but the creative process can also arise from an inherent drive to increase awareness, interconnectedness and overall capacity/achievement. — Possibility

I’d be interested to see some proof of that statement.

All value systems are subjectively imposed except for the potentially infinite diversity of the unfolding universe - and it is here that the creative process operates. That your work demonstrates a different perspective of any aspect of the universe is creative, and therefore has value in that it forms part of the creative process - li — Possibility

This is the same subjectivity that the post on art and elitism got bogged down in.
‘... a different perspective of any aspect of the universe.’ What exactly does that mean in terms of being creative?

What you’re saying is that a different perspective of the universe forms part of the creative process because what you’re doing is creative. That doesn’t explain anything. It’s an endless loop.

Man is a creative animal, all acts have a purpose or objective. Even if there existed frivolous acts they would die stillborn, their purpose would rise and fall sealing off the act itself in its own death, just as the physical evolutionary aberration that disadvantages a species causes the death of that species.

Modern man romanticises these pointless acts as having some mystical meaning, trying to breathe some purpose into them. They exist because modern society no longer needs purpose to its acts, life and death are no longer attached to these acts, they’re frivolous, they survive because they’re supported by vested interests, otherwise they would die through lack of oxygen.

Man must constantly reinvent himself. The creative act does this, but art does not. It’s an illusion to think that art can do this for man. Feeling good about yourself, or others, creates nothing but another frivolous act, which in the end is not even an action.

Just as remnants of man’s survival instincts sometimes manifest themselves today, so too do these original creative acts manifest themselves as contemporary art.

It’s this purposeless of art that makes it so difficult to define good from bad, and makes it so subjective and difficult to define.

IME, design involves much more than rearrangement of existing building blocks. Often (usually), the building blocks themselves must be designed and implemented before they can be used in the main project. — Pattern-chaser

What are you building the building blocks out of? — Terrapin Station

Smaller blocks. Like bones are built from cells, I suppose. — Pattern-chaser

Sure. Aren't you rearranging those, then? — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure. During design, I'm arranging the compositional elements until they fit as I need them to. My organic analogy (bones) was a bad idea. Firmware design has more in common with designing (for example) cars.

Cars are built using components, built into larger and larger sub-assemblies until the car is complete.

Designing a car involves identifying some existing components/assemblies and creating others. They aren't really arranged, because they don't fit together like Lego. They aren't re-arranged because they haven't been arranged before, and because there's only one place they fit. The steering wheel can't be rearranged onto an axle.... :wink:

In the sense that I mean it, the design of a car has little to do with its colour or shape, and a lot more to do with fitting a 2 litre engine into a space that is too small for previously-designed engines of that capacity and power output. And that endeavour is surprisingly creative, if not only creative.

For me, creativity is not about use-value, but about sharing our subjective view of the universe in a form that pursues at least one of three aims: increased awareness, increased interconnectedness or increased overall achievement/capacity. These aims, I believe, are instinctive at the deepest level of existence, but it is in recognising my uniquely subjective view as valuable in itself to the unfolding universe that enables me to be creative.

Putting creative (uniquely personal) work into something for the benefit of others is precisely what drives creativity in the first place. It is a selfless act at its core. Monetization or any system of value is counterproductive to creativity - the moment a value system begins to influence creative labours, the original impetus is obscured and the creative animal is lured from creativity towards productivity. — Possibility

I agree with most of this, but my own (former) vocation was very much involved in production, as an end result. It's easy to miss the creativity in firmware design, or car/bridge/etc design. The customer specifies what is required, and the designer has to come up with the how. This involves lots of thinking, checking and engineering ... and a surprising amount of creativity.

Perhaps a bit like writing haiku, the constraints that apply to a firmware design seem to sharpen creativity. I can't design a program to do just anything. It has to do what the customer asks for, to an unreasonably small budget, on a hardware platform that is often barely up to the task, to meet exacting size and performance constraints. The whole thing is a novel solution to a problem that has never been solved before. To achieve that, creativity is essential ... along with quite a few other skills. :smile:

Well there's the pure act of creativity itself and then there's sub-category of creative industry. Being involved in industry presupposes there's a reason to produce already determined. But being involved in any type of creativity doesn't have to involve producing for the work-return benefits of an industry, which would account for the big difference in these two types. Suppose you were independent, and had decided to make a software app or a painting. What are the reasons why you would do this, pure love of one's neighbour, G-d, or on the other side vanity or glory maybe? I presume the reasons would be similar or comparable in nature despite ending in very different results. — kudos

Yes, that seems to capture the sort of creativity I'm describing. :up: I did it because I loved doing it (and also because it paid the mortgage! :smile: ). I am proud of my best efforts; I regret some of my less successful ones. :wink: I am proud that I spent my career learning, and getting better at it.

The question is would it be better if there was no 'work' to the process, or not. And the creator was just purely enjoying his/her self? It it my opinion that the process of having that enjoyment is in part derived from the social value of the act itself. — kudos

From the social value, yes, but also from the personal satisfaction of creating something that didn't exist before. To neglect the personal aspect is a mistake, I think. It's a strong motivator; perhaps the only motivator, in some cases? [Yes, the practical aspects of needing to earn a living also impinge.]

Creative work is ultimately constrained in some way, whether by the materials/parts available or by the discourse or value systems in which they are often required to operate. The creative animal is acutely aware of these constraints and strives to explore just beyond them, to challenge them in the creative process.

The creative process, in my view, is an open-ended interaction with these constraints of subjective experience. This is how we discover new ways of seeing the world, new ways to relate to the world and relate elements of the world to each other, and new capacities or ways to achieve. — Possibility

Yes, this is what creativity is about, in all its guises. And not everyone is, or can be, creative. Some people are intelligent, others strong or dextrous, and some are creative. Creativity is a way of thinking, that not everyone can do. It requires flexibility of thought, and sometimes a willingness to suspend disbelief, as we do when we read a story. It requires imagination too, and curiosity (could it work better if we did it this way...?).

I am happy and proud that I was able to be creative as a firmware designer, but pure art is beyond me. I don't know what I lack, but I do know I don't have what I would need to run with Emin or Banksy. Creativity takes many forms. :smile:

but my own (former) vocation was very much involved in production, as an end result. It's easy to miss the creativity in firmware design, or car/bridge/etc design. — Pattern-chaser

I was trying to think of how what you’ve said relates to my own thoughts so far, because it threw me for a bit, that is the creative act in a business orientated environment, and it seems to me that that’s the only place creativity can take place today because there is purpose, a demand, and result, as has always been required in the creative act (according to my thoughts).

‘... a different perspective of any aspect of the universe.’ What exactly does that mean in terms of being creative?

What you’re saying is that a different perspective of the universe forms part of the creative process because what you’re doing is creative. That doesn’t explain anything. It’s an endless loop. — Brett

A different perspective - a different way of looking at things - is a very powerful aid to design. I once solved a particularly intractable design problem purely by finding a new perspective. The way forward then became obvious. To designers, at least, perspective is a central part of the creative process. I dare say this applies to other creative practitioners too.

Sure, but a different perspective of the universe?

I was trying to think of how what you’ve said relates to my own thoughts so far, because it threw me for a bit, that is the creative act in a business orientated environment, and it seems to me that that’s the only place creativity can take place today because there is purpose, a demand, and result, as has always been required in the creative act (according to my thoughts). — Brett

Well yes, sort of. :wink: But sometimes the purpose is a personal one. Some creative people feel compelled to do what they do, for their own satisfaction and fulfilment. Sometimes, art simply carries a social message. The artistic rendition amplifies the message, makes it more memorable and more accessible.

Sure, but a different perspective of the universe? — Brett

Of some aspect of the universe, yes. Not normally the whole universe, but maybe...? :chin: :wink:

Designing a car involves identifying some existing components/assemblies and creating others. They aren't really arranged, because they don't fit together like Lego. They aren't re-arranged because they haven't been arranged before, and because there's only one place they fit. The steering wheel can't be rearranged onto an axle.... :wink: — Pattern-chaser

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.

I don't know enough about software to describe it in these terms, but that's all we're doing when we create musical things, and visual art things, and fictional things (films, novels, etc.) and cars and so on.

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. — Terrapin Station

That applies to the components that do already exist, and can be reused in the new design. But what about the components that are custom-built for the new design? Nuts and bolts are universal, but body panels aren't. Nor are new, less eco-unfriendly, engines (although they contain nuts and bolts).

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.

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.

I don't know enough about software to describe it in these terms, but that's all we're doing when we create musical things, and visual art things and cars and so on. — Terrapin Station

This "rearranging" you describe is odd to me. We could say that a new painting reuses and rearranges existing things like lines and curves, paint and canvas. Just as a new program reuses bytes and RAM to produce a new executable. But such a description is so misleading, in some ways, that it misleads and mis-describes (is that a word?). Microsoft's Word is a collection of bytes. Bytes that have been used many times in the past. Does that make Word derivative and unoriginal? No, it doesn't.

Music reuses and rearranges notes and timbres, but the end product can still be new and fresh. It is a betrayal (of the artistes) to describe this as rearrangement, I think. It demeans and trivialises their work. Of course not all compositions are as ... successful as others, but all of them are new, just as they are also partly derivative in their composition. Creativity produces novelty.

It's not meant as a value judgment, or as something with value connotations, although it is meant to "demystify" or "demythologize" the process to an extent. When you create something, you're simply taking pre-existing materials and putting them into some different relationship, one step at a time. That's all there is to it, really.

It's not saying that works are unoriginal or anything like that. We make originality judgments based on (a notion of) whether the creator was trying to emulate someone else's work in some large-scale way. (Smaller-scale or limited-aspect emulation is given a pass, and often lauded, as "influence").

The definition makes sense to me. So what we're really doing is taking some materials or ideas outside of their natural state and arranging them to serve ourselves, like an exaggerated form of resourcefulness. In your view then, would art purely for other's sake be a bastardization from it's true aims unless it served oneself in some way?

In your view then, would art purely for other's sake be a bastardization from it's true aims unless it served oneself in some way? — kudos

No, I'd never say anything like that. I'm the guy rather diametrically opposed to any judgmental normatives like that.

When you create something, you're simply taking pre-existing materials and putting them into some different relationship, one step at a time. That's all there is to it, really. — Terrapin Station

This path leads to the conclusion that nothing is truly creative except the first one. The first song, or the first painting. All others are derivative, using as they do the same components that the original used. I don't find this a useful description of creativity. It dismisses all creativity that is not wholly unique, doesn't it?

The first song and first painting would be no different. You're taking materials at hand and arranging them into something different.

Again, this is not at all a judgment about anything. I don't know how I can stress that to successfully get it across.

This is what creativity is. It's what we're actually doing when we're doing creative things.

But creativity involves creating something, something new. Otherwise it isn't creativity. I can't deny the literal truth of what you're saying, but I really can't see that it's a useful way of looking at creativity. It obscures the original part by emphasising the part that isn't wholly original. [Did you see what I did there? :grin: ]

This is what creativity is. It's what we're actually doing when we're doing creative things. — Terrapin Station

No it isn't. Everything you say is true, but it doesn't describe what creative people do. I.e. it doesn't describe the part of what they do that is creative.

No, I'd never say anything like that. I'm the guy rather diametrically opposed to any judgmental normatives like that.

If the goal is to create a catalogue of all we know about creativity, it would be clearer to eliminate the supposition of the self and determining free will from your definition and just say, 'It is the re-arrangement of matter/materials into a new form' rather than 'you take materials and rearrange them...' etc.

If the goal is to create a catalogue of all we know about creativity... — kudos

One thing we know about creativity is that it involves the creation of something that is somehow, in some way, new and different. To describe creativity in a way that emphasises its non-creative aspects, and doesn't even mention creation, is very odd to me. Why deny (by omission) the central attribute of creativity?

Again, this is not at all a judgment about anything. I don't know how I can stress that to successfully get it across. — Terrapin Station

I acknowledge and accept your intention. But when you concentrate exclusively on the non-creative aspects of the creative process, how can that not be dismissive (of creativity)?

One thing we know about creativity is that it involves the creation of something that is somehow, in some way, new and different.

I'd argue that it being new and different is a property of originality rather than creativity. The quality of the work being not like other works is unmistakably a common motivation in creativity, but not involved in the definition thereof. If it were, then something could be both creative and non-creative between two different times, and in two places where something that was considered new and different is now no longer the case. Then once it were forgotten or distorted about which event came first, one could say that anything that was later copied by others was no longer new and thus not creative, where the original act was, in fact, a creative act.

I'd like to correct myself there, that technically I don't think that what I said was totally right, where I said "but not involved in the definition thereof." Because obviously, creativity has as it's aim to produce an original new thing. But it's not a definitive quality inherent in the product, but in the intention.

No it isn't. Everything you say is true, but it doesn't describe what creative people do. I.e. it doesn't describe the part of what they do that is creative. — Pattern-chaser

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

That your work demonstrates a different perspective of any aspect of the universe is creative, and therefore has value in that it forms part of the creative process
— Possibility

This is the same subjectivity that the post on art and elitism got bogged down in.
‘... a different perspective of any aspect of the universe.’ What exactly does that mean in terms of being creative?

What you’re saying is that a different perspective of the universe forms part of the creative process because what you’re doing is creative. That doesn’t explain anything. It’s an endless loop. — Brett

No. What I’m saying is that an act or product that demonstrates a different perspective of the universe is creative because it forms part of the creative process.

By ‘different perspective of any aspect of the universe’ I mean a novel arrangement of parts: whether those parts are words, code, plastics, metal, pixels, etc. We’re not creating something from nothing - it only seems that way - we’re only seeing potentiality where others cannot, and then actualising that potentiality. That’s the essence of creativity.

Sure, but a different perspective of the universe? — Brett

No - a different perspective of an aspect of the universe. I’m speaking as broadly as I can about creativity here. I’ve personally worked in a range of creative industries, from fine arts to website design, from advertising and marketing to playwriting and directing.

One thing we know about creativity is that it involves the creation of something that is somehow, in some way, new and different. To describe creativity in a way that emphasises its non-creative aspects, and doesn't even mention creation, is very odd to me. Why deny (by omission) the central attribute of creativity? — Pattern-chaser

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.

I’ve personally worked in a range of creative industries, from fine arts to website design, from advertising and marketing to playwriting and directing. — Possibility

The position I’m developing in relation to this op is that the creative act, in its pure form, is (ironically) objective driven towards ‘use-value’.

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.

My feeling, which is a surprise to me, is that creativity exists today only in a ‘value- use’ environment, because it contributes to our development as people, as it always has, as its purpose always was. Creativity was and is a tool of some sort.

I’m beginning to think that what you and others are talking about is not creativity itself but is instead just playing with creativity, like a child playing with blocks.

. The creativity of today is both against monetization, — kudos

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