»

[merylsilverburg]

I just wanted to ask - and sorry if this topic has been created already in the past or something - but exactly what do you guys define as a person being creative? Is being creative the ability to create or imagine things without any boundaries and rules or do you guys think that being creative is the ability to create or imagine or improvise something in a limited environment with rules and restrictions? Or do you guys think it depends on the subject of what you're trying to create or imagine?

To illustrate my point: "Little Big Planet" for the PS3 and "MySims" for the Wii. In LBP, the level designer allow you infinite possibilities to create any kind of levels you want in any way you imagine; and with the soon-to-be-added water downloads, it's taking the concept and your imagination even further.

However, for those who played "MySims", in MS you are limited to creating houses or objects using a set number, size, and shape of materials and though "MySims: Kingdom" allowed more freedom, there are still some restrictions.

In case you guys are even more confused, let me describe a situation: I own LPB and even though no force on earth will make me upload my levels, I haven't even created any. For some reason, the limitless scope of the level designer is too overwhelming to me; I'm freaked out, I don't know WHAT to create because I have no rules! However, in MS my "creativity" (or is it problem-solving skills?) has allowed me to create some neat looking houses and objects, if I do say so myself. Like, I've created a house shaped as a ship for one character and another house that looks like a pastry cake for another character. So, does this mean I'm uncreative or creative?

Sorry if anyone ended up annoyed or bored by this topic, I'm just curious to know what everyone thinks of this subject.

[Pu the Owl]

One can be creative both in situations where there are restrictions and rules or not. I suppose the examples you mention in your post and the sense of feeling overwhelmed may depend on your being used to that kind of freedom while creating something or not. One that is creative, but within a limited scenario, can indeed feel overwhelmed at first when the possibilities are multiplied, but that doesn't mean that with a little time this person cannot get used to it and find at ease with the new level of freedom given by multiple choices.

[merylsilverburg]

That's very true, a person can be creative in both outlets and yes, a person can indeed improve or get used to all the freedom given to them with time. Yet, somehow after fiddling around with LBP I still find myself wondering what kind of levels to create and how to do so. Nothing is coming to me at all. It just seems the very idea of creating a level from scratch is very easy or appealing to others...there's so many space levels, underground levels, and so on from other designers. I mean, since there are so many of these kinds of levels created, does that mean these creators are not very creative or are they? Because given the freedom, it seems that many themes are re-hashed a lot. Sorry if I'm not making sense...

Thanks for replying also.

[Pu the Owl]

I'm not sure this will make sense to you either, but I'll make an example. John Ford, one of the immortal fathers of cinema made in the USA, used to film following very strict rules, just because the studios at the time wouldn't let directors be completely free. Since he coudn't edit his own movies and couldn't change the scripts and so on, he tried to get every bit of freedom he could within the limits imposed, starting with his filmed material. He wouldn't film more nor he would film less less than he wished to be on the final product, so that the studios couldn't manipulate his work in ways he didn't like and make of his work something he could not recognize as his own. Would you call somebody like that not creative just because he wasn't free to do as he wished or because his possibilities weren't limitless? Of course not. I'd say that maybe requires a bigger creative effort, on the contrary. Limits and boudaries can be challenging for creativity. The important thing is getting things work according to your standards.

[merylsilverburg]

See exactly. I'd call someone like Ford very creative because he was able to produce what he wanted with extreme limitations. I'd actually consider anyone who can make something great within their boundaries very creative. But others may not see it that way. Some people find that if you're able to create something only on a limited scale, you're not very creative. But this was the point of my thread: to find out whether people think limitations, which therefore requires the user to produce something with restrictions, is considered creative or if absolute freedom is creative. So far, I only have your thoughts which is creativity achieved on both accounts. I'm waiting to hear from others.

And no, this isn't for a any research or anything...my sister was having a conversation with someone about this subject, which that person believes that creativity is through the ability to create something wonderful through freedom because you are able to make anything which requires more thought and precision to make your creation stand out above the rest. This led me to think about this topic too which is why I started this.

[Harry]

As Pu knows well, I always loved the idea of art built within well-defined boundaries. But I prefer to leave my awful personal first-hand experiences aside. John Ford is a great example, Hemingway is another that pops into my mind, and blues players are another example of "less is more". I cannot hide I have always had enormous admiration for all those people that were able to create with poor means forced onto them by circumstances, or within well-defined limits they choose themselves as the canvas and tools for their art.

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.

But most of the things I have said above are my idiosyncrasies, and I am often criticized for them, and I generally accept the criticism. In fact, I believe that each person should do art the way she/he prefers to do it, as long as they are honest about what they are doing. If you feel like you need an empty virtual canvas with all the colors in the visible universe to do something good, well, then find a way to get all those colors and start drawing, if you are really able to make good use of them. But at the same time, don't come bother me because I like to draw with a pencil and an old notebook.

[Pu the Owl]

You talk about music in particular way because that is a subject that interests you more than any other. But if you look at it, it's the same for other arts as well. Just think about figurative arts, leaving aside films and videogames - even if as you sort of said yourself, this applies to them too - not because they are multimedia but because with those the question is a little different, being both the the work of a team most of the time, not of a single person, and also as they necessarily involve considerable amounts of money as an element of the creative process. But that's another story.

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. Like in the film we watched the other day, Achilles and the Tortoise. Wasn't the man in the film creative? He was, no question about it. And despite what the dealer though he wasn't worse than many other painters he was exposing in his gallery. 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.

You see, I have a problem with contemporary art, because most of it just seems to mean nothing at all and to find glory in it. Once the groundbreaking effect wears off or once this has been done once or twice, what's left of the artist's will to create instead of impress? An artist shouldn't be at all costs worried about the effect on the audience and push creativity toward the absurdities we see more than often nowadays. The artist isn't a clown and creativity should be his own need, not the audience's. Isn't that the same with music? A few artists - hats off - can do crazy things and be truly original with their creativity, but others are just riding the train of a successful idea. In the end I think many artists, in order to achieve at any cost originality, sell out their own creative intuitions, their inspiration, and don't have a clue about what they're really doing. 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.

[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!

[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.

[Berserker]

Interesting discussion. The dutch word for creativity is "creatief", besides the common and same english meaning it also means in some instances "managing to succeed with lesser means" sort of like "dealing with it creativily". Therefore whenever I use the word creative it also has a deeper meaning of dealing with set boundaries or limitations, like you mentioned before. Hope any of this makes sense, in my defence ...it's been a long day at work

[Pu the Owl]

Actually, that's very interesting. Thinking about it, sometimes the language itself contains the answer to some of our questions, but we don't always go finding for solutions where it's easier to find them

[Faile]

It's quite hard to jump into such a well developed discussion, so I'll just rattle off a few thoughts of mine:

Art / Audience - Does the work of the artist make the work great, or does the appreciation of the audience? Can the artist alone find enough fulfillment from the act of creation, or are artists driven by a desire to be noticed? We can talk about artists challenging an audience, but few works are so reviled that they go unappreciated, and even those that are reviled form a legacy.
Thus is the true objective of the artist to forge a legacy - to not be forgotten?

Cheap art- by which I mean art that makes money from an audience in the bucketloads and is instantly forgotten (most usually found within the worlds of popular music) is not normally reasoned to be creative, yet the processes of creation would have been the same. Is the worth therefore dictated by vision of purpose? Is art that is created for all to share for free, of a greater value than that design to earn?
That said, is all popular work simply popular becuase it's copied from a greater source?

All of the above, of course, conveniently skips such things as enjoyment, but certainly, thinking of my own experiences in the world of music, if you can't connect with an audience, the work is worthless. You need to find common ground, even if that ground is on the fringes...

[merylsilverburg]

Just wanted to quickly post to say that I'm not ignoring the replies to this topic. *Terminator voice* I'll-be-back-to-reply-soon.