When I started thinking about creativity, I saw that there were two questions I wanted to explore,
- why do I create?
- how do I create?
As I begin to contemplate the "how" of my creativity, I see that there are two more categories to follow: the art and science of it. I'll define them first, so my reasoning can (hopefully) be followed:
- science = the technical aspects of creativity
- art = the inspiration of creativity
To put it another way:
- The science of an activity involves understanding the specific rules, tools, and techniques.
- The art of an activity involves understanding the principles behind the rules, tools, and techniques. This may be intuitive, or it may be learned.
The science of a thing can be learned by anyone who chooses to:
- get a teacher, book, or video
- get the tools and supplies
- learn the steps and techniques
- practice, practice, practice
Eventually, one becomes familiar enough with their chosen medium to understand how it all fits together. To understand how changes in tools, materials, or techniques have the potential to change the outcome. To understand which rules can be broken and which can't. This is where the transition from technician to artist begins to take place; the illusive line between the art and science of a thing.
Creativity itself is not one or the other. I don't think it begins at a certain level. It begins when the first tentative steps of a chosen medium are taken. If I follow a recipe and bake a loaf of bread, then I have created something. Whether I choose to follow recipes or learn to invent my own is up to me. Can one person be more creative than another? Perhaps, but in the end, I don't think it matters. Neither is right or wrong because the primary motive of a creative pastime is enjoyment.
The enjoyment of a pastime (an activity for pleasure rather than income), isn't contingent on one's level of knowledge and skill. Nor on the growth and development of these. A beginner can obtain great enjoyment from the learning process, and an experienced person can be perfectly happy to create something from a kit, whether it's a sweater or a cake. Enjoyment is subjective and is an entity of its own.
Okay, so how does this apply to how I create? I'm asking myself this because I'm trying to get somewhere with my meanderings. I have a goal.
I can somewhat describe the creative process as I experience it. For example, I'm sitting at the loom, weaving away, and as I weave I'm studying the fabric appearing before me. The question that usually comes to mind is, "what if . . . ?" This is what I think of as I contemplate the question of how I create.
It's not a series of steps, but there are components:
- curiosity
- questions
- exploration
- inspiration
- intuition?
- willing to test ideas
- willing to make mistakes
I'm going to stop for now with that. I need to ponder how all of this will help me take the next step.
© Sep 2024 by Leigh at Leigh's Fiber Journal
Related post
4 comments:
Leigh, the Headmaster of our sword school describes the entire curriculum as really just 20% of the actual art. He has likened it to learning how to drive in that the skills only get you to the point that you can drive. The application of the basics, how they are applied in different situations and in different conditions, is 80% of the art. And that, in a way, cannot be practiced or learned until the basics are mastered. If I cannot draw my sword, I cannot really start the process.
The other thing about creativity I remember is from my high school band teacher, who taught us that the people who could play almost effortlessly and improvise were the ones that actually knew everything about the instrument and music theory, whether by skill, education, or just talent. It is only when you know a think that you know which rules you can bend and break.
I shouldn't comment on this post after reading it just once, but I must mention something that really bothered earlier in the year. It's nature vs nurture; some makers have strong instincts and know what they want to make and even how to make them. Some makers follow recipes/instructions but have superb technical skills and make beautifully-crafted work. But here's where nature vs nurture becomes too facile. After learning a craft, say, or a musical instrument, some learned techniques/knowledge become part of the person. That's when nurture turns into nature, I think.
In more extreme cases, think of someone born into a family of weavers/potters/painters/musicians, even athletes. Do we know if it was in their nature to start with; or they were taught things/trained without realizing, or perhaps just had a lot of luck/opportunities to learn/succeed.
I know it's not directly connected to what you discussed, but you could say your " * intuition?" reminded me of this.
TB, I'm not sure how to relate that to weaving (since there are more techniques to learn than I could ever master), but I can relate it to music and trying to learn to play piano. Of course, even knowing the theory and how to apply it, doesn't mean one's skill level can manifest it satisfactorily.
I'm thinking with sword skill, part of true mastery has to come with experience. It's one thing to go through a series of exercises, but another to try to match the skill and wit of an opponent. In competition, I'm thinking creativity stems from intuition and anticipating the opponent's moves. Definitely a worthy goal.
Meg, I wonder if some people even want to move beyond recipes and kits. Maybe creativity is too much work(?)
I'm mentally comparing your terms of nurture and nature with mine of science and art. I'm not sure if and how they are similar, but it's interesting to ponder. I see a definite transition that can be made, if one has the desire and inclination to make it. There are some things that I confess I'm content knowing just the basic techniques, but other things, like weaving, keep drawing me onward.
Post a Comment