Why am I always unconsciously in search of a telos? Is this a mental illness, or some sort of divine bread crumb trail?

In Rainbows - Live From the Basement. So glad this is back on the web, and from the band themselves, no less. Just as vibrant as the first time I watched it.

https://www.radiohead.com/library/#ir/in-rainbows-from-the-basement/5:45

Love it too.

:broken: :flower:

Very cool. The Four Sections is one of my favorite pieces of music of all time.

I'm just gonna vomit up some opinions for ya'll and you can take or leave them. Word? @Brett @Coben @Darkneos

My provisional definition of creative is: non-logical ways of arriving at correct assumptions.

So, is visual art not creative? No. It is creative. Good visual art arrives at correctness by bypassing logic.

I thought I had more in me, but this feels correct.

Thanks, I need to revisit that Reich era. Certainly not my go-to, but I'll revisit. Here's some recent Reich that I love. Those opening lines!

What does music imitate?

So what is creative then?

I don't think art is largely irrelevant. To expand further on what I said above, I worry that this arm chair philosophical perspective allows us to create fake perceptions of art across history. When we read art history and connect it to the art around us, we form a concept of what happened and is happening, but we're at the mercy of historical data and, more importantly, technology. I.e. our technologically influenced perception of history is warping our perceptions: 200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, in fact more so, because the masses didn't have the intimate access they have now; they didn't have the internet; they couldn't wax philosophical to strangers about art. Now that we can, we form these hackneyed perceptions that are a symptom of our weird birds eye view. I worry that the farther out we zoom from reality, the more warped our perception becomes.

My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were. — Brett

I like what I see of your thought process, so this is not an accusation, but this sounds a bit like the classic line of "they don't make it like they used to". Which in my view is a simple psychological projection of your (not you specifically) perception of the world of your formative years unto the actual world you find yourself in when you come of age.

Wait, to accommodate what?

So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art?

I.e. the closer I study music itself, the more confused I get. I like being confused!

and @Darkneos

Darkneos, your question seems to suggest that art only has value if it's "original" or "creative". While I'm very much interested in creating original and creative art, I nevertheless think the question is misguided. If you or anyone is questioning whether or not they should create art (and dragging feet about these concepts), the answer is easy: yes, create. Don't over think it. The longer I create art (music in my case) and the older I get, the less I understand what I'm doing, and that feels very correct. Maybe I'm just in a rare mental space of positivity recently, but I'm content with that conception for now.

Too many metaphors broh!

I'm beat, I'll get back to you.

You sound envious!

What have you been reading on dreams?

For me, psychological explanations for this sort of experience are indeed compelling, but only to a degree. I can't shake the feeling that they are only descriptive of something else latent or interwoven into the human experience.

It is that, yes, and specifically, the viewer is stunned or excited because they're encountering something "seemingly" new. But this is where it gets either psychological, mystical, or just ill-defined (if you want to try to remain logical) to me: because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview).

Don't worry, disaster has been averted:

Yeah, I think artistic originality of any kind (visual or otherwise) has always been relative to perception. As self-styled philosophers, we take this grandiose birds eye view as if we're perceiving the entirety of artistic expression through history in all cultures, when in reality, the experience of the individual (if you notice I always come back to this) determines what "originality" means. Each individual possesses a limited perception of what a given art form is, and any time those foundations are shaken, or the vistas are opened, the word "original" is breathlessly uttered. And this is totally fine. It's not something to critique, it's just the reality that can be observed from our "birds eye view". There's always an artistic corner undiscovered to the individual; there's always the potential for the experience of "originality".

This journey did not end well

In regards to art specifically?

So does that suggest that originality is a perception? — Brett

It could. The artist knows all of their scraps and sketches too well; their work isn't original to them. But it can be to the audience, since they don't know. You can also play God and imagine all of this, like we're doing. Does doing this concretely define "original" for us from this perspective? When does our hypothetical perspective become concrete?

Then that means there are different kinds of original. — Brett

Sure, but again, I thought we were discussing the idea of original art.

But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original. — Brett

But the final painting is the original to the audience.

An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think? — Brett

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing.

Off the top of my head, in art, I think "original" tends to connote a work to which easy signifiers ("Monet-esque", "post-modern", etc) are not easily applied. But this doesn't mean that there are not precursors ("signifiers") to the work, it's just that they aren't obvious. The building blocks to Elvis are there, historically, for anyone to study, but at the time, they were not obvious, and Elvis "exploded" on the scene. He was "original". What does seem to exist is this cultural boiling point that gives the illusion of originality...

...But the question to me then is whether "original" is simply the word that describes what I just described, or whether, on the other hand, "original" is a lie, and that nothing is original; everything is a patchwork of what came before. It starts to feel semantic and unimportant to me, but I could be convinced otherwise.

*blushes*

Whoops thought you said what creative said. See above.

I wrote something out and then disagreed with myself. Touché.

That's a succinct summary which I agree with.

However, judging by writing style, my guess is that the OP didn't consider the question of whether creative and original can be used interchangeably, and I would also hazard the guess that that wasn't an important distinction to them. It may be to us, but to the OP, the error might be simply corrected by editing the sentence to "Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being [...] creative?"

In typical fashion I've already lost sight of the OP. I agree that creative and original are not the same. I get the sense I'm maybe misinterpreting something or missing something obvious in what you're saying.

The journey continues

Is that a valid question? I don't understand the reason for asking it, or rather, it seems like a non sequitur to me.

The perspective I'm coming from is that yes, everything is interpretive. This checks out in music; in the classical/jazz realm, someone performs someone else's piece, and they do it in such and such a way, and it's their "interpretation", and rightly described as so. In the pop realm, it's simply called a "cover". Even when an artist wants to "remain faithful" to the original, they still add their own style to the work, even if they're actively attempting to minimize this effect. And that's totally fine.

As far as an "original" painting, I don't find that to be particularly important (from this perspective I'm taking) but I guess you could look to non-representational art. But even that could be said to be "interpretive" of aspects of reality; logical structure in Mondrian, for instance. He was very philosophically preoccupied.

It's not a copy because it's an interpretation. A painter inevitably interprets a still life with their own style, regardless of how "realistic" their interpretation; even the degree to which their interpretation is realistic is a factor of their style. And style determines interpretation. Just off the top of my head, dunno if that made sense.