Before I hit submit, I was meant to change 'perhaps not' to 'as well'. I am unfamiliar with any of Jung's thought I'm afraid, so I am not so agile.
I have an interest in biological phenomena, particularly bacterial consciousness, and studies that have shown that bacteria are able to collectively problem solve, design and upgrade themselves dependent on environmental factors. See here for further information.
These studies and other phenomena point to the underlying trifecta of creativity: the ability to imagine, the ability to know and perhaps most important, the ability to act.
+q:
"It seems like there is a confusion between "innovative" and "creative".
Everyone creates something, an arrow, a CAD file full of window details, whatever, etc....
innovative, is trying to do something "new"....
So you an create anything is a question of how innovative it is...."
After re-reading the thread, I guess I must have missed this post. I didn't really think of the question in those terms. It is probably a more accurate definition, although not the one that would first come to my mind. I would, after reading this, agree that one does not have to be innovative to be creative.
Having now said that a creative person is not necessarily one who innovates, but simply one who creates, I have to analyze the question of 'what makes us creative?' Is this question asking, what makes us able to create? What makes us want to create? Or is the question meant to be more along the lines of what makes us innovative, what makes us come up with new and unique ideas? I guess I don't really have an answer for any of those questions. One could really argue any point to be true. I know on a superficial level, I just like to make things. It makes me happy. I think that's reason enough for me.
Let me ask, does an architect have to be innovative to be an architect? Is he or she not successful in creating architecture unless they "move forward" and do something never seen before? It all seems very subjective to me. But then it is 1:13am, and that may be the nyquil talking.
I believe in creativity, not originality. A child playing with lego is creative, perhaps not too original. the best buildings have already been designed. If you're an architect and you think you're original you'll wind up like Per and/or in a mental hospital. there's nothing new under the Sun. We can re-hash old ideas and theories in creative ways, but we must have the intellectual humility to admit that this is not particularly original.
that having been said there's still lots and lots of creative things to be done: such as design your own glasses frames!!
and agfa8x... Maybe the best building EVER has already been designed, but has the best building YOU can design been done? I would think that would be enough to keep someone functioning.
This is the type of thread that I can spend way too much responding to on a Friday.
I've haven't read Architectures of Time in a while, but a lot of what I think about these things is shaped by the discourse of people like Kwinter, Manuel DeLanda, Deleuze & Guattari, etc. But also, the Diamond Sutra. So, I tend not to think it terms of creative or destructive, but rather in terms of engagement and instrumentality, of dynamics and non-linearity, and of course, time.
One of my favorite summations of this type of thing belongs to Henri Bergson, who holds that the development of our human intelligence is directly related our lack of built-in-tools and our subsequent ability to shape our tools from matter and use them. The very fact that we perceive our envrionment as a space of discrete objects is related to our ability to act on those objects. So we act on the world, we engage with it, and we create subtle changes within it that have the potential to become magnified, via the processes they affect, into great changes. But obviously we don't do this in a vacuum; we are constrained at every moment (I especially abhor the notion that "creativity" is somehow hindered by contraints, and is this thing that flows forth unimpeded from the truly creative individual). So, it is more like dancing. Once in a while we arrive at some way of engagement that is especially elegant or especially beautiful, according to our current notions of aesthetics, and we say, "That is a very creative solution," or "I've never seen anything like it," or, "It touches me deeply."
And so our actions are all impermanent and provisional. HOWEVER (I can sense the environmentalists ire), we of course have to continue to live with consequences, so it behooves us to try and act and engage in a way that yields consequences which we deem desireable and which does not kill us all or kill the earth on which we live. In this way, I we are all designers (as was mentioned above) even if the consideration of the consequences of our actions is shallow and myopic. However, that which we deem "creative" is but a shadow.
"My teaching of the Dharma must be likened unto a raft. The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so the misteaching." The raft allusion has to do with the question of whether you continue to carry your raft on your head after you have used it to cross the river.
JordantHarris: Let me ask, does an architect have to be innovative to be an architect? Is he or she not successful in creating architecture unless they "move forward" and do something never seen before?
I'm a firm believer that the work of architects is as much about organization as innovation. A functional arrangement of spaces/components may not be a "new" idea, but it is a "created" solution for a problem.
Don't worry not per corell, in terms of my office space/home/etc. I'm about as disorganized as they come yet I can somehow do the work for the client out of this chaos!
We have built on the imagination of others since the first interaction of two rational minds. I believe that imagination is the organization of miscellaneous mental projections (which everyone has regularly) into something generally pertaining to reality as we know it. Creativity being the method to which this organization is implemented into physical space (art, mechanics, science, philosophy, whatever).
To be imaginative just requires you to put in the time in to organize your wandering mental projections. As architects or artists or whatever, we have (or should have) set aside this time to organize.
Rita: (off topic) will you be using any of your prodigious creativity to help restore some of the quondam glory of Philadelphia? (perhaps this needs a thread of its own that you could start??)
If we continue with puddles' idea that creation follows waves, maybe there is such a thing as creativity that is totally out of touch with the wave, but rather creates "disrupting waves" or "interference waves"...
"i'm not so sure about creativity since everything is always changing anyhow. to think of yourself "as creative" seems more like an attempt to believe that you have control over something. if we are all just surfing along the changes/permutations of time, then i guess sometimes we jam with the right wave and it feels good, as though we created when we've really only harnessed it. but then sometimes we crash and that hurts, and maybe that is what drives us "to create" or at least find something more comfortable to dance with."
If creation by and large follows "waves", what might "interference waves" be? In other words, if we are all really just producing things through experimentation and trial and error, and sometimes we STUMBLE across something that "fits" or simply follows the current mode or "wave", maybe the opposite can be true too.
Maybe there is creativity that is also STUMBLED UPON but actually "goes against the grain"... It would seem that "going with the wave" means that the idea is not really innovative, but rather a creation that conforms to a movement... But there are always those "radical ideas" that come from left field, that actually may be controversial at first, but actually send ripples against the existing wave... The avant garde...
When I was in archischool, one of my colleagues was quite interested in Salvidor Dali's "Paranoid Critical Method", something that Rem Koolhaas also wrote about somewhere I recall... I'm not an expert on Dali or surrealism, but the basic premise of Dali's Paranoid Critical method was that in fact creativity could be induced methodically (by basically anybody) by intentionally creating a surreal juxtaposition: if you intentionally juxtapose two extraneous things (that is totally unrelated things chosen at random, be it two objects--- like a lobster and a telephone say, or two ideas that have nothing to do with one another, or two of anything, perhaps two concepts from unrelated disciplines), you can actually methodically produce something new that nobody could have thought up through logical means... In other words, create an idea that is totally illogical (like some of Dali's surreal creations), by having your mind be in two places at once, a kind of imaginative schizophrenia... What you end up with is a surreal juxtaposition, but it is something that nobody could have thought up through a logical method of thinking...
The interesting thing I think is when you bring that surreal idea and push it further, try to make it "real"... You might serendipitously discover something that you could not have come up with through rational means. Whether that thing is actually useful to you or not is chance... But the potential for it being completely "new" is much greater... So in a way, its an irrational method that can actually produce more innovative ideas than any rational method could ever hope to...
(At the risk of revealing my geeky side) George Lucas often used a kind of "paranoid critical method" to come up with his aliens and ships in the original Star Wars... Like he would juxtapose letters of the alphabet with spaceships to come up with designs for ships... The x-wing, the tie fighter (which was a flying letter H), and he designed the millenium falcon while eating a hamburger with a pickle sticking out of it... Theres also a ship that was basically a flying iron in Empire Strikes Back... The light sabre was a flash light and a sword... At the time, his designs seemed to be really innovative, but they could not have been designed with purely rational ideas about how ships will look in the future... Maybe there is a type of real creativity that is made possible by being intentionally irrational... Having an ability to make sense of the surreal...
johndevlin, I actually spent a lot of yesterday at several locations in North Philadelphia. The place is vast. As far as I'm concerned, the place never stopped being glorious.
I was inside St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church for the first time yesterday. It's on 2nd Street around Thomson (ie, a couple blocks north of Girard Avenue. That place has a glory to it inside and out.
I will not participate in the ideas competition. I'll just continue to often visit North Philadelphia as an architectural tourist.
consider that when i mean rules and problems, i mean where people only see and obsess on rules and problems and are paralyzed by them...i like to believe that i see rules as opportunities to rewrite, deconstruct and construct ways around rules...
that's a great post, by which I mean I've ctrl c and v'd it. The splicing of two disparate elements together is also the working method of collage. I think it's a linguistic device (is there a semiologist here) of word-kenning (found in old-english - actually before it was even english - the epic beowulf uses it) where one word and its meme or idea is paired with another to yield a new one. modern German also works a lot like this, haarschneidemaschine for clippers.
for architects it was a great device in late 80's early 90's when people really cared about design as language. everyone was in camps of decon or anti-saussure or whatever. I think koolhaas still uses it in juxtaposing programmatic elements into 'look-its-new!' combinations as a lineage of his socialist-bent student ideas.
for what i know, it was lynn's meta-blob from the ANY that looked at infra-change within the thing or organism itself - there wasn't collision that created a fractious multi-objects but a topology or smoothing.
hokay i should really keep drinking after parading a from-langue-to-surface history of ideas bulletin
I believe almost all living things are creative; they have to be to survive. Use any word you want, imaginative, crafty, cunning, etc. Semantics don't seperate the need of living things to have to mannuever through life using whatever advantage they are capable of deciphering. Being creative is equatable to breathing.
i would equate survival, particularly at the level of 'living things' with genetic makeup. phenotypes or any kind, such as a long dorsal fin, will help some species of fish or another trait, such as the ability to look like a human face (the heike crab which is completely paraphrasing... that guy who writes about swarm behaviour... was a wired editor... cover has bees on it...... SHIT) demonstrate the ability of a species to extend their lives and their subsequent generations through natural or artificial selection. But outside of a very few species, I don't think they exhibit creative ability in shaping themselves, ie longer beak, in one generation, unless Lamarckian evolution is making a big comeback.
Your argument would apply to humans as well, in my eyes.
There are great documentary's on the lives of dolphins, apes, monkeys, parrots, penguins, wolves, and many more 'living things' that most definately show individual character and creativity.
Now, us humans love to think we are above the animal kingdom, but alas we are most definately a part of it. Short of having our advantages of holding long term cognitive abilities such as written history, diaries, etc. I would say the individual act of creativity shown by many creatures outside of our own species, is genuine.
By your argument all animals would interact in every situation the exact same way...which is just not the fact.
all those who have experienced what is called inspiration know that sudden enthusiasm which is the only indication of the excelling quality of some idea that occurs to us, and whose coming sends us galloping in its train, and makes words malleable and clear and mutually illuminating forthwith. those who have once known this know that not every idea, however apparently true, nor particular conception, however seemingly ingenious, is worth expressing, and they wait for the renewal of thse raptures which are the only indication that what we are about to say is worth saying and may toss other hearts into a like rapture later on.
so it is very sad, the era where these raptures are no longer renewed, where at the coming of each idea we look in vain for that enthusiasm, that reminting of the brain when all the partition walls seem to give way, when nothing that restricts, nothing that resists, is left, when our whole substance seems a sort of lava ready to be poured into a mould and take what shape we may choose without either assistance or hindrance on our part. our grace still pleases those who have loved us in our works, for we can still keep it in what we write, as we keep the grace and sweetness of a cast of countenance, a look that still allows others to say, "that's so and so ," as in talking to our friends we still-more frequently, perhaps-come out with those brilliant comparisons, those turns of thought, which belong to no one but ourselves.
we can keep these in what we write-for the mysterious being whom we are, who possesed this gift of giving a certain form,pertaining only to himself, to all he took in hand, he is still with us, no doubt. but we know that such a page has benn written without rapture, that the few ideas which pleased us did not engender others; an dthough all the discriminating readers on earth should say, "its the best thing you've done" we should shake our heads with a sigh, since we would give all this for a minute of that former strange power which nothing can call back.
no doubt in this latest concerto there is still the lovelable, recognisable tone of voice, but an idea nolonger engenders a thousand ideas and the material is both less precious and more exiguous. and the works which swept the composer off his feet when he had all his powers about him, let them go on sweeping others off theirs, this means nothing to him now. and he pines.
but during this period, while the winter makees no impression on him, for now one day is like another, and the mysterious power of the seasons no longer encounters any mysterious acclaiming power in him, behold, in that country town far away from where he lives, two officers who perhaps believe hi is dead, for now one no longer really knows, have agreed to meet while their fellow officers are out for a walk. and they have sat down at the piano. the the [ ].
Aug 20, 05 10:04 pm ·
·
I like all the direct answers so far, yet I didn't expect so many to indirectly answer that they think they're creative because of what some other poeple think creativity is--that's more like being un-creative, isn't it?
I especially like the notion of "I think I'm creative because I'm sinister" because it demonstrates that acting creatively is not always done within a morally "correct" context.
How does one make the transition from creating from intuition to creating with intention?
This has been on my mind for some time. Most of my colleagues, friends in architecture and the related fields design primarily from intuition and trial and error. I know there are many factors why it takes so much time for architects to establish themselves, but one, I think, is this transition from "it might be cool if we do this" to making a series of rational informed decisions with an end goal (formal or not) in sight. Thoughts?
Like many things in life, transitition to a honed, sophisticated entity comes with applied talent, time and practice. Kinda goes back to what Thomas Edison said about 'genius.'
I think that I'll rename my "theorem" to diabase's creative ability theorem. My intention was to explain the gap between those of us who have some creative faculty, and what/why/how we are able to use it.
Why do I think I'm creative? Because I believe that I can and I should change my environment. Underlying that, it is my inherent nature that endows me with the audacity to think that I can do some things better. From that point onwards, its all subjective.
true, but also without the facts, an opinion lacks depth... Whether we choose to question the facts, or invent the facts, art is rarely done in a vacuum, it exists as a part of a larger discourse, it contributes to an ongoing emerging dialogue. And an applied art is something else...
I think there is creativity that can emerge from very common everyday knowledge, but at the same time, with a broader knowledge from different fields, perhaps there are other diverse and uncommon perspectives that would not otherwise be possible... Any good art requires doing the hard work.
Someone placing a urinal in an art gallery, even if they are ignorant of duchamp, would not be very innovative...
I've gotten myself into serious trouble because of 'creativity'. I don't know why, but I'm drawn to doing things that are forbidden. I'm not as crazy as I was 15 years ago but back then I used to dare myself to do things like climb out of our 6 storey apt window. Today I scratch my head when I think about it since I didn't do it to impress anyone. Most of the times I was on my own. But I wonder if all that contributed to making me the creative person *I think* I am today.
Why do you think you're creative?
John,
Before I hit submit, I was meant to change 'perhaps not' to 'as well'. I am unfamiliar with any of Jung's thought I'm afraid, so I am not so agile.
I have an interest in biological phenomena, particularly bacterial consciousness, and studies that have shown that bacteria are able to collectively problem solve, design and upgrade themselves dependent on environmental factors. See here for further information.
These studies and other phenomena point to the underlying trifecta of creativity: the ability to imagine, the ability to know and perhaps most important, the ability to act.
+q:
"It seems like there is a confusion between "innovative" and "creative".
Everyone creates something, an arrow, a CAD file full of window details, whatever, etc....
innovative, is trying to do something "new"....
So you an create anything is a question of how innovative it is...."
After re-reading the thread, I guess I must have missed this post. I didn't really think of the question in those terms. It is probably a more accurate definition, although not the one that would first come to my mind. I would, after reading this, agree that one does not have to be innovative to be creative.
Having now said that a creative person is not necessarily one who innovates, but simply one who creates, I have to analyze the question of 'what makes us creative?' Is this question asking, what makes us able to create? What makes us want to create? Or is the question meant to be more along the lines of what makes us innovative, what makes us come up with new and unique ideas? I guess I don't really have an answer for any of those questions. One could really argue any point to be true. I know on a superficial level, I just like to make things. It makes me happy. I think that's reason enough for me.
Let me ask, does an architect have to be innovative to be an architect? Is he or she not successful in creating architecture unless they "move forward" and do something never seen before? It all seems very subjective to me. But then it is 1:13am, and that may be the nyquil talking.
i don't believe in creativity at all. i think it is a lazy term.
i like diabase's queenstown-induced idea that creativity is actually affectivity (a measure of our ability to affect something).
the moustache-man has nothing new to contribute, either.
I believe in creativity, not originality. A child playing with lego is creative, perhaps not too original. the best buildings have already been designed. If you're an architect and you think you're original you'll wind up like Per and/or in a mental hospital. there's nothing new under the Sun. We can re-hash old ideas and theories in creative ways, but we must have the intellectual humility to admit that this is not particularly original.
that having been said there's still lots and lots of creative things to be done: such as design your own glasses frames!!
"the best buildings have already been designed."
!
how could you possibly function as an architect if you seriously believed that?
I'll agree with Johndevlin!
and agfa8x... Maybe the best building EVER has already been designed, but has the best building YOU can design been done? I would think that would be enough to keep someone functioning.
This is the type of thread that I can spend way too much responding to on a Friday.
I've haven't read Architectures of Time in a while, but a lot of what I think about these things is shaped by the discourse of people like Kwinter, Manuel DeLanda, Deleuze & Guattari, etc. But also, the Diamond Sutra. So, I tend not to think it terms of creative or destructive, but rather in terms of engagement and instrumentality, of dynamics and non-linearity, and of course, time.
One of my favorite summations of this type of thing belongs to Henri Bergson, who holds that the development of our human intelligence is directly related our lack of built-in-tools and our subsequent ability to shape our tools from matter and use them. The very fact that we perceive our envrionment as a space of discrete objects is related to our ability to act on those objects. So we act on the world, we engage with it, and we create subtle changes within it that have the potential to become magnified, via the processes they affect, into great changes. But obviously we don't do this in a vacuum; we are constrained at every moment (I especially abhor the notion that "creativity" is somehow hindered by contraints, and is this thing that flows forth unimpeded from the truly creative individual). So, it is more like dancing. Once in a while we arrive at some way of engagement that is especially elegant or especially beautiful, according to our current notions of aesthetics, and we say, "That is a very creative solution," or "I've never seen anything like it," or, "It touches me deeply."
And so our actions are all impermanent and provisional. HOWEVER (I can sense the environmentalists ire), we of course have to continue to live with consequences, so it behooves us to try and act and engage in a way that yields consequences which we deem desireable and which does not kill us all or kill the earth on which we live. In this way, I we are all designers (as was mentioned above) even if the consideration of the consequences of our actions is shallow and myopic. However, that which we deem "creative" is but a shadow.
"My teaching of the Dharma must be likened unto a raft. The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so the misteaching." The raft allusion has to do with the question of whether you continue to carry your raft on your head after you have used it to cross the river.
JordantHarris: Let me ask, does an architect have to be innovative to be an architect? Is he or she not successful in creating architecture unless they "move forward" and do something never seen before?
I'm a firm believer that the work of architects is as much about organization as innovation. A functional arrangement of spaces/components may not be a "new" idea, but it is a "created" solution for a problem.
"...the work of architects is as much about organization as innovation."
uh oh. i'm in big trouble.
Don't worry not per corell, in terms of my office space/home/etc. I'm about as disorganized as they come yet I can somehow do the work for the client out of this chaos!
The Public,
thanks for adding in the bergson...that's the kind of input i was hoping for.
On what basis do you even start to begin to imagine that you can conclude that the best architecture ever has already been done?
The phrase 'the best architecture ever' is entirely without content.
Mystical glorification of your ancestors.
We have built on the imagination of others since the first interaction of two rational minds. I believe that imagination is the organization of miscellaneous mental projections (which everyone has regularly) into something generally pertaining to reality as we know it. Creativity being the method to which this organization is implemented into physical space (art, mechanics, science, philosophy, whatever).
To be imaginative just requires you to put in the time in to organize your wandering mental projections. As architects or artists or whatever, we have (or should have) set aside this time to organize.
agfa8x: thanks for your criticism of my message. I see now that that sentence was wrong, and that you are right. sorry. Mea culpa!
'creatives, i can deal with, in small doses. it is the geniuses who make me angrY.'
abra
Rita: (off topic) will you be using any of your prodigious creativity to help restore some of the quondam glory of Philadelphia? (perhaps this needs a thread of its own that you could start??)
If we continue with puddles' idea that creation follows waves, maybe there is such a thing as creativity that is totally out of touch with the wave, but rather creates "disrupting waves" or "interference waves"...
"i'm not so sure about creativity since everything is always changing anyhow. to think of yourself "as creative" seems more like an attempt to believe that you have control over something. if we are all just surfing along the changes/permutations of time, then i guess sometimes we jam with the right wave and it feels good, as though we created when we've really only harnessed it. but then sometimes we crash and that hurts, and maybe that is what drives us "to create" or at least find something more comfortable to dance with."If creation by and large follows "waves", what might "interference waves" be? In other words, if we are all really just producing things through experimentation and trial and error, and sometimes we STUMBLE across something that "fits" or simply follows the current mode or "wave", maybe the opposite can be true too.
Maybe there is creativity that is also STUMBLED UPON but actually "goes against the grain"... It would seem that "going with the wave" means that the idea is not really innovative, but rather a creation that conforms to a movement... But there are always those "radical ideas" that come from left field, that actually may be controversial at first, but actually send ripples against the existing wave... The avant garde...
When I was in archischool, one of my colleagues was quite interested in Salvidor Dali's "Paranoid Critical Method", something that Rem Koolhaas also wrote about somewhere I recall... I'm not an expert on Dali or surrealism, but the basic premise of Dali's Paranoid Critical method was that in fact creativity could be induced methodically (by basically anybody) by intentionally creating a surreal juxtaposition: if you intentionally juxtapose two extraneous things (that is totally unrelated things chosen at random, be it two objects--- like a lobster and a telephone say, or two ideas that have nothing to do with one another, or two of anything, perhaps two concepts from unrelated disciplines), you can actually methodically produce something new that nobody could have thought up through logical means... In other words, create an idea that is totally illogical (like some of Dali's surreal creations), by having your mind be in two places at once, a kind of imaginative schizophrenia... What you end up with is a surreal juxtaposition, but it is something that nobody could have thought up through a logical method of thinking...
The interesting thing I think is when you bring that surreal idea and push it further, try to make it "real"... You might serendipitously discover something that you could not have come up with through rational means. Whether that thing is actually useful to you or not is chance... But the potential for it being completely "new" is much greater... So in a way, its an irrational method that can actually produce more innovative ideas than any rational method could ever hope to...
(At the risk of revealing my geeky side) George Lucas often used a kind of "paranoid critical method" to come up with his aliens and ships in the original Star Wars... Like he would juxtapose letters of the alphabet with spaceships to come up with designs for ships... The x-wing, the tie fighter (which was a flying letter H), and he designed the millenium falcon while eating a hamburger with a pickle sticking out of it... Theres also a ship that was basically a flying iron in Empire Strikes Back... The light sabre was a flash light and a sword... At the time, his designs seemed to be really innovative, but they could not have been designed with purely rational ideas about how ships will look in the future... Maybe there is a type of real creativity that is made possible by being intentionally irrational... Having an ability to make sense of the surreal...
Great post, bRink, full of ideas.
and this notion ...if you intentionally juxtapose two extraneous things (that is totally unrelated things chosen at random...
reminds me of googlewhacking
johndevlin, I actually spent a lot of yesterday at several locations in North Philadelphia. The place is vast. As far as I'm concerned, the place never stopped being glorious.
I was inside St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church for the first time yesterday. It's on 2nd Street around Thomson (ie, a couple blocks north of Girard Avenue. That place has a glory to it inside and out.
I will not participate in the ideas competition. I'll just continue to often visit North Philadelphia as an architectural tourist.
simply, where people see rules and problems, i see opportunities and design possibilities...dopey i know
there is no art without a system beta.
consider that when i mean rules and problems, i mean where people only see and obsess on rules and problems and are paralyzed by them...i like to believe that i see rules as opportunities to rewrite, deconstruct and construct ways around rules...
I think I'm creative 'cause: If I'm gonna have to work, I might as well enjoy it.
bRink,
that's a great post, by which I mean I've ctrl c and v'd it. The splicing of two disparate elements together is also the working method of collage. I think it's a linguistic device (is there a semiologist here) of word-kenning (found in old-english - actually before it was even english - the epic beowulf uses it) where one word and its meme or idea is paired with another to yield a new one. modern German also works a lot like this, haarschneidemaschine for clippers.
for architects it was a great device in late 80's early 90's when people really cared about design as language. everyone was in camps of decon or anti-saussure or whatever. I think koolhaas still uses it in juxtaposing programmatic elements into 'look-its-new!' combinations as a lineage of his socialist-bent student ideas.
for what i know, it was lynn's meta-blob from the ANY that looked at infra-change within the thing or organism itself - there wasn't collision that created a fractious multi-objects but a topology or smoothing.
hokay i should really keep drinking after parading a from-langue-to-surface history of ideas bulletin
I believe almost all living things are creative; they have to be to survive. Use any word you want, imaginative, crafty, cunning, etc. Semantics don't seperate the need of living things to have to mannuever through life using whatever advantage they are capable of deciphering. Being creative is equatable to breathing.
i would equate survival, particularly at the level of 'living things' with genetic makeup. phenotypes or any kind, such as a long dorsal fin, will help some species of fish or another trait, such as the ability to look like a human face (the heike crab which is completely paraphrasing... that guy who writes about swarm behaviour... was a wired editor... cover has bees on it...... SHIT) demonstrate the ability of a species to extend their lives and their subsequent generations through natural or artificial selection. But outside of a very few species, I don't think they exhibit creative ability in shaping themselves, ie longer beak, in one generation, unless Lamarckian evolution is making a big comeback.
ok gotta go
Your argument would apply to humans as well, in my eyes.
There are great documentary's on the lives of dolphins, apes, monkeys, parrots, penguins, wolves, and many more 'living things' that most definately show individual character and creativity.
Now, us humans love to think we are above the animal kingdom, but alas we are most definately a part of it. Short of having our advantages of holding long term cognitive abilities such as written history, diaries, etc. I would say the individual act of creativity shown by many creatures outside of our own species, is genuine.
By your argument all animals would interact in every situation the exact same way...which is just not the fact.
Out of Control by Kevin Kelly:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201483408/qid=1124570067/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-8508615-6451848?v=glance&s=books
being creative is creating.
i am creative because i create.
all those who have experienced what is called inspiration know that sudden enthusiasm which is the only indication of the excelling quality of some idea that occurs to us, and whose coming sends us galloping in its train, and makes words malleable and clear and mutually illuminating forthwith. those who have once known this know that not every idea, however apparently true, nor particular conception, however seemingly ingenious, is worth expressing, and they wait for the renewal of thse raptures which are the only indication that what we are about to say is worth saying and may toss other hearts into a like rapture later on.
so it is very sad, the era where these raptures are no longer renewed, where at the coming of each idea we look in vain for that enthusiasm, that reminting of the brain when all the partition walls seem to give way, when nothing that restricts, nothing that resists, is left, when our whole substance seems a sort of lava ready to be poured into a mould and take what shape we may choose without either assistance or hindrance on our part. our grace still pleases those who have loved us in our works, for we can still keep it in what we write, as we keep the grace and sweetness of a cast of countenance, a look that still allows others to say, "that's so and so ," as in talking to our friends we still-more frequently, perhaps-come out with those brilliant comparisons, those turns of thought, which belong to no one but ourselves.
we can keep these in what we write-for the mysterious being whom we are, who possesed this gift of giving a certain form,pertaining only to himself, to all he took in hand, he is still with us, no doubt. but we know that such a page has benn written without rapture, that the few ideas which pleased us did not engender others; an dthough all the discriminating readers on earth should say, "its the best thing you've done" we should shake our heads with a sigh, since we would give all this for a minute of that former strange power which nothing can call back.
no doubt in this latest concerto there is still the lovelable, recognisable tone of voice, but an idea nolonger engenders a thousand ideas and the material is both less precious and more exiguous. and the works which swept the composer off his feet when he had all his powers about him, let them go on sweeping others off theirs, this means nothing to him now. and he pines.
but during this period, while the winter makees no impression on him, for now one day is like another, and the mysterious power of the seasons no longer encounters any mysterious acclaiming power in him, behold, in that country town far away from where he lives, two officers who perhaps believe hi is dead, for now one no longer really knows, have agreed to meet while their fellow officers are out for a walk. and they have sat down at the piano. the the [ ].
I like all the direct answers so far, yet I didn't expect so many to indirectly answer that they think they're creative because of what some other poeple think creativity is--that's more like being un-creative, isn't it?
I especially like the notion of "I think I'm creative because I'm sinister" because it demonstrates that acting creatively is not always done within a morally "correct" context.
How does one make the transition from creating from intuition to creating with intention?
This has been on my mind for some time. Most of my colleagues, friends in architecture and the related fields design primarily from intuition and trial and error. I know there are many factors why it takes so much time for architects to establish themselves, but one, I think, is this transition from "it might be cool if we do this" to making a series of rational informed decisions with an end goal (formal or not) in sight. Thoughts?
Like many things in life, transitition to a honed, sophisticated entity comes with applied talent, time and practice. Kinda goes back to what Thomas Edison said about 'genius.'
I think that I'll rename my "theorem" to diabase's creative ability theorem. My intention was to explain the gap between those of us who have some creative faculty, and what/why/how we are able to use it.
Why do I think I'm creative? Because I believe that I can and I should change my environment. Underlying that, it is my inherent nature that endows me with the audacity to think that I can do some things better. From that point onwards, its all subjective.
'it is my inherent nature that endows me with the audacity to think that I can do some things better.'
egotistical prick
completely kidding....i think everyone here is in the same boat
geez anti, I was just about to ask you to step outside:)
go to your studio/shop and make something.
1. Any clod can have the facts, but having an opinion is an art.
confucius:
true, but also without the facts, an opinion lacks depth... Whether we choose to question the facts, or invent the facts, art is rarely done in a vacuum, it exists as a part of a larger discourse, it contributes to an ongoing emerging dialogue. And an applied art is something else...
I think there is creativity that can emerge from very common everyday knowledge, but at the same time, with a broader knowledge from different fields, perhaps there are other diverse and uncommon perspectives that would not otherwise be possible... Any good art requires doing the hard work.
Someone placing a urinal in an art gallery, even if they are ignorant of duchamp, would not be very innovative...
Why: Because I watch a lot of HGTV.
haha!
sacred or profane?
sinister or dexterous?
so the question, so the answer.
go figure!
I'm not creative
how did martha end up in the discussion.
I've gotten myself into serious trouble because of 'creativity'. I don't know why, but I'm drawn to doing things that are forbidden. I'm not as crazy as I was 15 years ago but back then I used to dare myself to do things like climb out of our 6 storey apt window. Today I scratch my head when I think about it since I didn't do it to impress anyone. Most of the times I was on my own. But I wonder if all that contributed to making me the creative person *I think* I am today.
Have ya'll gotten yourself into trouble like me?
i looked at my asshole in the mirror today. it blew my fucking mind!!!!!
.....hello.
After six days of very hard work, I just gave up on ever being creative again.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.