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. — Brett

But there can be creativity without the result. This is the point I’m trying to make. The fact that you have to write ‘creative act’, ‘creating something’ points to creativity as not necessarily productive (as in producing any result), despite your assumptions. I’ve already mentioned that I agree creativity must eventually have a result in order to have any effect on the world. But it need not have any effect on the world in order to be creativity.

This strikes me as being incredibly subjective. Change it to what, something you think should be? — Brett

It is subjective - necessarily so. The creative process is highly subjective - it will always derive from your subjective view, regardless of the supposedly ‘objective’ constraints. It is your view of the malleability of these constraints - their subjective nature - that allow you to play with them, to be creative.

I’ve always loved the story behind the piece of marble that became the famous statue of David. This block of marble was supposedly rejected by some of the most celebrated sculptors for 70 years before Michelangelo, a young upstart of 21, took on the challenge. The stone was marred by weaknesses that prevented any hope of successfully producing a traditional product. And the idea of producing a statue of David (according to convention) from this block was considered impossible. Yet what Michelangelo produced surpassed all expectations and challenged the conventions of sculpture at the time, as well as demonstrating an intuitive grasp of the creative space and a view of humanity and potential that continues to challenge conventional perspectives even now.

Convention and objective knowledge of this block of marble limited its potential - it takes a subjective view to unlock a potential that no-one else thought was there. So it’s not so much what it should be, but what it could be that you change in the minds of others who interact with it, by changing how they interact with it.

I’m still struggling to understand our position and the issue you’re looking at? The internet has freed up artistic creativity, and other more obscure interests, by artists and niche interests being funded by individuals supporting the work of others they like.

Youtubers and people on patreon can make a good amount of money - something they would’ve been unable to do just a few years ago. This means artists have more freedom - don’t have to worry so much about starving to death. Has this helped art or not? I guess it is a case of in some cases it has and in others it hasn’t (everyone thrives under different circumstances).

To return to the purpose of production for the artist. I have invested countless hours into my own creation - I never set out to make my creation/s public and it is only due to the thought that someone else may get something from it (in an unselfish manner) that brings me to want to expose it. At the end of the day the partial completion of any task within my personal project, where there is some ‘product’, is for my observation. Meaning I create to see how my vision manifests and what is missing from the ‘product’ - it may turn out that what I considered pivotal to my project will be nothing more than a meaningless distraction; this can only be revealed once I interact with the vision as a material object. Much like an architect would draft a building design that in reality wouldn’t stand up fro more than a day; this knowledge may only make itself known upon, or during, creation and then lead to adjustments and alterations to render the best approximation of the original image, and/or alter the original image beyond recognition as the creators approach becomes more refined and in a ‘flow’.

I am not sure if it was Nietzsche, Aristotle or another who mentioned a famous Greek artist who created ‘plays’ to be performed. This person stated, very clearly, that he make the ‘play’ so he could see his own thoughts, his own vision. For him HE was the audience not public. Once he’d viewed his creation he’d assess it and try to create something better - or maybe readjust the current creation.

In the modern age, especially in the film industry, the ‘art’ has been pushed toward commercialism. In this sense, I think this may be your point (?), the ease with which someone of reasonable talent can produce a piece of art that is liked across cultural gaps and generations is perhaps to dilute the import of the more prestigious talents? That said, no matter what we do it seems that those on the fringes are generally less recognised in their time and ‘suffer’ for their art rather than being sucked into the need for public recognition.

Has anything changed?

In more broadly defined terms of ‘creativity’ - be it in art, crafts, maths or scientific investigation - the term ‘genius’ comes into play. The root of the word ‘genius’ is in genesis, a beginning. Once some genius comes along everyone resists their meaning and then many fall prey to its seduction. The initial ‘genius’ of this person then loses its novelty over time and generations (no-one is particularly in awe of calculus, but when you think about the huge shift in understanding and knowledge this gave humanity it is jaw dropping - but not so at the time as no one fully understood where it would lead).

There has to be lulls and shifts in creativity - be it more prominent in one field of interest and dulled in another. What I find interesting is how a lack of creativity any particular field - which produces poor quality - helps to magnify previous geniuses and glorification of other ages of creativity. This, again, is not simply a matter of an ‘artistic’ endeavor and can be seen in politics with a craving for some preconceived Golden Age of humanity, some distant and magnificent Renaissance made to look bright and colourful in our times due to our bland assessment of human life in modernity.

Vibrancy exists out there. Vibrancy exists within us. The structured we require to organise our lives also inhibit us. The bold, the brazen and the brave step outside their comfort zones more than others and some gain something for humanity and other, probably many more others, fall short. Contrarily I mean something different by ‘brave’ or ‘brazen’ in that to embrace ‘fear’ and to ‘run away’ can lead to a necessary breakthrough (hence my previous comment about ‘freedom’ and ‘suffering’). Really I am talking about being, as cliche as it sounds, ‘true to oneself’ regardless of personal circumstances.

It is subjective - necessarily so. The creative process is highly subjective - it will always derive from your subjective view, — Possibility

I’m wasn’t referring to the creative process when I mentioned subjective.
What I was viewing as subjective was your idea of results. But now I’m not sure of what exactly I was getting at there.

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

There seems to be the suggestion here that ‘the creative animal of today’ is the person who creates purely for the act of creating, without purpose except for the pleasure, and who is against monetisation and slavery. Yes?

To return to the purpose of production for the artist. I have invested countless hours into my own creation - I never set out to make my creation/s public and it is only due to the thought that someone else may get something from it (in an unselfish manner) that brings me to want to expose it. At the end of the day the partial completion of any task within my personal project, where there is some ‘product’, is for my observation. Meaning I create to see how my vision manifests and what is missing from the ‘product’ - it may turn out that what I considered pivotal to my project will be nothing more than a meaningless distraction; this can only be revealed once I interact with the vision as a material object. Much like an architect would draft a building design that in reality wouldn’t stand up fro more than a day; this knowledge may only make itself known upon, or during, creation and then lead to adjustments and alterations to render the best approximation of the original image, and/or alter the original image beyond recognition as the creators approach becomes more refined and in a ‘flow’. — I like sushi

I can relate to this. In some of my creative pursuits I have less of an intuitive grasp of the materials and how they interact than others, so it helps to produce ‘something’ earlier in the process with which I can interact (and perhaps also others can interact) before I’m able to see where it needs adjustment, or where it will ultimately fail. What is produced in these instances is often never meant to be a ‘product’ as such, and its use-value is only to help move the overall creative process forward, to demonstrate (only for me) whether or not I’m onto something, if I need to refine things, or if I should scrap a section of the project and start again on a different tack.

In this way, an artist can produce something that helps their audience to see where our broader projects such as life, being or society may need adjustment, where what we considered pivotal to these projects is nothing more than meaningless distraction - but can only be revealed once we interact with this perspective reflected back to us as a material object.

In this way, an artist can produce something that helps their audience to see where our broader projects such as life, being or society may need adjustment, where what we considered pivotal to these projects is nothing more than meaningless distraction - but can only be revealed once we interact with this perspective reflected back to us as a material object. — Possibility

Now I realise that the word I was looking for was not subjectivity but hubris.

“ .. an artist can produce something that helps their audience to see where our broader projects such as life, being or society may need adjustment ...”

Hubris how? Taken from the quote above it is not necessarily the intent of the artist to produce for the public - that is the point I was trying to make clear.

An artist has to earn a living though so the refinement of their craft - or that of any ‘non-artistic’ endeavor - rarely goes hand-in-hand with public appeal; arguably it must refuse to seek public appeal to be of any dynamic force (there are obvious counter arguments to this, I’m speaking in generalities).

Hubris: The idea that the artist can steer people towards seeing where adjustments need to be made in life, being or society. What adjustments, whose adjustments, for what purpose?

But I wasn’t referring to you, unless you made that comment elsewhere.

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

OK, fair enough. But why? Why describe creativity - an everyday concept centrally associated with ... creating something - as something else? Why distract attention from its prime feature? Why take away from its prime feature, and focus instead on something that communicates a much lesser act than creation? What does your perspective gain us, in this discussion of creativity? :chin:

I’m still struggling to understand our position and the issue you’re looking at? The internet has freed up artistic creativity, and other more obscure interests, by artists and niche interests being funded by individuals supporting the work of others they like.

There was no supposition that something was wrong intended, it just seems like lots and lots of work is being produced and received by the public and there isn’t really any clear modern concept of why anyone is really doing it.

Your position seems in line with Brett. You both believe the creator and the receiver to be clearly defined separate entities, that the creative has a set of clearly defined properties that isn’t affected substantially by environmental factors. I do agree that this is a virtue, but by no means defines an ideal way of being. If all that mattered was the creator, the work is all a sort of collective self-gratification. To be realistic the artisit doesnt have reason to exist in a vacuum.

OK, fair enough. But why? Why describe creativity - an everyday concept centrally associated with ... creating something - as something else? Why distract attention from its prime feature? Why take away from its prime feature, and focus instead on something that communicates a much lesser act than creation? What does your perspective gain us, in this discussion of creativity? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Again, I wouldn't say I'm describing it as something else, something that's not creativity, something that's different than creativity, and I wouldn't say that I'm describing it as something less than creativity. I'm describing creativity.

it just seems like lots and lots of work is being produced and received by the public and there isn’t really any clear modern concept of why anyone is really doing it. — kudos

I agree with this. This is why I ascribe so little value to it, and why I look on it as the remains of something that had reason to exist and was born from the strongest of instincts, that being creation, and why what is produced today is the ghost of this instinct, as opposed to acts of creation that actually have an effect on us and our world, even though, as I’ve said, they seem to be only modifications. And also, as I said, these acts of creation are now owned by professionals, so that the ordinary person views acts of creation as an act of a specific group: medicine, research, science, infrastructure, virtually everything about our societies. So these creative acts that thrived in these fields in the past are now being slowly strangled through corporate objectives.

Yes, there is a certain level of self-confidence in being able to see potential where others see a dead end, and then to develop the skills to make that potential so obvious as to be undeniable. You need to have personal confidence in the subjective vision because without it you literally have nothing to act on.

But the paragraph you’ve quoted here reflects societal (and my own personal) response to the creative work of others over time, not my own ability. When we see aspects of our lives or society reflected back to us in a certain way, it can wake us up to the futility or ridiculousness of it, or to its beauty and grace, in a way we don’t always see from our place in it.

As @I like sushi explained, this kind of work is being ‘true to oneself’ - that it becomes public is often guided by the unselfish thought that someone else might get something from it. And that it sells is because someone else does get something from it.

If you think this is hubris, so be it. I’m past the point of apologising for seeing the world differently or pretending to agree with the ‘objective’ stance on how the world works just because I can’t prove otherwise. I will interact with the universe as I see it just like everyone else, make my unique contribution to it, and perhaps time will prove me crazy or visionary - I’m ok with either.

I'm describing creativity. — Terrapin Station

I gathered that. :smile: But the way you're describing it is misleading and obscure, to me. So I'm wondering what you think your perspective gains us? How does it help?

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“. — Brett

So you seek evidence for the benefits that creativity, and maybe art, offers? I think a scientific analysis might be misplaced here. Some creativity is done for its own sake, perhaps because the artist has something to say to their fellow humans. I practised creativity in my work because I loved to do it (and also for the wage :wink: ).

these acts of creation are now owned by professionals, so that the ordinary person views acts of creation as an act of a specific group: medicine, research, science, infrastructure, virtually everything about our societies. — Brett

Don't artists share in the 'ownership' of creativity? I agree that there is creativity in all of the disciplines you mention, but it is generally denied, even by the very practitioners that are doing it. But science is advanced only by creativity, whether it be seeing a vision of a benzene ring in the flames of a fire, or something else. Inspiration. Imagination. Novelty. Fantasy. Creativity.

So I'm wondering what you think your perspective gains us? — Pattern-chaser

It tells us what we're actually doing when it comes to creativity.

Yes it feels as though if it were only a set of in-built drives, we’d simply be following directives of our instincts like a bird building it’s nest. Though in actuality that’s a good description of what we’re doing, it doesn’t alone describe the striving of the act that is it’s character. There is something sociological left out from Brett’s purely anthropological perspective, as well as something individual.

So I'm wondering what you think your perspective gains us? — Pattern-chaser


It tells us what we're actually doing when it comes to creativity. — Terrapin Station

So you think it's helpful to describe Picasso's Guernica (falling back to that example) as a rearrangement? In this example, we presumably view the work as a painting, that rearranges existing canvas and paints (or colour and lines)? Isn't that a trivial observation that takes away from whatever meaning and import the artist managed to incorporate into the work, not forgetting the meaning received and understood by the viewer (which might not be the meaning the artist intended, but that's art for you!!).

it just seems like lots and lots of work is being produced and received by the public and there isn’t really any clear modern concept of why anyone is really doing it. — kudos

People usually create artworks because they're enough of a fan of the medium that they want to learn how to perform that medium themselves. Most people wind up having desires (fantasies?) of being able to do the medium in a manner that can earn them a couple extra bucks (sometimes as well as earn the attraction of their preferred gender for romantic partners), if not make a living for them, so typically people create stuff that's some combo of:

(a) what they'd like to experience as a fan--where people figure there are bonus points for having relatively unusual tastes so that they're creating stuff that's relative unique,

balanced with

(b) what they believe might attract at least a niche/cult following.

So in short, usually the aim is to produce stuff that's partially designed to please oneself and others with more or less the same tastes, and partially designed to be able to attract (or maintain if one has already attracted) a currently viable audience.

Isn't that a trivial observation that takes away from whatever meaning and import the artist managed to incorporate into the work, not forgetting the meaning received and understood by the viewer (which might not be the meaning the artist intended, but that's art for you!!). — Pattern-chaser

Meaning can't be literally "embedded" into anything. What especially artists realize is that one is producing stuff that works as a "meaning catalyst"--for the majority of folks who like to focus on reading meaning into things (as opposed to folks who approach works more on a formalist level), but everyone is going to apply their own meaning, so usually it's to your benefit to keep things a bit more ambiguous/vague, because that aids everyone reading their most significant-to-them interpretations into the work.

The way you do this, though, is by arranging formal elements into structures--by approaching the work on more of a formalist level yourself.

usually the aim is to produce stuff that's partially designed to please oneself and others with more or less the same tastes, and partially designed to be able to attract (or maintain if one has already attracted) a currently viable audience.

Yes I also see things the same way, but I get the feeling that it’s like playing ping pong in a tennis court. I don’t see how with such a mass of semi-aimless creators for them not to be horribly taken advantage of by capitalists and as before I used the slave hyperbole but it’s not that far off.

If our notion of creativity extends beyond this it would probably give the creators more power.

there isn’t really any clear modern concept of why anyone is really doing it.

And why does there need to be? It is like me asking you why you like this or that colour and then demanding a ‘reason’ for this. I write and draw things because I get something from it. What I get from it is not really something I can explain anymore than I can explain the intricacies of the process (if there is such a thing?)

Art, and ‘creativity’ generally speaking, is a mysterious phenomenon. There are obvious subjective benefits and in some cases these things can be empirically measured in part (although such items of measure are vague - music is roughly discerned through harmonics and such).

I'd like to take the opportunity here to discuss the philosophy of creativity. No, I don't mean whether something classifies as art or not, but rather what constitutes the creative animal, as it were, of todays modern age. What are it's qualities? We have opened the door to new forms of creativity, creating works without use-value. The creativity of today is both against monetization, but also ascribes virulently to a lottery system of value. Large web-front companies make money of the creative labours of the masses, but what drives us to do it? Are we still driven to do it? Is it a form of slavery to put creative work into something to the benefit of someone else? Does this mean that creativity must be devoid of 'work'? I ask for your thoughts... — kudos

It seems we'll have clear up our terms before we make much progress in this conversation. What you've said so far confuses me. Here's a first pass:

For starters, what is your conception of "creativity"? What's the difference between "creative" labor and other sorts of labor, in your view? It sounds as though you have in mind the sort of thing that has often been called "art", the sort of practice and labor that culminates in products sometimes called "artworks".

I see no reason to suppose that "creative animals" are "constituted" any differently today than at other times.

How shall we distinguish "forms of creativity" from each other? Of course we design new sorts of technology; and corresponding modes of production, distribution, and consumption; and corresponding media, techniques, and outlets for "creative" work... Computer graphics provide novel means of visual (re-)presentation that were not available to da Vinci or Picasso, for instance. Nevertheless, at a generic level, works of visual art created by various techniques in various media may be said to have a common "form", the form of visual presentation. Arguably in this respect, if our classification becomes more specific, it matters more whether the object is in 2 or 3 or 4 dimensions, than what particular materials and techniques produced it. Considerations along these lines direct us to the origins of our word "aesthetic".

Aristotle claimed that artwork has no utility, and if he was right in his age, then it seems this is not a recent development. But I'd reject that Aristotelian claim, at least in the way it's typically characterized. If anyone uses or would use an artwork, then it has use-value; art in general has many uses in human society; and an artwork always has some utility to the art-worker who produces it, as the production of the work is an exercise in the practice of the craft that produces such works.


What do you mean when you say "[t]he creativity of today is both against monetization, but also ascribes virulently to a lottery system of value", and on what grounds do you make this claim? It seems to me an awful lot of stuff -- more than ever? -- that passes for "artwork" is monetized, and an awful lot of artists whose work is not monetized are scrambling to get it monetized. Moreover, it seems this has often been the case in the past, wherever perhaps distribution of surplus has been sufficient to keep starving artists from starving outright.

What has driven people to "make art" in all ages, regardless of whether they could exchange their works for money or for other strictly economic goods?


Somewhere in the course of a life, a craft-worker is drawn to a craft. How this comes to pass remains something of a mystery for us, like the formation of taste, though each of us who observes the transition may have a view on the matter. Surely the psychological incentives that seem to lure a craft-worker to a craft need not include any special concern for equipment, distribution, or economic compensation. For many craft-workers, the practice is the reward. If further incentive is required to offset some tolerable opportunity cost, there is the satisfaction in the works produced by the practice, and in the sharing of the craft and the craft-works in a community united by love of the craft, love of the works, love of the workers, and love of the whole community thus devoted.

There is no question we are drawn to it, by a sort of natural and fundamentally wholesome impulse as inherently cultural animals.


If we agree that exploitation of labor is a sort of "slavery", does it matter whether the labor is "creative" or not-creative, whatever that's said to mean? Consider: Is it worse to choose to exchange your "creative" labor for pay, to purchase another's "creative" labor, or to coerce billions of workers to work against their will without "creativity"?

What could it possibly mean for "creativity" to be "devoid of work"?

You may enjoy this:

The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde

The Preface

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.
No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.
No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.

Oscar Wilde.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/wilde/oscar/dorian/preface.html

Well, first, lots of artists have been taken advantage of by managers, agents, record companies/studios/dealers/gallery owners etc. You don't have to be in the biz to be aware of that--bios/autobios of artists are replete with these stories. Part of the issue there is that a lot of artists (there are exceptions, of course) don't really have a "business personality." They especially don't want to have to make as big of a time commitment to business issues, being business-minded, as is necessary. I'm one of them, by the way, (And I lucked into having a wife who is business/economics-oriented as a career.)

I wouldn't call what I described "semi-aimless." Wanting to create work that is a combo of self-pleasing and that can gain enough of an audience that one can earn at least part of one's living from what one is doing is a "complete," worthwhile aim in my view. And the latter part of it--gaining enough of an audience to earn at least part of one's living from what one is doing--is not at all easy to do. It's not easy to connect with enough people to the extent needed for that, or at least to get any momentum going--it's a very momentum-oriented thing, in the sense of people tending to react a bit sheep-like. You need to be able to build a "wave" of social response--the difficult thing is trying to get that going, at least in a particular niche, and then lots of people will follow along with the wave (though keep in mind that after you've built a wave, momentum/waves can work negatively just as well).

But even aside from that, there are far more people who desire to make a living with arts & entertainment than can be practically supported. The vast, vast majority of people who try to do it are not going to really get anywhere, because there's just way too much competition for the available opportunities (for making any significant money with it). So that's part of the motivation for at least doing work that pleases oneself. At least that's some reward to it . . . but of course most either give up and don't bother at all after awhile, or it gets pushed way to the side as a hobby akin to fishing or something--you do it a bit when you've got enough free time for it, but "just for fun." Almost everyone has to do something for a living, and that, plus family commitments, etc., get in the way.

Don’t you think that a massive coorporation that makes money off artists caught in this cycle of despair would have interests in preserving it in such a state? Their profits are made from masses of content and subscribers engaging interactively in their frameworks. They are making money from these people being unsuccessful.

It’s never been any different has it? If so what is your evidence compared to how the church funded artists in Europe?

It’s entirely possible for me as a creator to endow an artwork or software program with creativity and exhibit it to an audience without anyone’s assistance besides large web hosting middlemen. It could be a complete blast and it could stay within those pleasure constraints to maintain reason for continuing the project. In this sense I meant it is different from ‘work’ as selling my labour or time to a company in exchange for means of subsistence. Because then I would not have complete freedom only to enjoy the process. The idea is in agreeing to the power structure of essentially working for these companies we implicitly disallow work, or else become a sort of slave. That is, unless the act had some other significance like what we’ve been discussing.