[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Harry

or within well-defined limits they choose themselves as the canvas and tools for their art.

Hm, could you provide some examples of this if possible? I understand what you mean but what if these persons are simply using this as a sort of excuse for their own lack of skill - not saying that whomever you admire is actually doing this, mind you. For example, as you guys may have seen already, I tend to draw females more than males. I could just make up some excuse that it's within my chosen boundaries that I draw females more just because I want to. But of course, that's not true because I am actually quite horrible at drawing males. I could also say the same for my use of pencil because I'm not well versed in other mediums, like pastel, charcoal, paints, etc.

Originally Posted by Harry

In my opinion, artists that work in this way are more able than others to create things with raw power, with a poignancy that most of the people using the "fancy" effects are missing or hiding under layers of nothingness. And the question you are asking is very important nowadays, where technology allows almost everybody in the rich part of the world to have endless creative means in any field. Speaking of music, everybody, in these days, can record a professional sounding song using a computer and a decent and relatively inexpensive software. They can cut away the bad stuff here and there with a click of their mouse, compress the sound until it sounds like other millions of records out there, add 32 different tracks even if they are playing just 3 instruments; maybe, if they have the time, a couple of days after they have finished their song, they add the sound of birds in another track, or a bell, or a car horn, or their grandma swearing, just because it sounds "original". To me, most of these songs mean absolutely nothing. Of course, there are artists that have the brain and the experience to make great use of 32,64,128 tracks and create something great with them - but most people make bad use of it all simply because they are unable to focus on the essence of what they are doing, lost in a technology that make you feel like you are a great artist while you are not. And yeah, since we are still on a gaming website, this applies wonderfully to games. If you look back at older games, they were often developed with very poor means in comparison with nowadays' professionally developed titles, yet it is difficult to find games developed in these days that we know will be considered classics some years from now.

As I've said earlier, I also feel that creativity is best shown from what you can make within your limits. I agree with your thoughts as well. The whole definition of "creativity" has been skewed thanks to the technological "gifts" given to us. But I think it also has to do with, sad to say, change in times? We are all in an age of instant results and the need to "HURRY!" The faster and speedier things get done, the better. Which is why perhaps creativity has been sacrificed for things that are just shiny and pretty and needed right now.

Originally Posted by Panuru

From a point on during the last century art has become complicated. Artists didn't feel the boundaries of traditional art were representative enough of modern sensibility, so there was a bit of a ruckus about what a decent artist should be doing with his art. Being too traditional wasn't apt anymore. You could - and had to - do all sorts of things, mix all sorts of media, decompose the image or simplify it or just skip the part where you had to paint a something recognizable. Some artists didn't even bother to paint at all, they just cut a canvas into slices and found a smart art dealer.

So would you say that it's actually the change of times or modern society that has caused artists - artists who may not have even considered of doing such things, like mixed media, canvas trashing, etc. - to push themselves to "think out of the box" or is it really just an honest creative need within themselves? I honestly don't know the history of contemporary art because this doesn't interest me...but I can't help but feel that changes in the world, stuff in society and media is a partial reason. Because, it's always the new generation that wants to break away from the old. But those people who do this, is it because they are actually creative or because they just want to be "different"? Because I personally cannot stand what you've mentioned above that is considered "art" because, whatever creative reason it may be, it always just comes out as pretentious to me. Especially abstract art no matter who says; there's a book called The Art Thief where it's written that those who are "uneducated in art" would go insane when looking at abstract prints. Well then, I guess I'm just uneducated because I really can't stand them.

Originally Posted by Panuru

But to be a decent artist you have to be something more than merely creative, because if you leave creativity alone or you cannot direct it toward something, it will probably just produce, in the best cases, something "pretty" or "stunning". It will be all mannerism with nothing solid to back it up. Nothing wrong with it, but truly great artists can do better than that.

Of course, don't you think it also has to do with personal opinion? A person can see something that I think is merely okay and find it very creative and passionate. For example, when I was younger, I went to an art museum where one exhibit in the contemporary section featured a Scrabble-like game board with actual Scrabble tiles and some words were just created with it. What the hell, right? That's what I was thinking but viewers around me were admiring it like as if it were created using every fiber in the artist's body. It was ridiculous. But they probably found some sort of "hidden meaning" in it which caused them to think that it's so creative and unique and...powerful? Who knows.

Originally Posted by Panuru

But another problem we have with the arts nowadays is everybody can invent a theory after the artwork instead of working with a purpose to achieve something that will represent a theory you had from the start. So basically you can justify anything you do if you have a good way with words or if you can advertise it so that it will sell.

Yes! This is exactly what I've been thinking since forever myself! As long as you can bullsh*t your way through your art, you'll be able to make others believe it is truly worthy of something when it's nothing. I also agree with you about contemporary art, as I mentioned earlier.

So with all of this, how can one really determine if a person is creative and justifiably so? I guess it boils down to objective outlook and whether or not you "feel" it? But I guess it's still pretty difficult to determine though...

Thanks for replying you guys!