’s a large part of theoretical physics, for instance - but they don’t call it creativity. The work of theoretical physicists is valued not for the actual product, but for the demands of the creative process - as much for their failures and ‘nearly there’ moments as their potential for success. — Possibility

To say that the work of a theoretical theorist is not valued for the actual product, i.e. a result, is ridiculous. Neither he nor his employer would believe that.

The creative act is instinctual (for want of a better word), but in my opinion it runs deeper than survival, — Possibility

What would run deeper than survival?

There must be more because stopping here we’d be in danger then of claiming that a work that took weeks by Salieri took more creativity than a work that only took one hour for Mozart. Even though Mozart was trained from childhood and it maybe took him less effort. — kudos

You’re right - creativity is not measured in effort or time (despite the structure of industries such as graphic design). It’s the intangible creative process - the playing with new ways of interacting with the world, the exploring past the constraints of rules and conventions, the ability to work in that potentiality space between nothing and something - that has value. How do you measure that?

In my opinion there are two aspects to creativity. One is an awareness of or familiarity with the materials and constraints of a particular creative space that tends towards intuitive. The more intuitive, the more creative. Much of this, I think, has to do with brain structure and development. The period between 0-5 years can be crucial in developing a brain structure that is more creative in a particular aspect. My son, for instance, has developed an intuitive grasp of music and mathematics, whereas my daughter has developed a more intuitive grasp of language and emotion.

The other aspect is the capacity to interact with the highest potentiality of that creative space - to approach that aspect of the universe and all of its subsequent relation to the universe in terms of what it could be, rather than what it is. The difference I see here I can best describe in terms of quantum theory: some people see only the particle, while others see varying degrees of potentiality - a lack of collapse in the ‘wave’ that enables them to interact with it in unusual ways, and to explore its capacity to interact with everything else in the universe in ways others cannot see until it’s happening right in front of them.

When you combine these two aspects, you get an ability to confidently play with the constraints and conventions, to break rules and push the boundaries of a particular creative space.

The second aspect at its highest enables a creative person to navigate a variety of creative spaces, but they also work best with narrower constraints. The first aspect at its highest is seen as a prodigious gift or talent, but is dependent on the second for its flexibility in terms of a long-term or broadly ‘successful’ creative career. Those with high levels in both aspects are both highly creative and highly volatile - like a burst of pure energy.

It is when we ignore these values or are set free from their constraints that our true creative capacity is unleashed, for better or worse. — Possibility

Our true creative capacity is unleashed. To do what? What is the result? Is it personal or universal?

Your hubris is showing here. By this you seems to be saying that myself and others, as opposed to ‘us’, you, are not creative, otherwise we would understand your point

First of all you have no idea who I am, and secondly someone is only creative according to your terms, otherwise you would not exclude me from being creative. — Brett

I apologise - that was presumptuous of me. I was trying to present how I see the arts as valuable, reassuring in their lack of use-value. I actually think everyone has the capacity to be more creative, but most people actively resist it because of the way they believe the world is or must be.

“To say that the work of a theoretical theorist is not valued for the actual product, i.e. a result, is ridiculous. Neither he nor his employer would believe that.”

I should modify this statement a little. For the artist or physicist there is obviously pleasure in the process, it’s what they love. But the idea that it’s not done for a result doesn’t work.

Our true creative capacity is unleashed. To do what? What is the result? Is it personal or universal? — Brett

That depends on where one believes ‘personal’ ends and ‘universal’ begins. The atomic bombs on Japan are an example of creative capacity unleashed to interact with a part of the universe beyond what was valued, but this result was neither for personal nor universal benefit, but somewhere in between.

I see the arts as valuable, reassuring in their lack of use-value. — Possibility

This I agree with. It’s probably reassuring to a lot of people. But it also strikes me as being the luxury of a society that can afford such things, which is why I sometimes use the word ‘indulgence’.

I think art once had an essential part to play in communities, which I’ve discussed in another post, but, like creativity, it’s become a watered down version of its origins.

“To say that the work of a theoretical theorist is not valued for the actual product, i.e. a result, is ridiculous. Neither he nor his employer would believe that.”

I should modify this statement a little. For the artist or physicist there is obviously pleasure in the process, it’s what they love. But the idea that it’s not done for a result doesn’t work. — Brett

I should have said not valued just for the actual product. The artist or physicist derives personal pleasure from the process, but what pleasure is that? What does it mean to ‘love’ a process? I guess it depends on what they believe.

There are many artists and physicists whose pleasure comes from the belief that their part in a process that extends well beyond their own physical contribution is valuable in itself. The ‘result’ they may be seeking is often non-descript and exists well beyond their lifetime, and their contribution may only serve to suggest a direction rather than produce anything actual. Theoretical papers or saleable artwork are products that satisfy the need for tangible benefits or evidence of productivity within the industries and justifies their salary or position - but this can be more of a task than a pleasure.

In my opinion there are two aspects to creativity. One is an awareness of or familiarity with the materials and constraints of a particular creative space... The other aspect is the capacity to interact with the highest potentiality of that creative space

So your view is essentially the same as Brett’s, that it goes no further than a problem-solution relationship. Inventiveness. In this case, creativity for someone else's benefit would be work, in the sense that most cultures find this type of activity to be so. And to create only to the benefit of industrialists would be a type of mild slavery.

So your view is essentially the same as Brett’s, that it goes no further than a problem-solution — kudos

This suggests that I think creation is problem solving, that someone perceives a problem and uses creativity to solve it. This is not accurate.

My feeling is that the creative act was (emphasis) a spontaneous and random act. Call it discovery, maybe even invention, though I would (warily) favour discovery? Some of those acts benefited the tribe or community in a big way, others fell away because of their irrelevance at the time and may even have been forgotten about.

This I agree with. It’s probably reassuring to a lot of people. But it also strikes me as being the luxury of a society that can afford such things, which is why I sometimes use the word ‘indulgence’.

I think art once had an essential part to play in communities, which I’ve discussed in another post, but, like creativity, it’s become a watered down version of its origins. — Brett

As I have said, we are most creative when things like survival, productivity and physical existence are not threatened - so, in a way, creativity that goes beyond these constraints can be seen as ‘indulgent’ from the point of view of someone who believes these to be our top priority.

Personally, I believe our human capacity goes way beyond these constraints, and the arts are an important avenue to communicate that, and challenge us to see the universe as valuable to us beyond our own survival, existence or physical capacity. The arts industries, on the other hand, attempts to justify themselves to a world that is focused on survival, productivity and physical existence, on measurable data as evidence of use-value. In this way they constrain creativity in ways that stagnate our growth.

This inherent instinct for creating has died away in most people, starved by social structures, perhaps. Nowadays creating is carried out by professionals. Being professionals they have their own language, their own terms: they have ownership of the creative act. Their terms rule out anything that doesn’t fit. So creativity as a human activity is dying.

I can see why some might see art as the last bastion against this state of things. But it’s not, it’s just the same.

we are most creative when things like survival, productivity and physical existence are not threatened - — Possibility

I hate be contrary, but I would argue that’s when we are most creative. History would probably back me up.

What you seem to be referring to is some state of mind, some higher existence that can be achieved through art.

so. And to create only to the benefit of industrialists would be a type of mild slavery. — kudos

You really do load these sentences: industrialists, slavery.

It’s an agreed transaction between two entities. There’s a contract, payment, agreement. Designers are hardly victims in the workplace, they can expect reasonable remuneration if employed and if self employed set their fee against their value. Hardly even mild slavery.

So your view is essentially the same as Brett’s, that it goes no further than a problem-solution relationship. Inventiveness. In this case, creativity for someone else's benefit would be work, in the sense that most cultures find this type of activity to be so. And to create only to the benefit of industrialists would be a type of mild slavery. — kudos

Creativity must necessarily be constrained eventually by interaction with the world, otherwise it is only potential. In that way I agree to some extent with @Brett - there are no slaves here, and creativity must ultimately be productive. But the ‘agreement’ must be open-ended to some extent in order for creativity to occur, and the more open-ended it is, the more creativity can occur.

This society does value creativity to an extent - we just struggle to measure that value, so we reduce it to a problem-solution relationship. But in reality this isn’t a classical, straight-line relationship - it’s like the path of a photon between measurable points.

we are most creative when things like survival, productivity and physical existence are not threatened -
— Possibility

I hate be contrary, but I would argue that’s when we are most creative. History would probably back me up.

What you seem to be referring to is some state of mind, some higher existence that can be achieved through art. — Brett

There seems to be some continued confusion between being creative and being productive. You seem to think that when the chips are down our creativity increases, but this isn’t the case. When the chips are down, we are compelled to force any ongoing, relevant creative process towards activity or production. History can only provide production as evidence, not creativity - that’s why it appears to back you up.

I don’t see it as a higher existence or state of mind as such. I think those terms suggest a ‘mystical’ quality to creativity that prevents people from seeing their own potential for it. I think it requires an open mind and a certain amount of courage (or perhaps a sense of security) to consider the possibility that what your mind actually sees is not what is but a version of what it could be, and it only takes you seeing it differently and interacting with it as such to change that. But most people haven’t considered what their creative ability is apart from what others tell them it is, so this probably won’t make much sense.

There seems to be some continued confusion between being creative and being productive. — Possibility

Creating something is an act, an action. In its most basic form it might be described as producing something that did not exist before that point. Someone might create an idea in their head and let it remain there, so there would be no evidence of it existing, but nor would it have any effect on the world. So there cannot be a creative act without the result, what it produces.

Maybe your using the term productive in the sense that a factory is productive.

I think it requires an open mind and a certain amount of courage (or perhaps a sense of security) to consider the possibility that what your mind actually sees is not what is but a version of what it could be, and it only takes you seeing it differently and interacting with it as such to change that. — Possibility

This strikes me as being incredibly subjective. Change it to what, something you think should be?
Edit: Unless of course you mean to make change only in your own life?