It is interesting to think whether the idea of aesthetic taste is evolved or not. Certainly, I have always gravitated to the arts and inner reality. I am a daydreamer and don't like practical tasks or sports, especially as I have poor physical coordination. To some extent, everyone is wired uniquely and it may go back to early patterns of learning.

Some may see the evolution of aesthetic taste as being about 'culture' and there are different perspectives. It was during my time of studying art therapy that I discovered nu metal and it felt like an encounter with 'the shadow'. Marilyn Manson was interested in Jung's ideas. In his autobiography he said how at one point he did believe that he was 'the Antichrist' literally. He got to the point where he concluded that it was symbolic. There is the question how dark should one go? Even though I still have a lot of metal and emo music I wouldn't listen to it constantly and try to get a balance. It may be about going to what shamanic practitioners describe as the upper and lower worlds.

I just read your second post to me from yesterday. I agree about playfulness in relation to imagination. I have always loved playing because my mum encouraged so much fantasy. She used to act in plays and even once worked as a magician's assistant on stage. She also loved teddy bears and I may have come close to being called Rupert. A friend criticised her so much for her love of teddies, saying before I was born that I would probably look like a teddy. I didn't but I did like teddy bears.

One important writer on creativity is Donald Winnicott. He even brings teddies into his thinking. He sees the child's blanket and later, the teddy bears as transitioning objects. He refers to these as being important in symbolic understanding, creativity, and as a starting point for communication with others.

Yes I agree.

Imaginary friends and projecting personhood onto inanimate objects is an integral phase of child development. It's actually considered a red flag if children don't go through this phase of imaginary friends. A sign of autism or neuroatypical cognition.

It's believed that it is the social brains healthy development, exercising itself, practicing social interaction in a controlled setting. Preparing itself for real social encounters.

It makes a lot of sense actually, as the ability to socialise is the natural next step to language acquisition, the ability to self express.

Children imbue self into their dearest toys or teddies so they can converse, think aloud as it were and roleplay.

Society is about roleplay in essence. Everyone has a part to play. Children recognise this through the exercise of having an invisible or inanimate best friend. A parent need not be concerned as it demonstrates their child has social intelligence, an invaluable skill.

I wish I could understand what you're trying ta get at, but I wouldn't know how - I lack the knowledge & experience to do so. Anyway, I just worked with what I had - that many people associate creativity with art and art falls under the rubric of aesthetics, a subdiscipline of philosophy. Also Duchamp's Fountain piece is allegedly the philosophification of art i.e. it represents the birth of a new movement in which aesthetics is deprioritized. I read all that a long time, so I can't guarantee how accurate the info is.

I am raising this thread to ask where does creativity fit into the picture of philosophy? — Jack Cummins

I think philosophy is – has in some sense always been – about 'conceptual and moral creativity' insofar as it problematizes – exposes and calls into question – how 'ways (habits) of living' and 'ways (habits) of thinking' incorrigibly fail to be creative (adaptive).

How may the sources of the creative processes be understood in society and on a personal basis?

IMO, this is too large and varied a topic for a post. Consider (if you haven't already, Jack) this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

To what extent is creativity valued or undervalued in the twentieth first century?

I suspect creativity is "valued" today mostly in forms of economic or monetizable 'innovations', quite "undervalued" throughout primary-secondary education (certainly in the US and other theo/neo-fascist countries) and devalued as threatening in classist, national & international 'politics' everywhere. The Frankfurt School's critiques of the culture industry and (it's knockoff) the Wachowskis sisters' The Matrix have some insightful things to say about this 'fetishistic-p0m0 use of creativity' to reify – ideologize – sociopolitical status quos.

I am glad to see a reply from you because I was surprised that you hadn't submitted an entry for the micro fiction, so I was worriedwhetheryou were okay. I haven't submitted yet but I do plan to submit and read more in the second half. Actually, I logged on to put my entry in because I kind of thought that I had until midnight and, when I couldn't I created this thread instead.

Thanks for the link and I will read it later and I haven't even finished reading 'The Philosophy Now' issue on creativity. It probably is a topic that is too wide for a thread but I wanted it to be fairly broad because it often seems science has monopoly over the arts in philosophy. There are not that many arts based philosophy threads on this forum and the one which I enjoyed in particular was the one by @Gus Lamarch about a year ago on 'The Metaphysics of Poetry'.

On this particular forum there do appear to be so many extremely creative people and that is why I thought that it was worth making a thread on it. I do agree that the question whether creativity is valued is a very worthwhile one. My own answer is that it varies so much.

Certainly, when I was working in mental health nursing I felt creativity was being squeezed out of importance. The arts therapies were almost being phased out, for financial reasons and I found that on a day to day it was like work was becoming more and more robotic. I felt that staff were meant to be able to do just about all tasks except for arts and creativity. Even writing reports were done on templates with such strict guidelines.

Even some areas are more creative than others. I am not very keen on the area I live in because it is so lacking in art activities of any kind. If I can I prefer to spend time in places like Camden Town, but even this has become far less bohemian and arty than it used to be. Most of the record and bookshops have been closed down and so many venues where creative people used to go. Part of this may be related to so much being done online. I do like a certain amount online, such as this forum, but I do like face to face activities too.

It may be that creativity is valued by many still but its platforms are changing. Also, there is often an idea of the arts as recreation, as opposed to it as a source of meaning, which is the way in which I value the arts, and from my understanding of your approach, you are interested in a far deeper way than just as entertainment as a way to wind down from so-called 'important' tasks. About the worst work experience I had was with a manager about a couple of years ago who seemed to dismiss the arts and my interest in this in working with patients. She thought assisting them with cooking and cleaning tasks was far more important.

Creativity is the act of using self-expression and also in a different way - using some outstanding processes to come to new ideas and reaching some or another conclusion than may have been thought. It the odds and ends different thing. Creative geniuses map out their ideas and are considered 'different'. People who use creativity often achieve their means using so many odd tunes and tweaks to do what they want to do.

Some people seem to have more interest in imaginary friends than others. Even as an adult I often find that fantasised romances are often more helpful than the real ones. This may even relate to the concept of the 'muse'. As a child I used to pretend to be various pop and rock stars and play all kinds of fantasy games. It was such fun and all this may be the essential aspect of fantasy and its role in imagination.

On the topic of autism, I have done art groups with people on the autistic spectrum. They are often very concrete in thinking and have difficulty understanding other minds. This is not just based on my experience of working with them, but important areas of research. They also benefit a lot from art therapy, often finding it easier to express themselves through art than verbally.

I haven't interacted with you before, so I am glad to do so. I really like the name, 'Magic triangle'. It does seem that you describe the creative processes so well.

The people who stand out as geniuses are such a phenomena. It is one of the reasons why I do wonder about the possibility of reincarnation because some of the greatest writers and thinkers develop so beyond the realms of others that it makes me wonder if this development could have been achieved in one lifetime.

Of course, on the other hand it is likely that most people develop such a fraction of their potential. The 'tweaks' which some develop may bypass others habitual patterns, possible at the level of cognitive wiring. Also, with some of the geniuses it is as like they have a distinct way of seeing, like Salvador Dali. One interesting example may have been Stephen Hawking who developed such understanding, especially with his debilitating physical health issues.

Thanks for the concern, Jack. Yes, I'm going through some medical treatments lately that have made reading (or writing) fiction more difficult, even unpleasant, for me. I haven't read any of the stories yet and don't know when I will. As far as my own contributions, I have several scraps of tales, just sketches, from before Caldwell started posting these micro fictions which I haven't bothered to revise or polish well enough to submit. While I remain somewhat active posting to discussion threads, I can't say at this point whether or not I will write a micro fiction worth reading anytime soon.

You mention "art and creativity" almost interchangeably when art is, in fact, only one type of creativity. Science, history, play, etc are also types of creativity. Philosophy too, as I've pointed out. If your concern is specifically art or aesthetics, then you may find the thread discussion in which this old post comes from interesting.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344963

You query what I am getting at, probably in the idea for the thread. I am interested in art,including aesthetic taste. There is the question whether such taste is objective or subjective, or intersubjective. This goes back to discussion by Kant to the ideas of the phenomenological tradition. I find the approach of the phenomenologist thinkers particularly useful in this respect in relation to the experiential aspects of sensory perception. It also relates to qualia and how perception arises.

However, my main interest in the philosophy of creativity is in connection with the creative process. The understanding of the process may be so important for fine tuning one's own creativity rather than just as a theoretical discussion. I would like to become more creative, in writing and art, and all aspects of life.

You mention "art and creativity" almost interchangeably when art is, in fact, only one type of creativity. Science, history, play, etc are also types of creativity — 180 Proof

:ok: :cool:

I did wonder if there was some reason why you had not been involved in the micro fiction because you are usually present. So, I hope that the medical interventions improve. I have been less involved because I have been trying to find somewhere to live for over 3 months and it is not easy to find anywhere, so I am still looking. At the moment in England it is colder than it has been in years and I am finding it hard to do most things.

As far as creativity is concerned it is most definitely not exclusive to the arts. Sometimes, people do see it that way and so many scientists and inventors are astoundingly creative. In some cases the creativity can encompass the whole spectrum, with individuals like Leonardo de Vinci. It is probably the situation that disciplines have become so specialised that it hard to be an all rounder. The one advantage of all the information on the internet is that it makes it so much easier to read around such a vast amount of literature on many topics allowing for a general background knowledge, as a starting point for unique innovation.

Good luck finding your own place, mate, especially during winter.

It is just so hard finding somewhere in London. The reason why I have to find somewhere (and the others here) is because the landlord, who was subletting, has gone missing in Pakistan. The owner is repossesing. Mind you, I do want to move anyway because the bed here is so broken i that I slide into the base. I try to keep some humour over my bed. When I try going to the top it is like climbing up a hill. It is also such a gigantic bed that it is hard to find sheets which will fit.

I hope that you are able to read fully again and don't strain your eyes reading on a computer. Even though the stories are short there are a lot of entries and reading on screen is a strain on the eyes. Reading and writing are such a main part of your life, but music can help. it is amazing how many people have participated, and@Amity is doing so much reviewing again. At some point, it would be great if we see a story from her as well.

I would say creativity is the reordering of things that exist into a concept that you have not encountered before. So for example, I take a bunch of legos and come up with a new structure or way of putting them together with glue that will decay after a day. I make this nice lego structure, then film the blocks falling one by one as the structure decays in real time. I then note that if we represents that the glue of society must continually be refreshed or it will decay.

Now is it popular, effective, or profitable creativity? If I presented the format correctly, maybe. Being creative doesn't mean what you've created will be appreciated or valued by anyone else but you. Because you are putting together something that very few, or perhaps no one else has done before, you need to put it before lots of people to see if its something they appreciate or value.

I do wonder how ideas of creativity are socially constructed and to what extent do some pursue their creative quests in relation to social circumstances and luck. — Jack Cummins

The reality is that creativity is most often a failure in the eyes of many people. Something too alien or outside of one's comfort zone makes many people uncomfortable. Creativity often times breaks unspoken and sometimes spoken rules and norms of society. How do I know this? I am a creative person. Its gets me in trouble, a LOT. Some people despise or do not want to see my view points. Other times you might hit gold on something creative, and some may love what it brings to the table.

All people have strengths and weaknesses. To be creative, yet understand what society wants, be socially stable, good looking, have access to money, and charismatic is a combination needed for success that extremely few people have on their own. The reality for most of us is people succeed through collaboration. Most of the individuals who received recognition throughout history had a team or friends that were just as important and a part of their success as that individual was. One person may get the "credit", but they could never have done it by themselves.

For a creative person to have success, they need friends or business minded people around them who can help find the valuable bits of creativity within the mounds of trash that are produced. They need people who are NOT creative, who understand how the world exists today, and what people today want and need. Further, the creative person needs people around them to provide them acceptance, time, and many times money to provide an environment where a creative person can just focus on their work.

Creative people in such an environment are invaluable to society. Creative people outside of such an environment may be seen as crack pots, socially inept, or failures who need to go get a real job. Good question Jack!

:100:

Well, if beauty is objective and sometimes it appears to be so, although intersubjectivity can't be ruled out, it hasta be mathematical in me humble opinion. Consider the most common class of ugly - disfigurement - an absence of (mathematical) symmetry. Yin-yang?

during my time of studying art therapy — Jack Cummins

What is art therapy?

Art therapy is the practice of art expression as a way of facilitating therapy, which may be done individually with a therapist or in a group. There are various approaches to it, and the one which I am familiar with is that the psychoanalytic based one. That is because the course, which I did, but did not complete due to personal circumstances was art psychotherapy at Goldsmiths College, in South East London.

In art psychotherapy the relationship between the therapist and the patient is a central focus. Individual sessions also adopt the 50 minute hour. Throughout training all students are required to be in personal therapy and for almost a year I had therapy lying down on the couch, which I found to be an extremely unusual experience.

All art therapists, trained at the various institutions are on a register of the British Association of Art Therapists and if someone runs groups as an art therapist without undertaking the training it is actually illegal, because it is a recognised profession. So, when I was running art groups in my nursing jobs I called them 'Creative art', as opposed to calling it art therapy. Nevertheless, the term art therapy is sometimes used in a very casual way, which I am sure is frowned upon by professionals. In particular, there are various colouring books for adults which have the words 'art therapy' in the title.

I was surprised to discover that in spite of his emphasis on objectivity in general, Kant, in his discussion of aesthetic judgment places a large emphasis on its subjectivity.

Do you see the yin and yang as representing "ugly disfigurement'. I see it as being about the essential nature of opposites. Without the interplay of opposites there would be no good, heaven or happiness. Of course, there are shades in between the two.

Even with intersubjective aspects of consensus there is a lot of variation in aesthetic tastes. Even with physical appearance of people, and recognised standards of beauty, not everyone is attracted to the exact same people. Also, with even people who not attractive to many, they usually have some kind of beauty if people try to find it. One of the saddest stories is probably that of 'The Elephant Man', John Merrick. One thing which I read about him though was that he had beautiful hands.

Many don't appreciate creative people and have the attitude that they should get a 'proper job'. It is also difficult to make money out of creativity although people who are creative in science and technology probably manage to do so much more than in the arts. I do have a couple of friends who try to make money out of art and painting. However, they do struggle to do this, and have to teach classes as well as do their art. Apart from people who are really successful in the arts, and get to the top, the majority don't make much money from it and do it more az a hobby. Some have day jobs and a lot of arty people are a bit bohemian and find it hard to fit to fit in to the point of holding down a job, Even with scientists there is the archetypal picture of the eccentric professor, although that may be a bit of a stereotype.

That would be correct - contrast is essential to, for example, the distinction between good and evil - sans evil, no good and sans good, no evil. I find the alternative to yin-yang aka advaita or, in Buddhist circles, advaya also appealing despite serious misgivings on what it entails.

It's interesting that you're also a subscriber to the yin-yang channel. It does fit with what we observe doesn't it? I, for some odd reason, remain in the dark as to the nub of the idea - there's a missing piece of the puzzle which I'm unable to locate. Too bad, :sad:

I first came across the idea of the yin and the yang in Jung's writings. The idea of poles come into it and Heraclitus's concept of enantiodromia is important, with the extremes having been reached leading to the opposite. I am not sure how this would follow with beauty because what is seen as ugly doesn't necessarily become beautiful. However, familiarity may be important and taste being acquired. There have been songs which I hated on first listen but over a time grew to love.

I haven't read much on advaita but I may try to do so at some point. Some philosophies seem so dualistic, including Christianity. As far as beauty is seen there are some contrasts such as the gargoyles in churches and the Gothic.

Gracias for lettin' me know - didn't know that yin-yang has Greek roots too. Enantiodromia, nice!

:chin: Good day Jack! You've been most kind & equally if not more helpful.

Creativity, how does yin-yang help you in grasping the idea?

The Greeks don't discuss yin and yang as such but Heraclitus's ideas of opposites are fairly parallel.
As far as my own understanding of yin and yang is connected to my own grasping of creativity is in thinking about destruction as the opposite process. I am aware of having an inner saboteur and see myself as my own worst enemy at times. For example, I am rather chaotic. I often get my room so messed up that I hate being in it. I also do get into negative states of mind.

In thinking about the battle between destruction and creativity it connects with Jung's idea of the integration of the shadow. I read about this in Jung's book, ' Answer to Job' which I am sure I have spoken about in other threads. It does look at the collective shadow but is also relevant for thinking about the personal issues with the shadow. It was in the discussion of opposites there that I read about the ideas of Heraclitus.
.

Are yin-yang "opposites"? "a duality"? Heraclitean "flux:? I don't think so. Conflating complementarity (e.g. dialectics) and, say, coincidentia oppositorum (e.g. Jungian / gnostic 'syzygy'), it seems to me, loses the plot.

I guess it does depend on what one understands opposites to be. It is a fuzzy concept because they are not aspects with clear distinct boundaries. That is because to some extent they are socially constructed rather than 'out there' metaphysics. This applies to concepts like good and evil, masculine and feminine as well as love and hate. It may be that Jung himself ignores the social construction of ideas with a tendency to treat the ideas as actual metaphysics. This probably stems from how he blends so many ideas together and this may limit the scope of his arguments from a critical philosophy perspective.

I think there is a Yin/Yang relationship in design. The imitation of symmetry and patterns we encounter in nature are transformed into the formal element that emerges in what we make. What is beautiful is not, however, the artificial replacing the natural. Too much structure is oppressive. Leaving everything to chance is a kind of submission. Repetition of some things is ugly, even if not oppressive by themselves as rare events. The inability to repeat other events is a source of much torment.

So, the one who makes, lives in a complex web. The balance depicted in the symbol of Yin and Yang is usually envisioned as a gift. The speaker in Homer asked for the Muses to sing.

Creativity is like pornography - you'll know it when you see it. :cool: