G (former acquaintance) � �What is your school of thought?�
M (Me) � *glances at book that I�m currently reading* �Psy . . . chology?�
G � �No! Where do you base your thinking?�
M � �Base my thinking?�
G � �What do you base it on?�
M - *glances at book* �. . . Psychology?�
G � �Who do you think from? For example: Kant, Freud, Nietzsche. . .�
M � �Are you serious? Who do I base my thinking off of?�
G � �Yeah!�
M � �No one.�
G � �That�s impossible. You HAVE to base it off of SOMEONE.�
M � �It�s not impossible.�
G � �Yes it is. SOMEONE has to have thought of your ideas. Everything that has or could be thought of has.�
M � �How do you explain creativity?�
If there was a sound to describe a person�s logic hitting a brick wall at Mach 5 speed, I would so dearly administer it here, in this provided blank space, �________�.
Creativity is where a person�s mind is free to achieve/create whatever insatiable desires they see fit. I prefer the way to describe it as a person�s metaphysical representation of their existence. Their ethics and morals are distributed in whatever they create. This is all I believe creativity to be, but of course, there are ways to elaborate on this issue from a different perspective.
I took a psychology class last year. Apparently, there are four kinds of creativity goals. What? A rubric to YOUR creativity? Definitely. Observe how we�ve all been shoved into a box and neatly labeled:
Intellectual goals of creators are: to increase world awareness, identify and describe basic structures, relationships, and essences in the world, and finally, to identify and describe particular social problems.
The first (increasing world awareness) would combine symbols in new and discrepant ways to �shake up recipients�. An example of this, I would imagine, could be a book about making napalm, getting away with doing the least amount of work possible, and taking advantage of society (such as in the infamous Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman) when this was not accepted as proper by society.
Now, you may be thinking, is this ever acceptable? Of course, but not without consequences. I suspect that when this book first appeared �round yonder (I believe it was around the �60�s), some peoples� values were already decaying from that of society, and such a book as Steal This Book was indeed one to �shake up recipients.�
The second intellectual goal of creativity (identifying and describing basic structure, relationships and essences in the world) involves looking for common denominators in life (along with varied experiences), and something to highlight discoveries with simple economic, dramatic, and abstract symbols.
The third goal (identifying and describing particular social problems and their causes) involves an opposition to an attempt to cover up problems with �pretty� or decorative art. This distinguishes amateurs and professionals more than talent.
The second goal of creativity is this: creation expresses feelings in original ways (for example: art is a safe way to express �unacceptable� and �frowned upon� feelings and desires). Many artists have their own problems that they are consumed with, and they find art as a creative outlet for their suffering-or whatever their state of mind. An example of this could be the one slide that we viewed in class. A man (whose name eludes me) was a relatively sane person with a fetish for drawing cats. We saw a progression of his mental downward spiral by how the cats became more and more deranged and ridiculous (or creative, as I assume some would argue.)
Another emotional goal is to arouse a wider range of more intense positive and negative emotions in others. I see this as: artwork is created to appeal to the feelings of others. Let�s say Mr. Chim Chim Poo Panties says, �I want to make people laugh, so I�ll make something outrageously goofy that will prompt laughter.� This could be as a defensive emotional response to whatever criticism the outwork would garner.
Beautiful and impressive scenes are conducive to positive feelings, and tragic art (example: an entire wall depicting a gruesome war scene) would harvest disheartening thoughts of sadness or fear. Positive emotions would express life as good and enjoyable, whereas negative emotions would fringe existence with gloom.
The third goal, behavior, prompts people to examine their own morals and decide what is best for their future (thus encouraging dreaming of how well the future can be improved.) It persuades people to do things the creator of the work would have imagined that could bring about reform on the world. New products are created to make life convenient and better (Example: the creation of Easy Mac-life�s laziest way to make macaroni and cheese-as if making macaroni and cheese from a box was extremely mentally taxing anyway). New products are developed for procedures on doing a variety of tasks in life: improving personalities, losing weight, curing depression, or how to succeed.
The fourth goal is self-development. It involves creating one�s �self� by changing values, attitudes, etc. It is stated that �all people can be creative as they write their own life story.�
It seems like following these regimented goals leaves no room for the imagination of much. I mean, what if someone didn�t WANT to create something specifically to satisfy an intellectual need, or to arouse emotions in others, or to invent something to improve life for others? What if someone wanted to write a book solely for the wonderful selfishness of enjoying what they created? If other people found �something� in it, that�s great, but what if the creator didn�t make this his/her goal? I see these goals (outlined in class) as a nice way to perhaps inspire someone to create something, but they don�t cover the most important base of all.
I think that creators should not evaluate their works based on these goals, unless they completely want to. If it is laid out as to what goals should or should not be followed to qualify as creativity, then I call that premium bull plop. No one can define everyone�s way to individuality.
There are criteria that are sometimes used to evaluate creativity: Is it new, unique, and original? Is it feasible (could it REALLY be made?)? Is it useful? How beneficial is it? Is talent or knowledge expressed in this creation? Does it express individuality? Is it indicative of a person�s degree of creativity? Is it fluent with other works of art?
It is said that creators and recipients judge success. It is also argued about whether or not there are �professionals� to judge artwork and creativity. I think my left toe is no better at determining �good� artwork from �bad� artwork than Peewee Herman. There aren�t any professional �judges of creativity�. If there are, I suggest we lure them out into the forest by a trail of gum drops, straight into a gingerbread house. Then we box them up and send them to a remote third-world country, because no one can judge for other people what other people should find creative.
Why?
I believe (as aforementioned) that people create things out of their idea of metaphysical representation. Their morals and values are conceptualized and then solidified into a tangible form. For example: Let�s say there is an artist who believes that life is full of suffering and that men are nothing but insipid morons doomed to perish. He might depict and solidify this belief into a sculpture, thus reflecting the artist�s moral stance on humanity. Perhaps the sculpture would be of a man writhing in agony, with a stooped posture and a look of pain impressed into his face. How will this be judged?
Different people will label works of art differently depending on each individual�s values. If the work of art appeals to a person�s values, their judgment will be most favorable. On the flip side, if someone looks at a work of art, scoffs, and says, �HODGE PODGE! PISH POSH! This is a load of bababanooshka!� obviously, something about the work of art was not favorable with this person�s morals.
If any judging must be done, it should be on the level of, �Did this person fulfill their desire of replicating their view of existence into this work of creativity?� I will also say that I personally am not one to criticize artwork through the previously mentioned criteria. If I see a work of art, or read a book, or hear a song, I find something in it that causes me to grow as a person mentally, rather than waste my time snapping my fingers and following guidelines to judge creativity. But, the creator basically throws his creation out to the shark if he makes it public, and that means anything could happen.