MikeD Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 OK, but this idea does not, in any way, imply that more creativity REQUIRES more materials. I have never said that it does 'require' anything. Can be more...can be less. as I said, it's how the materials are used, not their existence. Artists don't create works of enduring art by flitting from medium to medium. They work to perfect their skills in one medium. Picasso did not make his name as a sculptor. Rodin was not a famous musician. Beethoven didn't paint. Michaelangelo and Da Vinci were true geniuses among geniuses to buck this trend, but even so, Michaelangelo did not also paint his sculptures. Even Jackson Pollack merely dribbled and splattered paint on canvases over and over again. Beethoven did create music works of all types, though, as have most composers. Many people here have said that creativity is doing more with what you have, or it is putting the same pieces together in new and exciting ways. Those are good descriptions. I also think that creativity is not seeing what is easily seen, it is bringing out what ISN'T obvious.The most creative products are the ones that are simple. The most creative devices are the ones that make you say, "Now why didn't I think of that?" Any engineer can design a clunky way of doing something, but the truly creative ones make the simplest and most elegant designs. Any caricaturist can draw a face, but a really creative artist is the one who imbues the face with feeling and emotion that profoundly affect the viewer. (And, only Da Vince could paint the enigmatic smile on the Mona Lisa.) No, the most creative products are not always the most simple. You are making the mistake again of thinking there is only one way to be creative. Mahler wrote very complex works, adding all sorts of extra instruments to the standard orchestra of his day. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is hardly a simple work, and it has to "work" as part of the overall chapel art done by a number of artists of the day. Sure, drum corps can open up to use any instrumentation, but because they can, does it follow that they MUST? The second is not the only result of the first. Has drum corps really said all it can say with drums, brass, guard, and drill? Has it explored and revealed every last drop of emotion possible with those tools and must move on to new instruments? This is what the OP is ultimately getting at, isn't it? No one said it 'must'. It's just a good idea (IMO). There really has never been a 'must' when something new was passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 OK, but this idea does not, in any way, imply that more creativity REQUIRES more materials.In fact, it is neutral about the nature of creativity, which is what the OP was discussing. Notice that the OP uses the word "creativity", but the above post uses the word "creative". We can describe something as "creative", but that does not at all describe what "creativity" is. If we do a find/replace with the two words in the above definition, we get: "Creativity is the use made of any of the available materials, not the materials themselves." Does that thought bring us any closer to knowing what "true creativity" is? (I say, "No.") Would we improve upon Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" by rendering it with modern day techniques? In the end, does it really matter exactly how he created that painting? With exactly which tools and techniques? No, but that he did IS. A famous artist once said, paraphrasing, "I do not paint the table. I paint the feeling that table gives me." The emotions that the "Mona Lisa" evokes are the most important aspect of it, not what went into making it. I don't use that lack of attachment to technique and tools to argue for the availability of any and every tool to any and every artist. In fact, I use that to argue for limiting them. Artists don't create works of enduring art by flitting from medium to medium. They work to perfect their skills in one medium. Picasso did not make his name as a sculptor. Rodin was not a famous musician. Beethoven didn't paint. Michaelangelo and Da Vinci were true geniuses among geniuses to buck this trend, but even so, Michaelangelo did not also paint his sculptures. Even Jackson Pollack merely dribbled and splattered paint on canvases over and over again. Many people here have said that creativity is doing more with what you have, or it is putting the same pieces together in new and exciting ways. Those are good descriptions. I also think that creativity is not seeing what is easily seen, it is bringing out what ISN'T obvious. The most creative products are the ones that are simple. The most creative devices are the ones that make you say, "Now why didn't I think of that?" Any engineer can design a clunky way of doing something, but the truly creative ones make the simplest and most elegant designs. Any caricaturist can draw a face, but a really creative artist is the one who imbues the face with feeling and emotion that profoundly affect the viewer. (And, only Da Vince could paint the enigmatic smile on the Mona Lisa.) Sure, drum corps can open up to use any instrumentation, but because they can, does it follow that they MUST? The second is not the only result of the first. Has drum corps really said all it can say with drums, brass, guard, and drill? Has it explored and revealed every last drop of emotion possible with those tools and must move on to new instruments? This is what the OP is ultimately getting at, isn't it? I rarely post on these threads but I really enjoy creativity, in general. When I saw this post, I too thought of Mona Lisa, however in practical terms and from a drum corps audio and visual perspective, I felt Mona Lisa was ok but Pointallism seems more appropriate for drum corps, based on where you are in the stands watching and listening. When I'm at the symphony I cup my ears to enhance the sound, when I go to the art gallery I open my eyes. Since, drum corps invokes multiple senses in primarily an outdoor/indoor venue, perhaps the artists of George-Pierre Seurat, Paul Signac, Chuck Close and John Roy can 'point' to the way of a unique indoor/outdoor event, with varied acoustics and a visual that appears based on where you are seated or performing.IMO I have seen the Sistine Chapel and Michaelangelo's works amongst others; there are no words that can describe this nor could you take photos, understandably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 But more creative than what? If you're not comparing creativity using old tools versus old and new tools, what are you comparing it to? Or is this just a thread where we're all supposed to agree while pining for the old days?HH No. My opinion is that using x tools to create x effect is more creative then creating x effect with tools x and y. Fefering to the OP will generally tell you what I want from this thread, as a blatantly stated it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 No. My opinion is that using x tools to create x effect is more creative then creating x effect with tools x and y. Fefering to the OP will generally tell you what I want from this thread, as a blatantly stated it. That is fine, but I think we need to stay away from blanket statements stating that using the new tools is a crutch, or designers who used less tools showed the most creativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 That is fine, but I think we need to stay away from blanket statements stating that using the new tools is a crutch, or designers who used less tools showed the most creativity. agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 ....but your next post in this thread did.... OK, but that was not what the quote you slammed was talking about, now was it. As you said, it was the 'next post', hence it came after the one you did not like. It was a general statement about creativity. How many times do I have to say it? How could I have "slammed" anything when the above quote was my only post in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 OK, but that was not what the quote you slammed was talking about, now was it. As you said, it was the 'next post', hence it came after the one you did not like. It was a general statement about creativity. How many times do I have to say it?How could I have "slammed" anything when the above quote was my only post in this thread? Ok..... I am confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 No, the most creative products are not always the most simple. You are making the mistake again of thinking there is only one way to be creative. Mahler wrote very complex works, adding all sorts of extra instruments to the standard orchestra of his day. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is hardly a simple work, and it has to "work" as part of the overall chapel art done by a number of artists of the day. While Mahler's complex works are impressive, were they actually creative? They were "created" yes, but "Batdance" was created too. (by Prince for "Batman" - the band arrangement of which was the absolute worst piece of music I have ever played on a football field.) Other than using the "new" instruments (and writing enormously long works), what new ground did he break with his pieces? Beethoven broke new ground, by taking the Classical forms perfected by Mozart and helping birth the new form of Romantic music. Just because Gustav used all these wonderful new instruments does not mean his use was creative. You are still making the false equation "using more things = creativity". A more correct formulation is "using more things well = creativity", but even then I'm not sure that this is always true. (Something executed well is still not necessarily "creative".) More things can be used creatively, or not. Sometimes, the extra things are mere gimmicks, making no further contribution. Using more tools is not the source or nature of creativity. You yourself said that the use is important, not the actual tools themselves. Or, do you no longer stand by that statement? No one said it 'must'. It's just a good idea (IMO). There really has never been a 'must' when something new was passed. But, obviously the people voting in favor of the change felt that the change itself was a "must", else they wouldn't have approved it. You are confusing the use of the equipment allowed by the rules change with the change itself. (And I think that we've put to rest the tired argument that all changes were "optional". You keep beating that deceased equine though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Can we agree on this: creative and innovative are not necessarily the same. More specifically, you can be creative without being innovative. Do you agree with me? HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) I have never said that it does 'require' anything. Can be more...can be less. as I said, it's how the materials are used, not their existence. Over and over, like a broken record, you trumpet the need for DCI to have approved the newly allowed instruments earlier than they did, and lament that they have not passed woodwinds. Sounds like you think DCI needs them. Over and over, you keep posting here to hammer home your point that others' views of creativity are limited - that "more" needs to be considered as "creative". Sounds like you imply that "requirement" quire heavily. Oh sure, you don't come out and say it, but it's so important to you. (Almost as though you are desperate to keep that concept alive, else your worldview suffers.) Beethoven did create music works of all types, though, as have most composers. Vanilla Ice was a composer too, so I'm not sure what point the above line serves. No, the most creative products are not always the most simple. Who's the more creative designer, the one whose process has 100 steps, or one who does it in 10? Both accomplish the same task. Who's the more creative engineer, the one whose device has 100 moving parts, or the one whose device has 10? Both do the same job. Who's the more creative composer, the one who writes a work that uses 100 different instruments, or one who writes the same piece with 10? Both sound the same and evoke the same emotions. OK, Mike, put up or shut up time. So, you have definite ideas of what "creativity" means. Let's hear them. I mean, you've posted ad nauseum now about how "limited" our definitions and concepts are, so let's hear yours. Expand our horizons here. Edited February 12, 2008 by Dale Bari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.