I think that the whole area of art based on symbolism is an interesting area, although I am not one to say that art based on 3D reality is not creative. One aspect which I think has not been mentioned is that paintings, drawings and photographs translate 3D reality into 2. This could be seen as reductive, as in copying, but the whole translation into lesser dimensions does even involve synthetic perception, and styles. When one reaches out into four or more dimensions this synthesis, to portray perceptions is more complex, because it contains more that is hidden from the naked eye — Jack Cummins

Personally, I use the term ‘render’ rather than ‘translate’ to describe an interpretation of 3D reality into 2D, because I think there is more to this process than translating from one ‘language’ system to another.

If we talk about the process in terms of information, awareness of 3D reality requires an integrated 4D system (life), but consolidating 3D information (ie. distinguishing and defining objects) requires an integrated 5D system (consciousness) consisting of interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception). The paintings, drawings or photographs are a result of 4D formulations in a 5D system consolidating 3D information into a transmittable 2D system structure. It’s similar to the process of DNA/RNA, or sampling in computer information systems: by cascading the information according to coded patterns recognisable by both sending and receiving systems, complex relational structures of information can be transferred through systems only capable of consolidating much simpler relational structures.

This seems from certain perspectives to be simply copying or duplicating, but it’s imitation - not the same thing. The important element in the efficiency of integrated information systems is ‘difference’. The 2D structure contains information that enables an integrated 5D system to consolidate particular 3D information by relating the structure to their 4D formulations. It’s not a copy of the 3D information, but qualitative instructions to adjust other interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception) so that the same information (difference) is achieved. The 2D structure is effectively a calculated difference between the artist’s and the audience’s perspectives.

I have never done sculpture, but one friend who does, spoke of how she carves, and feels a living connection with the wood, bringing out patterns and energy within it. When she used to speak in this way, and I saw her working, I could feel the creativity pervading her, and this level she was experiencing seemed to transcend the whole issue of being 'original' or not, as discussed in this thread because it was about primal expression, at a deep level. — Jack Cummins

What your sculptor friend is speaking about is her capacity to collaborate with the potential of the material structure. For most artists (in my experience), the question of originality is a matter of selection criteria for the work they present to others, and has little to do with the creative process itself - in which there is often a distinct lack of self-conscious identification (ego), and more of a sense of ‘connection’ or ‘one-ness’ with the material, the moment, etc. The creative experience is a collaborative one - it relies on unselfish interrelation between the potential complexity in the structure of the wood and the potential complexity in the artist as a conscious organism, without consolidation. From this collaborative experience, options for 4D formulations present themselves. For the merely conscious agent, only the most efficient formulation for the organism is determined and initiated. But the self-conscious artist can distinguish, organise and select from efficient formulations according to purpose - which is where the question of originality (as well as comprehensibility, relatability and popularity) arises.

But, on the level of my own symbolic expression, I think that the reason why I focus on the same concerns in symbolic art is because I was taught to think that way. At A level, the whole emphasis was upon exactness and perfection. I did not do a foundation course or a degree in art, but I did an illustration course and one on art therapy. In illustration, the tutor stressed the importance of producing camera ready work, and the stage between a concept and the finished art seemed to almost get left out. — Jack Cummins

The art-related courses you’ve done seem to be geared towards employment, so their focus is on the consolidated result rather than the process. I did a unit at university on Authorship and Publication, which had a similar focus to your illustration course, whereas I also picked up a Drawing 101 unit, which was more focused on the creative process - challenging the way we look at ordinary objects, as well as our reliance on visual sensory information in generating art. A similar Writing 101 unit had activities designed to shift the way we looked at the world, and to challenge the way we applied personal experience to writing.

On the art therapy course, the majority of the other students had done an art degree, in which they had done more experimental work, whereas I was accepted on the basis of my portfolio, but I did feel that meant I lacked a certain amount of some of the experience which some of the others had. The course itself allowed for a certain amount of experimentation but because the emotional and group experience were considered as extremely important, sometimes the chance to explore the symbolic seemed to get pushed into the background. — Jack Cummins

In your art therapy course, it seems the focus was on developing skills of introspection - the art produced in these sessions are not to share with others, but with yourself: it’s a dialogue between interrelating 4D formulations (prediction and interoception) within your own 5D system. The symbolism only needs to make sense to you, so the selection process regarding originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity is irrelevant to art therapy.

My initial encounter with symbolic art was actually before I did the art therapy course, by a friend who had done a lot of art based on his own experience. He encouraged me to look within as he had done. My friend had done loads of pictures based on his own life and tried to get his work exhibited. He found that he encountered a lot of prejudice within art circles because it was obvious that he had not been to art school. His use of materials and elements of his drawing abilities did not stand up to certain expectations and it would probably be true to say that he was probably more in the tradition of 'outsider art', which is of great value and significance. — Jack Cummins

I remember doing a workshop a few years ago on symbolic expression in art, where the instructor focused on the comprehensibility and relatability of qualitative aspects. The first thing he did was take away our access to colour, and challenged us to convey certain emotions or other qualitative experiences using relative position, direction, intensity or shape. The idea was to deconstruct the prepackaged conceptual symbolism we tend to rely on in everyday expression, and recognise the capacity of the simplest qualitative aspects (one and two-dimensional relations) to universally ‘move’ the viewer.

I think getting work exhibited is about the self-conscious selection process in relation to a cultural perception of value and significance: what does this art say about who we are, are we prepared to face this truth, and if so, how important is it that we face it today? It’s a narrow space that is continually shifted by artists who find the ‘sweet spot’ between what we already know and what we aren’t ready to know about ourselves.

Above all else, I do think a central aspect of the creative process in the visual and other arts is about accessing other levels of consciousness. The art produced is not just to be seen as an end but as a testimony to the journey which has taken place. I would say that the possible areas of failure of technique and brushstrokes may result from the interaction with energy arising in the other dimensions. — Jack Cummins

I think art that can lead the viewer into the creative process, to perceive the variability in perspective and not be alarmed or threatened by it, is where we need to aim. Joseph Campbell talks about the hero’s journey - the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves?

From a standpoint in how "original" is created is following (the following can be applied in all areas of life and learning) you create one painting it's a copy from someone you learned then your second painting is copy from somebody else you find interesting then your third painting is your combination of those two previous paintings and once it's gets over certain threshold like combination of ten twenty arts now it became your style and congratulations you've created "original" art due to complexity of how many different "original" styles you copied to basically create a new style that is yours.

That can be applied everywhere and why certain things are intimidating because of how many different combinations of learning viewpoints you need to learn to result in good finding.

When you read a book it's combination of authors mind that previously read hundred of books and picked on specific type of writing including combination of his environment how he/she grew up, with whom, what he liked and it becomes a new book.

the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves? — Possibility

In terms of discovering ourselves do you mean for the artist or for the observer?

Don’t get me wrong: I think an artist can still ‘discover themselves’ through making 2D visual art, and an observer, too, can discover themselves in interacting with artworks. But aside from shifting personal or cultural identity, I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D. I don’t think it’s an issue of creative process, but of this self-conscious selection criteria that determines ‘creativity’ in what is made: originality, relatability, comprehensibility and popularity.

I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D. — Possibility

I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative.

I have read the posts that you have written and I believe in you have addressed a number of very important problems.

One of the main ones is the tension between making art with other people, in contrast to the individual is in the process of discovery of symbolism in a journey of self exploration. I think that the process of sharing art made with others is important, but art made in groups often allows for this exploration to get lost.

The most interesting aspect I have found is that there can be some underlying shared themes emerging in the art, . and that is not because individuals have been looking at each other, because they have often been situated far apart. The shared elements do suggest that the individuals are tapping into a collective dimension.

The problem with art therapy can be that the art is expected to fall into a secondary role. In art psychotherapy, the whole thinking was mainly based on Freudian and Kleinian objects relations theory. This involved the idea of the transference being central. I am not dismissing this as being important but on the course I did this meant that other approaches were almost excluded. I am extremely interested in James Campbell' s portrayal of mythic exploration, and I can remember talking about this in a workshop and I got the feeling that the tutor and other students regarded the whole matter as unimportant.

In exploring the symbolic dimensions, one of the ideas which I also consider helpful is shamanic vision quests, including accessing the upper world and the underworld. One aspect of this is the imagery in hypnagogic and hypopompic imagery, and I do try to incorporate my own experience of this into symbolic art, but sometimes it is difficult to recall the details exactly. One way which I have also found helpful for finding doorways into multidimensional reality for art making is the listening to music, ranging from metal, dance, and prog rock.

You ask about the limitations of 2D art for the exploration of the hero's journey. I have to admit that I have found that to be the case, to some extent. Since doing the art therapy course, I have experimented in fiction writing, and do wish to do so in the future. I find that it is possible to explore all the senses in writing and that words, while being limited, do have potential for creating unknown dimensions, and I am particularly interested in fantasy and the deeper side of cyberpunk and steampunk.

However, I am not convinced that there are not many areas left for 2D visual art, and not just as therapy. Personally, I do plan to do more visual art and would like to use art and writing in a complementary way. Although I have not done much art for a few years, for the few months before I found this site, I had playing around drawing inner worlds on my phone and do wish to use these ideas for future art work or for writing.

I am not sure if I am wrong, or the people who saying that 2D art has come to an end, because as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art.

Well just art in general.

Well just art in general. — Darkneos

Do you mean not just 2D art but all art?

as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art. — Jack Cummins

I feel we, as a species, may have moved on from what the visual art did for us. We might have crossed over into images having a meaning that is very removed from what it was. We’re a long way from the cave drawings of Lascaux.

Jack Cummins and others have talked about exploring the self through art and the value of symbolism and even the journey of the hero. But I don’t think that’s who we are anymore. The images and symbols that once contained power have been bleached of significance. With this goes the purpose of the visual arts.

First of all there’s nothing left to paint. Our lives are flooded with images of the world that serve every purpose except to reach out to us in ways they once did. Those images were culturally embedded, they had a history and resonance, they contained meaning that did not have to be articulated or explained. Virtually everything out there in the world has been converted to an image that is removed from its meaning and given new, relative meanings. Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire?

Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins?

I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative. — Brett

It’s easy to conclude that, sure. But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge.

Take, for example, the Banksy that was shredded immediately after selling at auction in 2018. The 2D artwork itself could be perceived as a duplicate but isn’t - it’s one of many impressions from an original stencil, an iteration of a particular creative potential retained by this artistic identity. What is sold in a Banksy print is rarely considered ‘original’, the buyer owns an impression of this creative potential, often unsigned. What made this particular piece original was evidence of the creative process: the signed dedication on the back, the artist’s frame...and its ultimate meaninglessness for the artist as a 2D work in relation to what is a five-dimensional creative potential. It is this last aspect that is difficult to express in a 2D work without seemingly defeating the purpose of making the work itself. Why make something only to destroy it? But creative potential is just that: the freedom to make and un-make at will. When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. The creative process is considered complete. But Banksy challenges this assumption, not just in this work but in a more recent auction of ‘Devolved Parliament’, a painting originally titled ‘Question Time’, that he had somehow reworked since it was first sold.

Creativity isn’t inherent as such in the artwork or in the artist - it is the relational structure of reality. Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us - it can be informative only in its relational structures, but in that sense I still think 2D art as part of the broader creative process is a long way from done.

But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. — Possibility

I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity.

I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge. — Possibility

Why do you think this is?

When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. — Possibility

I don’t go along with this at all. The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it.

Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us — Possibility

It’s not meant to surprise us, it was never meant to surprise us. It was made to be understood.

There’s an interesting OP about Wittgenstein, language and God, the inability of language to refer to Gods and beliefs;

“

We should not take a representational account of religious language but try to see its appropriate use in a religious life in form of metaphor, paradox, expectation, commands etc. In other words, religious statements about God cannot be assigned a truth value. They function in a different manner. — Wittgenstein

You may or may not agree with this in relation to art.

If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?

We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.

So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning.

I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity. — Brett

It’s more that we attribute intentionality to the artwork when we judge it as ‘creative’ or ‘not creative’, which reflects more on our ability to perceive its potential in relation to our own, than anything the artwork can achieve in itself. It comes back to the relatability or comprehensibility of what is original or unexpected in the work.

The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it. — Brett

I agree with this, which is what I was getting at with the Banksy example. Ownership is an attempt to consolidate a relational structure by excluding others, and Banksy challenges this exclusion as a false assumption - a limited perception of reality.

Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us
— Possibility

It’s not meant to surprise us, it was never meant to surprise us. It was made to be understood. — Brett

It is the surprise or unexpectedness that motivates understanding.

If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?

We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.

So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning. — Brett

That this meaning of personal art expression is ‘given’ is an important point. Meaning is not confined to significance or value, so the question of whether or not art has meaning has nothing to do with its specific meaning, but whether or not it matters at all.

Personally, I don’t see art as an exploration ‘of the soul’, but of possible perspectives. An alternative possible perspective is not necessarily important or valuable in itself, but it matters because its existence enables us to critically examine our own logic - our conceptual reality that we would otherwise take for granted. An artist’s capacity to render a surprising perspective in visual form provides a broad opportunity for us to understand where they’re coming from, instead of dismissing it as false, wrong, illogical, or the work of pure imagination. It is at this level of meaning that we’re reluctant to suspend our consolidated reasoning, to consider the variability of logic and the adjustments and corrections that can still be made to relational structures between different value and significance systems, towards a more accurate understanding of reality.

It isn’t that there’s no meaning, but rather that meaning is indeterminate. In Kant’s aesthetics it’s referred to as ‘purposiveness’, without any particular purpose.

Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses.

Given, also, that in the beginning this creative ability wasn’t used to brighten up a hut but had a purpose, or more accurately was directed towards a purpose. That purpose would have been quite primitive. The thing created was not the thing referred to, but it referred to something that could not be spoken of in the Wittgenstein sense: the cave drawings of Lascaux, the Borneo masks, the body decorations, the small fetishes. The art refers back to something that existed outside of space and time. This, I believe, is the origin of “art”.

This is how it operated throughout history, usually referring to something greater than ourselves, greater than the “artist”. As long as we believed in this “something” the work spoke for it.

In time we moved away from these beliefs. The mystery the work held about the unknown was transferred to the artist, the artist became the mystery. Of course there is no mystery except in the mystery of “creativity”. The connection was still maintained between the work and the unknown source, the origins, the unconscious mind. So the work became about the artist, who became some sort of Shaman, revealing unknown depths of the mind through the use of subject, symbols and metaphors.

This is just a performance, maintaining the uniqueness of the “artist’s” mind, perpetuating the idea that they have access to something they can share with us, that they are on some sort of journey to enlighten us in the process of enlightening themselves about reality. But the “artist” knows as much about reality as the man in the street, sometimes less.

So we are back to something that supposedly cannot be spoken of; the hidden genius of the artist. Which is just circular to me.
So yes, there might be such a thing as creativity, but it’s meaningless.

Why was it thatRimbaud stopped writing poetry and left France and everything he knew to trade guns in Africa and never write again?

However, artists can and do create beautiful and interesting things, but that’s all they are. And as we know beauty is subjective. Rimbaud’s poetry led him nowhere. People love and admire it, but what did it mean to him, unless what he found in his poetry was dissatisfaction, that art is meaningless.

What art reveals is not what it’s about but our perception of the function of art.

This from the OP “Essence without reality” seems relevant to me in this light.

So our philosophical quest for the essence of a thing turns out to be a search for what is important to us about it. Aren't these (essentially) the same thing? And this is still an analytical endeavor, but the investigation of our concepts (good, knowledge, intention) are not for the goal of finding one point to ensure their (or all) application, but to draw out the ways they express what we desire and need. — Antony Nickles

Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins? — Brett

People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. I agree that we are a long way from the paintings at Lascaux, but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational.

Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire? — Brett

The same thing: we’re looking for opportunity to participate in the creative process. These are rather innocuous methods: we give nothing of ourselves to the process, but are looking to be swept along in the momentum that’s already established, like a b-grade horror flick or a biographical history. We’re understanding the terrain in relation to a map. We’re not staring into the abyss or being asked to contribute, which suits us fine. We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there.

But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’.

People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. — Possibility

What reality do you mean?

but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational. — Possibility

I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?

I think you’re giving art far too much credit.

We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there. — Possibility

That’s a big generalisation for what people are looking to art for. Maybe art is a long way from its roots, but even then it wasn’t to discover ourselves. To discover what?

But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’. — Possibility

Once again, for me, too much of a generalisation about the creative artist and why they do it. The creative artist’s answer to whether our experience of uncertainty matters is always yes.

If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same?

I think that part of the diminishing role of art is because people are beginning to want fast solutions, especially entertainment through television and on the internet. I am inclined to think that the loss of meaning in art began when popular art became part of consumer material society, with pictures being sold to be placed on the wall, almost becoming parts of furniture.

I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. On the basis of liking my drawings, many people asked me to draw their pets or their houses, and I did not take up the challenge, even when though they offered me money, because I had no meaningful way of making art based on the objects of their sentiments because it seemed at odds with the whole quest of my art. I tried to explain that to them but I don't think that they understood, because they saw drawing as a practical skill. The most I achieved was to be able to come up with pictures for my parents' living room walls, because this was not too limiting.

I think that the whole idea of art as products is part of the problem. This applies to other arts, including music and books, which is a whole area of commercial value. I don't think that most creative people do wish to work for money but they have to survive. Perhaps the best solution is a day job to support oneself, rather than relying on artistic work for a living, but this is complicated, especially as we are moving into a time of possible mass unemployment.

I would say that it is likely that art will be a minority interest. When I have been running art groups, I have found that a lot of adults think that making art is just for children. However, they do not think that about art, However, they do not seem to think this about playing sports, and I think that it is unfortunate that art is not seen as a means of enjoyment, expression and questing for meaning.

One other point which I would make is that some would say that philosophy is a minority interest and irrelevant. Should we be following the direction of the minority or be trying to rise above it?:I do believe that some of the original posters on this site are not saying simply that art is not creative but that it is worthless and, therefore, should not be pursued at all.This seems so nihilistic, and is in the spirit of discouraging creativity

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, but surely to reduce all exploration to one answer is far too simplistic, and it should not be instead of the arts, and possibly the two states could be complementary. Art and spirituality are not enemies.

If the arts lack any creativity whatsoever, I am left wondering how one chooses to understand the term creativity, and I am not sure that it can just be reduced to the idea of 'originality' as some posters wish to cling, to rigidly as the supreme benchmark. It seems to me to be lopsided thinking and to try to say that art has no creativity, or potential for creativity.

once it's gets over certain threshold like combination of ten twenty arts now it became your style and congratulations you've created "original" art due to complexity of how many different "original" styles you copied to basically create a new style that is yours. — yiwakah227

That’s true and I think it could be applied to every aspect of our life. Isn’t it essentially how we learn and develop as people? We’re drawn to particular things of interest that expand our world. Most artists work within a tradition no matter how much they they bend the rules. If one bends the rules too much it becomes incomprehensible to others. An artist can continue to paint outside of a tradition, if that’s possible, and bend the rules with each work and find that only he can relate to it and he can continue without any contact outside of the studio. If we actually lived our lives like that what would we become?

So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.

Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother?

I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. — Jack Cummins

My point about Sunday painters was not that it depletes meaning but whether a line can be drawn between them and those who say “yes to uncertainty”. Are they both creative or is there a difference?

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, — Jack Cummins

I don’t think that’s what I said.

Art and spirituality are not enemies. — Jack Cummins

Not only do I not think they’re enemies but I think once they were one and the same. Though I’m wry of the word spirituality which seems to gave all sorts of vapid meanings these days.

Edit: if archaeologists 500 years from now dug up our art of the last 100 years what would it say to them?

Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses. — Brett

Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. This creative work varies in originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity, and while all of it matters, it is our self-conscious reasoning that selects what we consolidate and share with others. This part of the process is where it becomes ‘art’ - where self-consciousness kicks in.

What you refer to as a manipulative skill is self-conscious recognition of variability in consolidation - whether as a starting point on the page, a line, a shape, an object, an event, a potential or an idea - and the courage to integrate perceived potentiality that increases awareness, connection and collaboration. Some work is creative almost by accident - it is in recognising that this variability matters, and then striving to understand how it differs from what is predicted, that contributes to the creative process. This applies to scientific discovery as much as art. It even applies to philosophical discussions.

I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?

I think you’re giving art far too much credit. — Brett

Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, whether it’s in art, engineering or philosophy. I think that art has certainly challenged conventions in how we look at the world and how we render it visually. I think art is now capable of sharing more information than was intended in the paintings at Lascaux, but we are also able to discern much more information from the paintings at Lascaux and their context than the original artists would have imagined. So yes, art can really do that - but that’s not to say that ONLY art can do that, not at all.

If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same? — Brett

Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes.

So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.

Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother? — Brett

I agree that institutionalised art is becoming somewhat of an echo chamber, trying to consolidate itself as ‘art’ at the expense of contributing to the creative process. It is on the fringes that we find the genuine creative contributors - those artists and collaborators who aren’t afraid for their work to be de-valued or dismissed as ‘not art’.

As an example in literature, ‘Fifty Shades Grey’ is dismissed as ‘Mom porn’, written in a style that horrified those who lamented its top spot on the bestsellers list for a record number of weeks. But the style is deliberate, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that challenges the dichotomous, black and white conceptual structures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that uphold institutions such as love, morality and family. What distinguishes a ‘good’ relationship or person from a ‘bad’ one? What distinguishes ‘good’ literature from ‘bad’? Do these black and white concepts consolidate, or is everything really just shades of grey? And how does the balance of power, its use and abuse, relate? But the significance of this work has gone largely unnoticed, so far.

Tangled up in efforts to demonstrate the value of ‘visual arts’ I think are efforts to protect its identity as such from the collaborative efforts of creative thinkers that transcend its boundaries, which undermine its creative progress. The real significance and value of visual art is not in its categorical identification as ‘art’, but in its capacity to contribute to the creative process. Perhaps it’s the concept of ‘art’ that is now largely superficial, not the process behind it.

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? — Jack Cummins

I think we need to recognise the creative process as more valuable than the consolidated art or artists it produces. It has the effect, as we can see in music, of destroying the elitism of the arts industry, and making it almost impossible for someone to make a living from their ‘art’. But it enables anyone to recognise their capacity to contribute to the creative process, which can only increase awareness, connection and collaboration overall.

What if, instead of dividing our creative resources across arts, science, engineering, philosophy, politics and religion, we dissolve the institutions and instead negotiate structures according to originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity in creative processes? Just a wild thought...

Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. — Possibility

This is a bit unclear to me.

Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work?

Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. — Possibility

Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, — Possibility

This is how I interpret your post:

Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity

Understanding > creativity

But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:

Understanding > creativity > existence

What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.

Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator?

The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.

The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering.

However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.

In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art.

Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely.

I find the most interesting point that you make in your post addressed to me, because you have written many generally, is a recognition that art and spirituality were once one. I do wonder about this as an avenue for future exploration, but I am using both the term spiritual and art in a loose sense rather than in a strict one. However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence.

Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes. — Possibility

There are things you say that I would agree with. To say yes to uncertainty can only make life better. To say yes to painting on Sundays is obviously better than saying no. And to absorb yourself in something can only be positive. The results don’t determine the value of painting on a Sunday.

This is not necessarily being creative, but it is something of value. Maybe it’s therapeutic, which is fine.

I decided I needed to do a bit of reading on this subject. This from the beginning of an article I’m reading;

“ The purpose of studying the audience is to tackle the problem of aesthetic communication where the sender (the artist) transmits a coded message (the artwork) to receivers (the audience).”
Picasso, Cubism and the Eye of the Beholder: Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychology. TOM ETTINGER, American Imago.