On Creativity, Talent and Taste.

[lukitas]

This is a bit of a rant, I'm trying to keep it in control.

Creativity, talent and taste are all given, not acquired, but the three of them can be shaped and honed by exercise. All of us can invent solutions to the problems we are presented with; that is creativity. All of us are capable of learning a set of skills; this is talent. As for taste, like magpies, we all like shiny things; fat, sweet, umami, sour, salt, peppery, are the tastes we like in varying compositions and strengths : taste is a universal.

All three terms are redundant in the description of the artist and the art : Of course she's creative, of course he is talented, and yes, they have taste. If you want to say something meaningful, you'll have to do better.

Creativity is a mystery to me : what makes us juggle bits until they fall into place? What makes us decide that they have fallen into place?
Talent has several tastes : fingers, eyes, ears, words,... occur in an infinity of combinations, we all have them in some degree.
Taste is the most intriguing of the three. Taste decrees that the more a photograph is appreciated, the more it conforms to 'universal good taste'.

The pinnacle of taste is kitsch.

Producing art that everybody likes is relatively easy : a sunset, a girl, a mother and baby, a landscape; we are all tickled and wowed by the same sort of things.
The hard thing about making art is the dance just below the peak of taste : not quite kitsch, but very close to universal : there has to be a singularity, a quirk, a something more or something lacking, to make it special.

As an example, I would cite Eugene Smith, who managed to go for pure sentiment, never descending into sentimentality.

Thank you for enduring my rant.

 

[Doug]

Thank you for sharing your observations... they promote contemplation.

 

[uhoh7]

Creativity, talent and taste are all given, not acquired, but the three of them can be shaped and honed by exercise.

In fact they are given very widely, and those who throw themselves into a medium to the exclusion of many other things can get pretty good, what's "given" notwithstanding. Beatles. 🙂

On the other hand "99.9" percent of "talent" is never developed at all. 😉

 

[MartinL]

I'll see your rant and raise you one. . .or more.
"given, not acquired"?
What's the diff b/ acquiring, shaping, and honing? You'd have to say a bunch more to further your point here.
"Taste" is clear enough to me, since there are few who ascribe to it anything inborn or genetic, in the sense that many think that people are born with a talent or are "naturally" creative. Most corrosive is the notion of "intelligence" which typically gets described similarly to talent.

"Creativity" according to dead poet Richard Armour, is that which when you see it you wonder how you ever missed it or why you didn't take that picture (italics my own). "Novelty," according to Armor, is that which when you see it you wonder by what perversity it was ever found. Sounds something like what you are calling "kitch."

I take big issue with, "Producing art that everybody likes is relatively easy." First, relative to what? Next, who's that "everybody" of whom you speak? Great art (like great literature, or medicine, or movies, or pizza, . . . is best determined by those who are acknowledged to have some expertise in the matter)--we call them critics. IMO, pleasing everybody requires exceptional talent that may or (more frequently) not be artful.

 

[ellisson]

A complicated and beautifully complex topic

A complicated and beautifully complex topic

I believe that much of creativity and artistry does not arise from planned efforts alone. Much of it derives from the politics and suffering of individuals facing their individual challenges, many not planned. Regarding taste - that changes with the times, and is not always considered "in good taste" or of interest to all. A few examples come to mind.

The Comedia (re-dubbed the Divinia Comdedia) was not conceived by Dante Alighieri to be popular art. Completed just before his death, it was considered a masterpiece, but then was forgotten for centuries. It arose from his expulsion and the suffering he endured during the fierce political battles in Florence.

Shakespeare's early writing was in part a result of his dark economic circumstances and those of the players who performed his work. Appealing as it was to certain classes of people, it was not so appealing to others.

In our times, the Beatles were very fortunate to have met George Martin, who nurtured them on to their first creative work. Before he became their producer, they were covering the songs of others. Martin, a seasoned musician and arranger, spotted some potential and his input was a huge factor
in their eventual success. Those great arrangements with strings and horns....that was George Martin, with their approval, of course!

Many factors are involved in artistry. Talent and desire to be sure. Some good fortune helps, too.

 

[JOCO34]

Many times what is considered great art is determined by those who have no ability to create. Time, place and politics determine a consensus for acceptance of ones work. True creative art should be internal and determined by the artist whether it receives an audience or not.

 

[kuuan]

I believe that those with outstanding creativity and talent differ from those that don't have it only in so far as their's have not been cut and killed but nurtured, and that taste certainly is acquired. It's judgement commonly depends on place and time but an universal, timeless quality, that can be recognized, also exists.

 

[willie_901]

Creativity can't be learned, but whatever creativity one has can be developed to its fullest potential. This usually requires opportunity, self discipline and hard work.