{"id":720,"date":"2010-09-30T12:07:30","date_gmt":"2010-09-30T16:07:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/?p=720"},"modified":"2010-09-30T12:20:03","modified_gmt":"2010-09-30T16:20:03","slug":"creative-processes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/?p=720","title":{"rendered":"Creative processes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/stayoutofschool.com\/2010\/09\/the-artists-creative-process\/\">Here&#8217;s another post<\/a> from Elizabeth King, whose blog I critiqued in an <a href=\"http:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/?p=703\">earlier post<\/a>.\u00a0 This post is really just a graphic, but it&#8217;s still interesting&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Overall, I appreciate (that is, I like) the author&#8217;s overall goal of encouraging people to be more creative.\u00a0 This graphic though seems to suggest that an artist&#8217;s creative process involves a lot of consideration for the &#8220;rules&#8221; of art, and then decisions as to whether or not to follow them: &#8220;risk taking,&#8221; &#8220;innovation,&#8221; etc.\u00a0 This also suggests that an artist is very concious of where his or her artwork fits in the big scheme things.<\/p>\n<p>And I don&#8217;t necessarily\u00a0disagree with any of that, if that&#8217;s what the artist wants to think about.\u00a0 (Though I do think an artist can think he knows more about the role of his and other artists&#8217; work in the big scheme of things than he is actually capable of knowing.\u00a0 Things like influence\u00a0are like stock market prices; they&#8217;re chaotic systems.\u00a0 They are not linearly-defined cause-and-effect patterns, even though they can be simplified to look like that, and we humans tend to simplify things into cause-and-effect patterns quite naturally.\u00a0 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, anyone?)<\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t think any art is created in a vacuum.\u00a0\u00a0An artist is going to be influenced by all the artwork\u00a0he&#8217;s seen before, especially work that really resonates with him.<\/p>\n<p>But I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything wrong with an artist&#8217;s creative process <em>not<\/em> involving consideration for &#8220;rules&#8221; (which often aren&#8217;t really &#8220;rules&#8221; in the first place, so I don&#8217;t know why people keep calling them that), or consideration for how &#8220;innovative&#8221; they think they&#8217;re being.\u00a0 After all, one can only judge &#8220;innovation&#8221; based on what one&#8217;s seen before, thus it is a\u00a0subjective property, a matter of opinion, not objective\u00a0academic\u00a0analysis (though such analysis might be interesting for the sake of getting new ideas).\u00a0 Innovation for the sake of innovation is, of course, worthless.\u00a0 It&#8217;s kind of annoying how many music composers out there could, for example, spend their time trying to create something &#8220;new&#8221; despite sensing any beauty, hoping the beauty will be found by future generations.\u00a0 The point of creation is then a hope for later fame, later recognition for being the first,\u00a0even though they claim to be entirely unselfish in their creative act.\u00a0 But I guess that&#8217;s all beside the point&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t really understand the concepts of &#8220;safety&#8221; and &#8220;bravery&#8221; in relation to artistic creation, so it will be interesting to see those concepts expanded upon.\u00a0 Perhaps it has to do with an artist asking &#8220;will this creation of mine work for others?&#8221;\u00a0 If the answer is: &#8220;Gee wiz, I just don&#8217;t know!\u00a0 But I believe in it!&#8221; then the artist is brave.\u00a0 If the answer is: &#8220;Yes!\u00a0 I have followed all the rules!&#8221; then the artist is being safe.\u00a0 Or perhaps it has to do whether or not the artist even cares what other people think.\u00a0 If the artist thinks: &#8220;I&#8217;m going to do what I wish to do and I shall not compromise for the sake of the masses!&#8221; then he is brave.\u00a0 If the artist thinks: &#8220;Well, gee wiz, I sure don&#8217;t want to confuse anyone and I hope everyone likes me!&#8221; then he is being safe.<\/p>\n<p>Again, though, I don&#8217;t think this necessarily has to be a conscious decision, or even a decision at all.\u00a0 If an artist is just trying please himself, then &#8220;safety vs. bravery&#8221; just doesn&#8217;t apply.\u00a0 It&#8217;s not like you can be &#8220;brave&#8221; to yourself; you&#8217;re never going to do anything outside of what you would do.\u00a0 To me, &#8220;brave&#8221; seems to mean you have something to fear, but do something despite that fear.\u00a0 If you&#8217;re not afraid of anything, then you cannot be\u00a0brave.\u00a0 And maybe I&#8217;d go so far as to say that a fearful artist is a\u00a0stupid artist, and therefore no good artist can be brave.\u00a0 After all, if you&#8217;re truly fearing something, then your creative priorities are probably wrong.<\/p>\n<p>So, overall, I don&#8217;t think this diagram describes a lot of people&#8217;s &#8220;creative process&#8221; and I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s bad.\u00a0 I think it&#8217;s a lot more automatic for most people.\u00a0 It basically goes: What would I like to see exist? &#8211;&gt; Create it.\u00a0 That simple.\u00a0 No thinking about innovation, rules and rule-breaking, being brave or safe, studying long artistic histories, etc.\u00a0 Just creating for the joy of it.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps I will at some point launch my own site dedicated to encouraging creativity&#8230; but first I will have to study whether or not such a project will be innovative enough&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here&#8217;s another post from Elizabeth King, whose blog I critiqued in an earlier post.\u00a0 This post is really just a graphic, but it&#8217;s still interesting&#8230; Overall, I appreciate (that is, I like) the author&#8217;s overall goal of encouraging people to be more creative.\u00a0 This graphic though seems to suggest that [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[53],"tags":[275,126,274],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7gI4B-bC","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=720"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":721,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720\/revisions\/721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wizardwalk.com\/newblather\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}