What is creativity?

[Roger Hicks]

Some argue that photography is never creative because it is only, ever, a mechanical recording of what is in front of the lens. Others say that shooting one thing is creative but shooting another isn't. Yet others say that art is indefinable; it is whatever anyone wants it to be.

How about this:

First, art is selection. The purpose of that selection may be 'pretty pretty' or funny or holding a mirror to the world or flattery or indeed trying to shock people (often out of complacency). Or, of course, all kinds of other things. Again remember R. Mutt/Marcel Duchamp.

Second, art is quality. Any of the examples above -- and others -- may be more or less well done. Badly done pretty-pretty is tacky and saccharine; badly done funny can fall flat on its face; badly done reportage can be banal; badly done shock effects can equate to a mere tantrum. Badly done flattery is one of my favourites: funny or Socialist Realist or all kinds of other things.

Third, art may be time-sensitive: what is good today may not be liked tomorrow, but today's fashion can pass. Think of Alma-Tadema: I liked him even in the 60s when he had fallen completely out of fashion.

Any further thoughts?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[schaubild]

Art is art if it touches something in you? Beacuse personal perception is different from anyone else's there can't be a clear definition if something is art or not.
General consensus about an artworks status, not necessarily understanding, might be the exception....

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is subject to personal likes and dislikes and therefore is very hard to define and get some kind of standard that everyone would agree to. You either like what you see or don't. Maybe the easiest way to define art is that if it creates an emotion in you on viewing it then it is art to you. Again it may or may not produce similar emotions in others. Trends/fads are time-sensitive but emotions are not, so art is not time-sesitive.

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks both of you -- I agree very much. Perhaps I need to refine the definition of time-sensitivity -- popularity as well as art. Alma-Tatema is a good example because he was an overrated superstar in Victorian times; by the 60s was sneered at; and is now returning to his rightful place.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I would agree with Bob about art, but in relation to what creativity would be:

May be the ability to inspire a desired level of empathy/perception/feeling in ones audience and to placate ones own desires (for whatever reason) trough the creation of art in trying to alters ones own perspectives.

Usually then I would venture that if one is particularly creative, then the artist is more successful in conveying their ideas and inspiring the required feeling in their work in others. Of course they will also be doing it for their own sake and not just in order to gain admiration/acceptance in the wider community. In that respect there is external and internal aspects in the creative process.

For instance I think that most people in the forum would agree with me in saying that 95% of what one produces is basically not up to much, but every now and again, one hits 😉 the jack pot. Then it is all worth it.

rgds

Stephen

 

[MrBuhl]

How about this -

Creativity is the ability to see (regardless of in the eye or the mind's eye) and make art.

Art is the result of subjective appreciation of someone else's creativiity. (Art is only what is percieved by the patron/viewer/appreciator to be so)

probably drilled down too much.

Fun theoretical discussion though!

Ed

 

[Pherdinand]

In my view, strictly related to photography, creativity is the capability to observe interesting details in the banalities of the everyday life, AND, succesfully record them as an image. By "succesfully" i don't mean technicalities, but the requirement that other people, outstanders who did not (actively) participate in the creation, can also enjoy/appreciate the result. Be that by saying wow, having a good laugh, paying for it, hanging it on a wall or just taking a longer look than usual.

That's why I think it is so difficult to be 'creative' in e.g. landscape or nude photography, where the subject itself is so interesting / attention drawing, that it practically does not need - or even it sits in the way of the - artistic contribution of the photographer.

 

[Pherdinand]

As addition, I don't see art as having a compulsory creativity behind it, following my "definition" of the creativity above, of course.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks all again.

Art is

1 the ability to stir emotion (which varies with the audience)

2 selection (otherwise a sunset would be art -- not a photo or painting, the sunset itself. One of the sickest sights I ever witnessed was at Sounia, where a load of tourists APPLAUDED the sunset).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[johne]

Roger,
At least, for the sunset the artist is well known! Just a thought.
Johne

 

[kmack]

Art is what ever a creative person presents as art.
Creativity is the ability to present anything as art.

 

[pendevour]

Art may be difficult to define because it doesn't really exist. Creative desire, imagination, ability and skill, are just some human attributes needed to produce anything, a sculpture, a painting, a photograph etc. Sometimes others like and admire these creations and sometimes they don't, who cares? As long as the maker enjoyed the making, derived some pleasure from the creative process and is happy with the end product, that's all that really matters.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As long as the maker enjoyed the making, derived some pleasure from the creative process and is happy with the end product, that's all that really matters.

Not entirely. If that's all that matters, why show it to someone else? There's an exhibitionist dimension as well.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I can't define art, I won't try. I feel that sometimes the things we create transcend the intended purpose and become art.

I believe that art and creativity are related, yet they are not the same. I feel we also need to take imagination into consderation. Please allow me to explain why and how I arrive at this. It might seem like splitting hairs. Here goes--

Engineers often have a creative side. In order to develop a new way of performing a task, be it mechanical, electronic, chemical or programming, one needs imagination. The engineer, having identified a need or problem will begin to think of ways to meet the need or provide a solution. I believe this is where creativity comes into play, he/she will likely imagine how to arrive at the solution. I believe that applying what has been imagined is a creative act. In the case of an engineer, most times the outcome is not likely to result in a work of art. Yet the work performed was the result of the engineer's creativity.

Architects, Industrial designers, graphic designers, Illustrators and interior designers are very much like engineers, they provide form for wares that satisfy needs. Designers use their imaginations to bring form to functional items like magazines, cars, home and office interiors. They will often use artistic techniques to achieve the end product. The use of form, color, balance and movement can give solutions to how we as humans use these wares. Done well it makes the product(s) easier to use, or more easily understood. Such products can even result in emotional response from the end user. Imaginative or creative? Yes, but is it art? Does great design equal art? I'm not sure. Although I think there are many instances where there is crossover.

I believe fine artists, on the other hand, begin their work from within their emotions. They don't usually seek to solve a need beyond the personal desire to express ideas, or feelings.

Artists, designers and engineers all use their ability to imagine and then act through their creativitive abilities.

Photographers can be artists, designers and/or engineers. They can capture a moment that has caused an emotional response. Their abilities can allow them to quickly compose the scene so that others can share that moment through the photograph. This photographer would likely be considered an artist. Or, a photographer can capture a model wearing the latest haute couture. This one might be the designer. A photographer can capture the moment a bullet pierces an apple. This one could be an engineer.

The last two examples can and have transcended original intent. They can and often become perceived as art. Maybe this is how the old saw "Art is in the eye of the beholder" came to be. However, this effect is part of why I find it difficult to define art.

In my opinion, there are many things that evoke an emotional response are not art. Yet, these same things are popular with many people. That popularity seems, to me, to be a kind of selection.

I digress...

I consider imagination and creativity as being necessary and seminal to art. But not the things that define art.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The distinction between creativity and art is indeed fundamental: thanks. Though the distinction between art, craft, science and engineering is heavily linguistically and culturally dependent.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Though the distinction between art, craft, science and engineering is heavily linguistically and culturally dependent.

Cheers,

Roger

I agree. Thank you for saying it so simply.

 

[Theo-Prof]

Roger,
At least, for the sunset the artist is well known! Just a thought.
Johne

Well put!

If you will allow me to carry this one step further, the artist responsible for the sunset is also responsible for there being others who are able to appreciate this handiwork, others who often find themselves desiting to emulate it.

Kevin

 

[pendevour]

Historically I expect that most "artists" exhibited their work for survival and in the hope of getting some money from anyone prepared to buy. Frequently their work was not appreciated as "art" or at least "accepted art" at the time and many (with hindsight) of the greatest artists lived and died in poverty. Some others managed to satisfy the "artistic"demands and expectations of their customers and became extremely wealthy. Art truly is in the eye of the beholder and in the eye of the wealthy beholder in particular.

Cheers
Arfon

 

[Roger Hicks]

The WEALTHY beholder indeed!

Elegantly phrased.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[TPPhotog]

To me creativity sometimes seems to go hand in hand with being psychotic in some way at times. There are times when I feel fired-up, see the world through an alternative perspective where the light is alive and everything takes on a meaning of it's own. Those are happy days when the mind, body and camera work as one and there doesn't seem enough film in the camera to capture what is happening in front of me that my heart sees before my eyes.

Maybe I need to drink less coffee and seek medication 😉