ah, fundamentals. let's have a pow-wow =)

[StvShoop]

hello everyone!

i've been a stranger to the photoforum :? only had time to buzz through a very few of your marvelous photos since college started this semester. I'll make a decree to myself to get back into the groove of here as soon as school is out, maybe sooner!

^---- that's all introductory matter, it wouldn't be right to plop down the meat of my question here without attempting to excuse my long absence. forgive me!


so here's the beef.
allora...

why do photographers, architects, writers, etc. (all the "creative" people) make things? why do they create new stuff, things and concepts which never existed before?

and why are many people content to not create the new?

the muse is at my ear, i want to extend my currently realized creativity outside myself (onto the forum for example) so i can come back and see it again tomorrow.

i remember lots of great discussions i've read here and taken part in, which i really learned a lot from. you guys rock :thumbsup: so what do the photographers think about the dark red?

if there's a topic like this already, please direct me

 

[motcon]

cognitively speaking, creation is the variation on/of themes. it's the, 'tastes like chicken, but it kinda doesn't and it isn't' thing. there very well may be an outcry (and anticipated) of, 'new things are created', but allow me....

we are a product of what we experience with our senses. art is a function of the ability to observe and retain our environment and the drive to create.

sensory perception and retention of environment:creativity = (yields) product (art).

everything we see around us, everything we feel, hear, taste, smell, and touch go into our 'work' as artists. those that are aware of their surroundings do this consciously. others do it subconciously.

to those that say absolute new works/things can be created:

- from birth you grew up and existed in a white room with no windows. your work would consist of what? visions of yourself. food. water. white walls. lines. the color of your skin. your anatomy. whatever you have in that room. if not, from where do you derive your 'creativity'?

- speaking of the cognitive and the intellect, this is indeed the highest of compliments. one that can observe, retain, mingle, and be selective of his/her surroundings is to be admired. one that can take all of that and put forth a work of art is to be commended.

there is a valid reason that artists (musicians, actors, painters, sculptors, photographers) have people that have 'influenced' their work. so to those that use all of their senses and employ the mind in a discernable fashion to put forth a piece of art; my hat is off to you.

so what do the photographers think about the dark red?

'tis a beautiful thing. did you create that?

 

[ferny]

I was going to say the same as motcon. Just not as well. :mrgreen:

Also, is it just the "arty types" "creating", or is it just that they are the ones who recognise new things and/or report it? Surely there are lots of people who discover new things before the one person who lays claim to finding does?

How many times have you seen a new invention of TV which either you or someone you know knocked up in their shed years ago and have been using ever since?

 

[StvShoop]

so what do the photographers think about the dark red?

'tis a beautiful thing. did you create that?

not sure i understand what you mean. the dark red was referring to the text in dark red in that post, and i wrote it. thanks i guess, haha

gah, that's too much to read for so early in the morning :cheers:

what's with the drive to create though? why do great creators have to create, or have a spastic attack?

there's another part that i didn't think of asking before; since this is a photography forum, which is it: is your photography intended to create new meaning, or do you simply record what's there, or can it be both at the same time?

 

[Scurra]

I don't really attempt to create... just capture. I like to think of it as not just capturing the image though but also capturing the mood and ambience of a particular setting.

 

[StvShoop]

maybe the selection of the object or scene or mood that you want to capture is the creative action?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Perhaps creativity is merely a by-product of something else.
We have infinite curiosity so maybe it's just us going 'what happens if I do this?'
Children are very creative when they play but this is a means of finding out about the world. We loose this sense of fun and wonder as we get older and take this creativity thing much more seriously.
So could creativity be nothing more than a game? Then why do we play it?
We like newness and novelty so maybe we are creative in order to stop the world becoming boring.
We also have a strong drive to communicate so maybe creativity is just an attempt to express things we can't put into words.
I do know that most of the really creative people I have known have had big but fragile egos so perhaps it is just one-upmanship.
We also like to control and manipulate our environment so maybe that is the well-spring.
Any, all or none of these things could have a bearing.
I think the root causes of creativity are very complex and if you try to analyse it or disect it you destroy it. And I think that there are many reasons that can drive someone to be creative - this is part of it's charm and mystery.
People seem to be at their most creative when working within very tight restrictions. Total freedom rarely produces anything of note (my opinion). So I would conclude that creativity needs something to work against or react with.

These are just random musings and I have no fixed thoughts on the subject.

 

[motcon]

People seem to be at their most creative when working within very tight restrictions. Total freedom rarely produces anything of note (my opinion). So I would conclude that creativity needs something to work against or react with.

These are just random musings and I have no fixed thoughts on the subject.

i concur with the restrictive process. Stravinsky once said that he purposely limited himself during the creative process of composing; total freedom of that process leads to chaos. an excerpt:

for it is not art that rains down upon us in the song of a bird; but the simplest modulation correctly executed is already art, without any possible doubt

 

[StvShoop]

glad that someone mentioned animals. i would say that creativity, the ability to consiously adapt to new and unprecedented environments and generate original concepts, is what makes us different from other creatures.

some animals can make homes out of mud or wood, use tools to crack shells, etc, but all wasps' nests are the same (and so on).

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Not to a wasp. And here were I live all the houses are pretty much the same. Your argument doesn't really stand up - check out the behaviour of primates. Chimpanzees did paintings in the 50's and 60's and that nice Mr Picasso saw them as fellow artists. Elephants paint too and they don't look random to me.
I think the only thing that separates us from all the other animals is our fixation with physical things - and credit cards.
I think we tooked a step backwards sumwuzz....

 

[StvShoop]

Not to a wasp. And here were I live all the houses are pretty much the same. Your argument doesn't really stand up - check out the behaviour of primates. Chimpanzees did paintings in the 50's and 60's and that nice Mr Picasso saw them as fellow artists. Elephants paint too and they don't look random to me.

sorry to be blunt, but i think your argument is the one that doesn't stand up. what wasps' perception of their hives is would make for an interesting discussion; at the moment, i wouldn't guess they understand it as different from anything else in the world. picasso calling monkeys artists doesn't make them artists. dont get me started on the elephants .
i don't mean to be antagonistic, i'm just trying to make my point, so no hard feelings i hope.

back to the wasps, since perception was brought up, what's the difference between a human's perception and some other creature's? going back to what i said in my last post, i think a large part of creativity is the fact that we can not only perceive our environment, but also that we can conceive of changing the environment to affect our experiece of it. (perhaps i'm getting too architecture-y? i want this to address all outlets of creativity, so someone point me here if i'm getting too narrow).
wasps and other dwelling-building creatures, i strongly believe, only follow their inherited instincts and perhaps learn behaviors from other animals of the same species. there's no significant conception going on there.

i think of conception as part of perception. to perceive an idea is to conceive.
we can perceive of the environment, ourselves, others, tensions between these three, and ways of changing the current situation to make another one which is different in some significant way. then the only thing missing from the creative process is moving one's body and actually changing the world. (perceiving of groceries being lifted)---> by means of the moving hand.

but none of this answers why we create. dinner time

hertz, your name is cool. i thought it was a european name at first, like Baron Von Schneider or something.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I think you are being objective about animals but subjective about humans. If you look at both objectively you will see what I mean.
Picasso ACCEPTED chimpanzees as fellow artists. What does make someone an artist? And who is qualified to decide? I sure ain't and I would hazard you aren't either. If something isn't so just because you say it is, then saying it isn't so doesn't mean it isn't either.
And you think humans don't follow inherited instincts like other animals and learn their behaviour from others?
As to changing the environment to suit themselves - what do you think a wasps nest is doing? And have you seen what an ant colony can do to it's surroundings?
But to return: I was trying to make the point that the creative process is not unique to man, therefore it's cause is something VERY fundamental to our psyches. That it has survived survived through to us means it must have an evolutionary value.
But we don't really know WHY.
Try to get hold of a copy of The Act Of Creation by Arthur Koestler. It's the only book I know that has tried to discuss this. It contains much to make you think even if you don't agree with him.

PS no hard feelings felt (duh!). I love a discussion that is passionate and gets me thinking. Don't you?

PPS See my later posting in my Hello message for the name.

 

[ferny]

That it has survived survived through to us means it must have an evolutionary value.
But we don't really know WHY.

Is it not there to help us survive? Without it we wouldn't have shelter, fire, the ability to cook etc. We have to create each thing we make and do from scratch. If we didn't have a creative side to us, we'd just sit there doing nothing. Maybe it's just that in humans it's more pronounced and more highly developed than in chimpanzees. Just like a lot of other things which make us.

Discovering physiograms (let's use that as the arty example) isn't really any different to us discovering we can write out name in the snow or that we can construct buildings to withstand earthquakes. It all starts with the basis of "I wonder if..." It's just part of us trying to explore and create new things to make out life easier.



Yup, I know writing my name in the snow doesn't help me grow a field of wheat (well, it does really because it adds nitrogen back into the soil) but I wouldn't know that unless I tried would I?

 

[StvShoop]

hertz, i disagree with everything you just said

I love a discussion that is passionate and gets me thinking. Don't you?

^---but yeah, i'm right there too

i'll pick one piece and go with it. yes, animals can make things that affect their surroundings, but i don't think they consciously realize that they're changing the world. they're just executing their program (instinct).
humans can see the the affects of the change they make, and they can use these observations to propose other changes.
and yeah, humans are affected by their instincts too, but there's more than that to the human mind.

is the koestler book long? i'm trying to read lockard's Design Drawing right now, and i've only gotten through 70 pages since last christmas :? whenever i have time to read it, i stay on a page for half an hour thinking about it.

ferny, i wouldn't consider the "invention" of housing, fire, and cooking to be creative acts (maybe fire). when something is so fundamentally necessary as those (you're open to argue whether those are funadmentally necessary), then the reason for their intertwining with human activity is merely reaction to the environment, not venturesome proaction. that's a gross oversimplification of the situation, so pick at it if you please!

the semester is almost over. maybe then i can stick all these big questions on the shelf for a week :roll:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There you go again.
Subjective view of humans.
You seem so desparate to divorce humans from 'dumb' animals that you can't see the wood or the trees.
How would you feel if I told you the reason girls wear lipstick is so that their lips mimic their aroused labia? It's a sexual signal designed to attract a mate. Just a sophisticated version of a monkeys red bum. Read Desmond Morris on the subject.

qv: but i don't think they consciously realize that they're changing the world

you 'think' they don't but how do you know they don't? Thinking the world is banana shaped don't make it so.
And how do you know that humans aren't just executing their program? That what you see as human self-awareness is not just a sophisticated set of instincts?
Check out these:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Washoe%20(chimpanzee)
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/optional3.html
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/kohler.htm
and then tell me you are quite so firm in your beliefs.
It would seem that there is a lot more to the animal mind than you give them credit for. And a lot less to the human.
How can you separate us out from the 'other animals' when we are nothing more than the sophisticated product of animal evolution.
To repeat myself: The ability to create is not uniquely man's. We have just taken it to a higher level. And probably only because it has survival value.
This is not to denegrate it or us. It is just to illustrate that when you ask WHY or HOW finding the answer means peeling back lots of layers. The reason for something is usually simple but answers never are.
But you have to keep objective.

Koestler is around 700 hundred pages but well worth the effort - though I found a lot to disagree with and question. But that is the path to knowledge and understanding.

The important thing is to keep an open mind ;-)