[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

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?

To a degree the two things are tightly connected. Changes in society cause some artists to redefine their views on art and sometimes it's also the opposite and it's artists to influence society with their new outlooks. But artists involved in this process are a limited number of artists. Most just seem to go beyond this honest need or concern. Not all artists have to be theorists, but some "artists" reinvent themselves as theorist even if they're not cut to be it, just to back their art up and sell it or to give an apparently valid substitute to a deficiency of skill or other qualities, also creative ones.

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

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.

Yes, it has a lot to do with opinion. But then I ask you how comes then that some art can aspire to universality and is known to be able to communicate with almost anybody while a lot of contemporary art has to hide itself behind the screen of "opinion" in order to be understood and enjoyed? Shouldn't universality be a requirement of artistic communication? Shouldn't art place itself beyond personal opinions? And I'm talking about opinions, as you rightly pointed out yourself, not taste. Because I think taste and opinions are not necessarily the same thing. You can find an artwork lacking aesthetical values - that's because of taste - but still be able to understand the artist's messages or intentions. Art hasn't necessarily to be beautiful or pleasant, but at least it should be communicative. Shouldn't the uneducated be able as well to be moved or interested by art despite a sublayer of meanings that can be accessible only to the educated? Art that needs to rely on some elite to successfully get across is a sad type of art, is it not?

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

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...

I doubt there are guidelines to creativity. Creativity is a need other than a quality of the person, and the way that it is put into practice is and will always be very subjective.