Film vs Digital vs Creativity

photography
creativity

(Gord) #42

Fair and accurate criticism. The original statement was definitely its author’s attempt to recast another member’s comment (IMHO in a negative and somewhat insulting manner). I just found it ironic that the phrase I excerpted from his comment provided a pretty accurate portrayal of some of his comments throughout this topic.

Having said that, my comment was not at all constructive and I’ll be deleting it.


#43

Thanks for your contribution. :+1: I have similar thoughts but wasn’t able to flesh them out.


(Lyle Kroll) #44

Prefer using my virtual camera instead. Image below rendered a few years back (call it Ouch!). :slight_smile:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/34520999@N05/17231675030/in/photolist-sfGQDm


(Hevii Guy) #45

Even though I’ve been a legal adult for almost 40 years, if I made such an unintentional blunder, my mother would insist that it’s not good until I also “apologise to that man”. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink… :wink:

M. Pierre is a valuable contributor to this community. It would be a shame if he too is driven away.


#46

@davidvj

Photographs never have and never will look like nature.

Divide to conquer old issue. We are a part of nature, thus we are nature too. World would be so much better if we could collectively embrace this. Now, there are plenty ways of going about it; from semiotics route to the meta-medium

This was absolute creativity.

my spine is trembles, am I coming?
 

Thanks for creating this thread and all the pips contributing, loads of gudstuffff

 
 

@aurelienpierre

In photography, no matter what we are doing, we are always bounded by the technics. Optics, chemistry, now electronics and bits.

True. We should embrace limitations, they’re our friends; that’s why gods in buddhism do not get enlightened :stuck_out_tongue:

Once that settled, we create inside these bounds. But what is creation ? Being 100% original ? 80% ? At least 50% ? Or simply making something ? Is it even possible to be 100% original when we live in a civilization where we are, one way or another, exposed to visual communication, thus, under influence ? And, that is assuming there is a metric to originality.

That reminds me of good old W. Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility

So now, what is “absolute creativity” ? The whole creation concept is a religious one. Only God creates (as long as you believe).

I think we need to desacrate the whole creativity thing. I don’t think there is such thing as “absolute creativity” out of the Bible. There are guys making stuff. And that is enough in itself.

This is interesting, lots of food for thought also reminds me of Jimmie Durham’s fantastic A Certain Lack of Coherence: Writings on Art and Cultural Politics . In which Durham, amongst an ocean of historic and personal conections, stories, facts, poems, etc. states that “creativity” is something for god only. IMHO every single person born (anywhere) in North America should read this book, also all artists and widowed parrots. I had the priviledge to have Jimmie as tutor… oh boy was that fun

I think we need to stop seeing sacred things, trying to make things grand, finding big purposes or deep meanings when there is no need to and no evidence there are some. Take the work, enjoy, shut up. Don’t make up stories on how it’s deeply meaningful, absolutely personal and so on. They are most likely going to be fake.

That’s so radically opposed to what I think that we are probably shaking hands behind the counter

During the Renaissance, artists thought they were only carving the latent masterpiece that was already contained in the medium, because only God could have done such great work. (I’m not a believer, but bear with me). So art would be something external, a sort of quest to carve something that was in the matter.

:+1: That’s a solid base to start and enrich from

Now, everything is about me, I and myself. So art has to be profoundly personal and deeply meaningful. And it’s kind of ridiculous to look for so much spirituality in art now, while our societies are mostly secular and religions have lost much ground.

Whenever I go to an exhibition, there are always the same twats that try to use complicated words to describe how they feel looking at that painting, and it’s always to show how much culture and awareness they have (always more than the others), so at the end it’s show-off and pointless.

Now - and despite sprinkled with some “truth (aroma)” - this is a bit too much… and the acidity levels are alarming

 
 
 
@patdavid

Isn’t finding big purposes or larger meanings the same goals as science and philosophy? Humans have always sought an understanding or meaning in things. For longer than modern science they’ve used art as a way to do that (and still do).

{…}

I’d say any art is intimately associated with being meaningful in some way to the admirer. Even if that meaning is simply that they enjoy looking at it. It’s still meaning.

Out of curiosity, why do you go to exhibitions? You must derive something from visiting and viewing these artworks. Something beyond the purely objective ability to robotically note that a thing exists…

I understand rebelling against pretentiousness from some people. But for every pretentious person there’s likely many more people that derive joy or pleasure and are quietly enjoying art.

Don’t denigrate or demean their experience if you can’t empathize with them. Maybe see first if there’s something more interesting going on that might be cool to take part in! :smiley:

just superb :+1:

 
 
 

@aurelienpierre

Science is about figuring out how things are connected in the material world

And there are other non-exclusive ways, some of them (i.e. shamanism ) not only ancient but only now started to be “understood”, respected and plenty times openly admire by scientist… which find themselves struggling to keep a rational indexing / balance when the complexity reaches “absurd” levels. Same goes for a lot of “substances”, medicine really in the deepest meaning of the word, getting OT though.

Humans have always sought an understanding or meaning in things.

And this is what I call human arrogance. As if things had to have meaning. As if things could not happen just because they happen. As if randomness was no option. Wait… that would mean humans are not that special after all, or choosen, or better than livestock. Oooops !

On one side I believe that the most extended disease nowadays is the absolutism of human race as cosmic belly-button. BUT being explainable and rational, being intuitive, or being in any other form, we DO HAVE a need for “understanding” that grows exponentially in all ten directions ( :stuck_out_tongue: ) as “knowledge” accumulates.

Out of curiosity, why do you go to exhibitions?

I like it when people show me my things in a way I didn’t thought. Or show me things I didn’t notice. Or maybe just surprise me. I go out of curiousity.

And that’s super healthy :+1:

presets = aesthetics
aesthetics ≠ meaning
hence presets ≠ meaning
thus presets ≠ (non)creativity

Sorry even if in the end it happens to align “right”, this kind of reduccionism is serving the master it criticices and its black or white approach does not take into account the context; and everything exists within a context whcih “helps” defining the it (thing). I recommend you to go and watch Lars Von Trier’s last film… The House That Jack Built , it’s of strong content, but I also think you can take it, je je

 
 
 
@s7habo

This is how social imprinting works. There’s a reason we’re trying to “emulate” things - they’re appealing to us individually. Just the selection of what we are trying to emulate is a sign that something has entered our individual “internal” world and we are trying to deal with it.

I’ve been observing and thinking about this matter quite a bit and I keep finding that the current situation’s biggest “problem” at least aesthetically speaking is that the model is global and absolutely instantaneous ( networks). the homogenization is just overwhelming and less variety means poorer languages.

i. e. if I show this video to the old seamen in town, do you think I can explain why this person has 12 million followers and is filthy rich, do you think they’ll grasp the “values" in this video?? … yet I’m pretty sure some of their grandchildren know (have access) and maybe even follow him/her/both/none/all-and-of-the-before

 
 
 
@patdavid

My child sometimes brings me drawings she’s has done to show me. Not out of pretentiousness or arrogance but because she likes it and wants to share it with me. She believes I might like it too. She may tell me why she likes it (whatever the case may be).

This is the same seed for many artists and people who love and get excited by art. They enjoy sharing something they made, or like, with others. They enjoy talking about why they like it with others.

That’s a wonderful approach, from the personal to the general, je je. The need to share… is something so profoundly human… even before all this network craze, we were (read learnt and improved) that way. Dunno where I heard of it first but it is said an artist is just someone with an immense necessity of expressing himself/herself… and in order for that to happen you need to master a language ( a code) to then unlearn it (tweaking it your own way). Picasso, that misogynistic bold genius, reflected about this:

All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.

same but shorter It takes a long time to become young

only creating at a very personal level.

I also think creation is always a very intimate and personal thing. I don’t want it to not be! :slightly_smiling_face:

+1

Now, in my view, we can take the word “creation” and put whatever we want there

only shiting at a very personal level
only making love at a very personal level
only replying to this thread at a very personal level

Just messing with ya. A good old friend of mine (buried now) used to say, probably taken from some transcen-dental record: intimacy with oneself is meditation, intimacy with the world is enlightenment

 
 
 
@ggbutcher

Photography has a particular constraint in the requirement to yank all creative expression through the knothole of the lens. To me, the photographic medium is simply a collection of the ways this is done to produce a rendering. That’s how I think of film and digital, just two different mechanisms. In either, the rendering is “the thing”, the communicative connection between the artist and an audience.

Seems like a good and healthy approach :+1:

When I look at my creative domain in that regard, my main audience is my family, who have expectations very much not rooted in words like ‘gamut’ and ‘tristimulus’. So, my main concern with respect to audience is to make images compelling enough for my daughter to include in her annual calendar. Her need is mainly to have her children and maybe some of the rest of us in the frame, and that their depictions are recognizable. A low bar, no doubt. I do know she appreciates some attention to composition, so that’s where I revel. Otherwise, it’s documentation.

I’ll like to comment on that. In my opinion, this is a missed opportunity her Butcher. Why is a “low bar”?, because you decide it so and why have you decided so? because you’re comparing, splitting. Have you ever tried to do that calendar as if it was for the people / a group / an audience you admire the most, without waiting for the reward/applause? There’s plenty beauty in a potato… we just need to go without eating for some days and then we’ll talk 'bout beauty, je je. P’arriba jefe!!!

 
 
 
@afre

In art class, I was drawing a puffin using pastels {…}

Visualizing it… I had to stop a tear to drop into the keyboard :puffin:tough-love :love_letter:

In my mind, creativity is taking what you have and making it something, and that takes both constraints and decisions.

constraints and decisions

Absofuckinlutelly :+1:

 
 
 
@ChicagoCameraslinger

Before I go into my take, I just want to admit straight up that I did not read every single reply to this thread in entirety and I’m not here to argue the semantics of what one word doesn’t mean or even care to comment on the math equations that this devolved to. I’m coming at this as an artist who supports other artists.

This is why we need more female coleagues!!! Honest (bleak even) and giving context. Isaac (below) also took this mature approach

One of my favorite blogs only shares orange tinted photos…

 
 
 
@aurelienpierre

We can sit here and argue about the definition of creativity or aesthetic until the cows come home, but there is always going to be that one person who takes everything said and does the exact opposite, and still has people who will support them and their vision.

I really hate this kind of hyperbolic relativism. “Everybody can be right at the same time, so let’s agree to disagree and stop arguing”.

Do not hate brother, it produces too much heat… but I do agree it doesn’t help

But you Americans have an ontological problem with arguing, as if it was some declaration of war, and a deep fear of looking judgmental, as if it was enough to send you to hell. It’s merely sport for the brain.

America is very big … then … :stuck_out_tongue:

 
 
 
@ChicagoCameraslinger

Creativity with no matter or no medium is only ideas.

This is true. But instead of trashing people for what their creative idea is and stopping them from even reaching the pen and paper stage, maybe encourage people to talk about why they want to execute the idea they have. If you think it could be improved, maybe encourage them to consider alternate ideas instead of telling them that their ideas are wrong.

I could not agree more

That is discussion highjacking, the joker card, it’s annoying, it’s basically saying “I want to express my opinion but don’t wish to be contradicted”. So, I’m sorry, but stats are stats, and 90 % are more than a majority, so I’m going to generalize because I have no time to account for every anecdotal weirdo that doesn’t fit the description between Canada and Mexico. It’s not even generalizing, it’s finding links between people. Like it or not, you play that card far more than every other nationality I have to deal wit

 
 
@aurelienpierre
////////////////////////
This is my opinion and my opinion only but it would do you and probably all of us good if you turned that incredibly powerful critical eye of yours to your own actions; ‘cause you engaged in Bri’s “post” (nurturing from ur own reaction to it) for as long as you felt like it, just to then point the finger and call it witch!!! Bad boy

I figure (based on what I read, and read plenty and also on what you’ve achieved in such short time - dt modules ) you’re a brilliant man that has a lot of interesting and fresh ideas to bring to the exchange party… but your attitude of messiah of truth is soul hurting arrogant, despicable really… and that’s a pity… because undermines all the light you cast… but at least no-naked king hey?! My father, that was the most radical politic oriented activist (once he managed to put + 100.000 factory workers in strike - may 68) I ever known, used to say “Lo cortés no quita lo valiente” ~ courtesy detracts not from bravery
////////////////////////
 
 
 
@nosle

All art is using aesthetics to create meaning. All you are doing above is declaring your taste. Taste is equal to your description of pretentious man in gallery. Its an outward performance of identity. This is not a “bad” thing but its often boring unless the projected identity is interesting. Judging from your comments you are on one rung up on the ladder of understanding art. The rung where its easy to snear at the work of people just one rung “down”. Tasteful display of middle class values are amongst the least appreciated expressions in the art world. Art (proper) is defined by the art world in a process and it is rightly more interested in the over saturated landscapes than middle class beauty.

Hummm… // now, in a second reading, I’m confused with the paragraph, but my first reaction was to write the following => museums, galleries and the art world in general “taste” has a lot of hidden agenda ( and surely economic motivations)… a bit like politics… lets not forget aesthetics is a very powerful thing… of course there is truth and light but there is a lot of sub-serving manipulation; we just need to go through history and it’s all over the place, art, religion, politics… history itself, all hand in hand.

Pit stop => Andrey Rublev

This doesn’t invalidate a search for images that speak real.

that’s pristine food for the brain :+1:

 
 
 
@Isaac

why humans are human.

not much to look at: some sctratches on a piece of ochre.

I bet was a @joan_rake grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrangranddgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand dad that did that :stuck_out_tongue: with and ancient gmic script :scroll: :hammer_and_pick:

the knowledge and cognitive ability to create and abstract representation of something one experienced or thought, and pass that on to others.

{…}

And numerous other creative decisions. In the end our specific choices will determine much of what our audience will see. We will derive some pleasure from sharing this with them, and it is enjoyable to witness what they make of the scene we crafted.

Yes, very important concept IMO, audience .

Will they feel the same as we did when we created it? Or will they come up with a new and interesting interpretations.

I believe both though never the “same”. Things will “grow” into a kind of strange ecosystem, in one hand there is the “relation” with the audience, with fellow artists (the community), which hold “our true values”; on the other hand, there’s the side from people that make a living out of it, and so interpretations will arise, niches will be created… most of the time out of the need for explanation, to pre-digest it into a rational ( with or without academic patine) discourse for the “masses”. What I mean is that I believe the explanation and other derivative discourses and more subjective theories may help give a context but the ability to “appreciate” (understand in its deepest form) art is within any and all individuals themselves… then there’s the tautologic side and all kind of byproducts for an elite… but that is far less interesting; for REF the latest Bansky scandal and how what was supposed to be a protest gest turned 180 and was not only not “criminalised” as the value of the damaged good increased exponentially… well, ironic ??, they went as far as inventing a new artistic term for it… sorry but that’s is the capitalistic organizm in its (each day less conceived) phagocyted bullshit, one that can integrate and digest, anything and everything… also shown are all powers interwoven in order to favour the elites… but I digress like a horny dog

Ultimately, it is this sharing of our creation that lets us get to the heart of the human experience. Yes, there is a lot of scientific knowledge involved in creation, even going way back to that scratched piece of ochre (one needed to know what ochre was, and what it’s physical properties were), but in the end, it is the experience of creating, sharing, and learning in return that marks us, not the technology, the medium, or the physicality of it.

As I wrote here at pixls before, sujfi say “not men, neither the tools but the work”. For so many reasons loved your post, thank you; I can tell you are a good and loving man… a bit like Lazzaro (but less stonny :P)

Cheers

 
PS
BTW Bansky has a superb well worth watching docu called Exit Through the Gift Shop that touches some of the discoussed points in this thread


(Boris Hajdukovic) #47

Yes! This is an interesting phenomenon (paradox) of the present time. The permanent availability and overwhelming flood of information that modern technology brings with it requires an continuous reaction and thus a reduction in complexity that leads to the impoverishment and trivialization of language.

It reminds me of a quote from Mitchell Kapor, Lotus developer from the first days of WWW:

Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.” :rofl:


(Isaac Ullah) #48

@chroma_ghost It is a very interesting point to bring up that latest Banksy event. There is a deal made, I think, once we started to commodify that relationship between creator and audience (and yes, audience is indeed part of the decision process) . On the one hand, you can see how audiences will greatly value creations by individuals who seem gifted in some way at creation. The things they are able to feel when experiencing exquisite creation are valuable to them. It speaks to another part of our human nature, then, when certain individuals began to use their – at first – social capital to gain exclusive rights to such creations, and then their physical capital (aka. “money”) to do the same thing. At these points, the exclusivity of fine creations became tokens of social power, moreso than simply pieces of art. When did that milestone occur? Most archaeologists suggest some time in the later Neolithic (~8000 years ago in places like the Near East, India, and China, later elsewhere), at the same time that other rights were being negotiated (land tenureship, ownership of houses, ownership of private property).


(Gord) #49

Circling waaaaay back to the original post on this thread…it certainly caused a lot of people to do some thinking…

Let’s pull in a dictionary definition of creativity. This is Oxford’s:
“The use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness.”
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/creativity)

I’d submit that the creativity (or lack of it) involved in producing an image is quite separate from the technology used to create it. The physical skills and techniques involved are obviously quite different between film and digital, but they are just different methods of arriving at the result that the artist imagines. Certainly, doing things such as dodging or burning require manual dexterity that digital does not require, but that’s a matter of technique, not creativity.

Actually, the creative aspect of photography should be split into two parts: capturing and post-processing. A photographer can come up with imaginative and original ideas for a shot, and then do no post processing. Or he/she can make a run of the mill image and then come up with something very unique in post processing.

If one pulls a photo into Instagram and applies one of their filters, one has exercised approximately zero creativity. Similarly, if one opens a photo in one of our favorite FOSS image editors and applies a preset created by someone else, they’ve exercised virtually no creativity. Either of these acts is not much more original than taking a roll of film out of a camera and dropping it off at a shop to be developed.

It’s also possible to have situations where the creativity should be attributed to someone other than the person performing the act. Consider a gymnast that does a routine to perfection that is choreographed by the coach. The gymnast performed it, but the creativity should be attributed to the coach. Or a band that plays faithful covers of other bands’ works. And so on…in that sense, the creator of a preset was the creative one, not the user of the preset.

On the other hand, if someone uses a preset as a short cut to get past some repetitive steps, and then does their own unique processing, then it’s more than possible for them to be quite creative.

I think @aurelienpierre separates equipment and techniques from creativity well…

Finally, a little something for everyone to mull over: many tutorial articles, books, etc., talk about using your composition to “tell a story”. This could be taken as an exhortation to get out there and be creative. But then most such articles and books go on to prescribe a set of composition rules (rule of thirds, leading lines, and so on…) that mark good composition. So, if you go out and slavishly follow these rules, are you truly ever being creative? Or are you only creative if you find a pleasing way to break all the rules?


(Glenn Butcher) #50

Either way. :smile:


#51

Could not agree moiré :grinning:

 
 
 
I take a thread line and start knitting scarfs and 3 finger socks… but we can un-knitt and do something completely different, a fin de cuentas / at the end these are just opinions, messy, filthy, piggy-opinions

@s7habo

The permanent availability and overwhelming flood of information that modern technology brings with it requires an continuous reaction and thus a reduction in complexity that leads to the impoverishment and trivialization of language.

in an apparently inofensive paragraph you juiced a nuclear blast :exploding_head: lets dissect and comment on your wonderful wording…

The permanent availability

I believe that both, the above and the below do not correspond to our primary needs, they’re creations, synthesised for exploration and ever so gradually instilled into our habits, as a “free upgrade” in the run to 2.0 human

overwhelming flood of information

Technology used to be a tool that helped us achieve some things, these days more often than not I feel being used by the technology in the sense of the spot I’m put at, what was I wanted to do? The counterpart of having access to an endless source of knowledge and specialists of all kinds is the overcomplicating of things, the multi-specialization in little tasks, as I just told afre, becoming “our own mechanic”, using meta-tools, obfuscating deeper breathing with a craze for immediacy. As you pointed out requiring a continuous reaction - that’s the stuff my thai neightmares are made off: continuous reaction , an atention-insatiable engaging that IMO deviate us from a path that would at least give us a real possibility of true belonging, of being together, connected between us (humans) and to other living beings (the child that believes the chickens come from the supermarket), joyfull, present, aware (welll that’s a bit of wishfull thinking actually), and a chance of saving this spaceship that is going to shit… seems this is a darker path I’m walking through now, like someone said we are the product and men the wolf of men

3 things came to mind

  • these guys some time ago died around here, they were hicking and found some plants, they “consulted” with google to see if they were eatable; result they died, poisoned
  • yet at the same time and not dissimilar of the many animal species that disappear every single day, there’s a incredibly vast ocean of knowledge (the practical kind of our venerable “ancianos”) that’s also being lost. And it is not 'cause there are no means of keeping a record of it but because other than anecdotical hypters-neo-revivalism look how cool and knowledgeable I am there is not real (global) economicly appealing / profitable demand, nobody is searching google from whom can I learn which wild plants can I eat around my house – if you have the chance watch the film I mentioned above Lazzaro Felicce, aligned with the best Pasolini of the begginings ( Uccellacci e uccellini, Il vangelo secondo Matteo) with its naiveté, allegoric surrealism but also critique – yet there are a lot, I collect loads of wild plants like chards or nettles that people say are shit, for chickens only and then they pay very high prices for same in the supermarket
  • which brings me to this so-so doc I saw the other day about the Penam people of Borneo, the ones that have poisonous darts (well in the Amazon there are also a few tribes); they have plus 1500 names for plants they used to use everyday -as the primal jungle where they lived their habits are almost extinct - 1500 words for plants!! That’s more words than some folk will use in their entire life

So once divided an constantly and mercilessly multi-engaged (the ring ring, the lights, the banner and the subtle and no so subtle vibration, the little red dot and yellow stripe, the like and slide, the blue ribbon and the call within the call through skype but better whatsup, people looking down, people unholstering, people turning the pancake-phone the other way around, wait, it’s no doubt very important, ah! an email at the same time asking for confirmation to sync the todos in all the devices so that they can sing the latest acapella song of an eight bit 80’s game and what was you were saying, ah yeah grandpas’ having a stroke, wait a sec, I’ve got a rogue emoji and to charge for the third time my 2nd smartcone) the answer would be, not sure if not reducced in complexity at least less connected to our core

impoverishment and trivialization of language

those are such strong scary words when together, aren’t day? The very thing (other than the greymatter expanderum mucho-mago mushrooms) that helped us express ourselves, our fears, our hopes and dreams, that helped theorisize about our surrounding, about our own (intrinsic) nature: language

 
 

@Isaac

It is a very interesting point to bring up that latest Banksy event. There is a deal made, I think, once we started to commodify that relationship between creator and audience (and yes, audience is indeed part of the decision process) . On the one hand, you can see how audiences will greatly value creations by individuals who seem gifted in some way at creation. The things they are able to feel when experiencing exquisite creation are valuable to them. It speaks to another part of our human nature, then, when certain individuals began to use their – at first – social capital to gain exclusive rights to such creations, and then their physical capital (aka. “money”) to do the same thing. At these points, the exclusivity of fine creations became tokens of social power, moreso than simply pieces of art. When did that milestone occur? Most archaeologists suggest some time in the later Neolithic (~8000 years ago in places like the Near East, India, and China, later elsewhere), at the same time that other rights were being negotiated (land tenureship, ownership of houses, ownership of private property).

It happened at the same time?!! That speaks of the value and power of art. So very interesting… and concise!!

And at that time were there patrons, art merchants, gallerists? How did the artist sell their stuff?

 

The things they are able to feel when experiencing exquisite creation are valuable to them

:+1:

Make a name of say… Damien Hirst, that’s what Sacchi did ( and his cow cut in slices) and then his pieces’ worth sky rockets, ( a shark cut in slices will steadily follow 'cause everybody knows the artists work in series {kind of true though}) … no matter of their “true” (socio-political) relevance, no matter of the perceivable qualities of his work, or if it’s usefulness or reaching capabilities, its true intent… then he’ll put a thousand diamonds in a skull and say it’s this and that, a metaphor for this and for whatnot and it would sell for the price of making a new hospital, and because it is fucking expensive most people would rest assured it’s (“good") art. That’s why Bansky lastest “flop” it’s so important, 'cause he managed (willingly or not… I bet it’s the former) to expose the inner workings of this head of the many-heads-monster; and people are watching so the question is do they care? … we need more Marlon Brandos, more Eva Marie Saints and more Karl Maldens priests with his potatoe noses.

A bit unrelated to creativity and more related to the actual context, well russian specific but many things can be extrapolated, if you have the opportunity watch the collosal Leviathan from Andrey Zvyagintsev, one amazing artrist, he and Ceylan, everything they do it’s worthy. The things that film tells (exposes) without even pointing a finger.

=
Chichi-ears


#52

I would add no reaction (burnt out from continuous reaction) and spontaneous combustion (insane from continuous reaction). This not only trivializes language but also everything else. Not only that but we become reductionist and dismissive of the things we think we understand due to our hubris. The true irony of our times: being given much but lacking in just as much. It is no wonder we treat creativity as just another commodity (commonplace, bland) or worship it as if it were God (unattainable, unique). God isn’t the only one who can be creative: it wasn’t like that to begin with.


(Isaac Ullah) #53

Just saw an interview with him on CBS Sunday Morning. He doesn’t even make his own art anymore! Seriously, he has a studio full of underlings who do everything “to his specification”. Still his works sell for millions.

I guess thats not too far off from how the Renaissance masters worked, lol!


#54

That’s the evil in banalization… making people believe that to be an artist is just to take a photo, to develop it and that’s it, buy this X brand and become the master of light (how preposterous and ridiculous) they give us the tools and they want us to believe it is easy, but the mettier, the sacrifice, the passion, the discipline that it’s needed to develop and keep the intimacy (motor of the art vehicle) that they do not taught, it is not profitable.
Then the youngsters and not so young go to youtube to copy everything they can and think that will be enough, ja ja ja. We live an era were mediocre copy-cats with cheap tricks reign under a thick thick crust of sweet bullshit ( check Carlile the humorist).

For me what you call “creativity” is an outward->inward->outward (I know you like arrows) loop of relation and relating to … anything, everything inchalah; it’s as sacred and joyful and interactive and profound and light and deep and destructive and constructive and nonsensical and overflown with meaning and researched upon and freeing intuitive thunder thought that wet my pants an act of pure intimacy; but a bit like a low-fi Beauys deeped in oriental cousine, I mean philosophy and sprinkled with leftist chicken bones I always defended that art, an artist encompasses everything, it is not a job; well it is but you cannot take out the working coat and go about your life… I know a zagillion artists and none is like that, it is just not possible, if for nothing else because from a poet to a painter, a musician to a dancer an artist is his/her own filter and has to filter everything.

I make holydays from my feelings Pessoa wrote
Ones art consumes oneself Zatoichi famously said

God isn’t the only one who can be creative: it wasn’t like that to begin with.

If you can put your hands around a copy of (the above mentioned) Jimmie’s book you’ll understand where I’m coming from, Between a Rock and a Hard Place is also very good.

 

 

@Isaac

Just saw an interview with him on CBS Sunday Morning. He doesn’t even make his own art anymore ! Seriously, he has a studio full of underlings who do everything “to his specification”. Still his works sell for millions.

A money-making factory, sadly

I guess thats not too far off from how the Renaissance masters worked, lol!

hummm… don’t know about you but I’m not sure they’re completely the same; I’m gonna meditate on that
=)


#55

:thinking: Might just be forgetful: is the characterization of the renaissance found in this thread accurate? Or do we need to profile and / or calibrate? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes::see_no_evil: Some quality sources would be a good start.


(Alan Gibson) #56

I agree with most of the OP, but not that part, because:

(a) I don’t think absolute creativity exists. We build on what we have seen before.

(b) I think painting is more creative than photography, because the painter isn’t limited by what is in front of her. I can’t see how any photography with a camera can be absolute creativity. (So I exclude Man Ray’s Rayograms etc.)

(Note: I’m not denying Adams’s creativity, which he combined with vision and technical mastery.)

Film versus digital? For me, in colour, digital provides more creative freedoms than film ever did, because I never mastered the colour film darkroom. But I was more creative (and more satisfied by my creations) with B&W film than I have been with digital colour. One day, I’ll try B&W digital, but I’m almost afraid to.

Personal foibles aside, is digital or film the most creative medium? Which offers the most creative possibilities? I think digital wins that prize.


#57

Digital certainly provides the freedom to iterate due to its accessibility and ability to undo, redo, distort and emulate. Iteration allows one to hone skill, technique, pursue ideas and contemplate creativity.

That is what digital does. It allows one to build on past work easily and effortlessly, compared to our analogue past. There are still challenges but digital photography has come a long way. :seedling:


(nosle) #58

Historical art is often only about building on the tradition. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it was less creative. The avant garde idea is basically modernist if I remember correctly.

Now there are some topics I have first hand knowledge about! Hirst has a proper purpose built factory with lots of employee’s. Many contemporary artists have people who execute their work for them. Think of say Richard Serra, he’s not handling those huge bits of steel by himself.

I’m not a huge fan of Hirst but have met him a few times through work. If nothing else he’s very serious about art, I’ve only discussed other peoples art with him, he owns shitloads of other peoples ar and is very passionate about it. I like him for brazenly undermining the gallery system by selling his own stuff in bulk (the Sotheby thing) thus forcing galleries to purchase his work to prevent the value of their collections from falling. Its just funny to see these manipulative galleries scrambling to maintain their rigged system. Speaking of creativity.

I found him a nice guy actually despite his reputation. His staff at science did seem a bit afraid of him however.

I think its a mistake to mix up freedom from constraints with creativity. Suggesting that photography is less creative than photography for instance.


#59

I don’t doubt it @nosle; it was never a personal thing; I bet C. Ronaldo is also a very nice guy… I mentioned Hirst as a symbol to try and complement what @isaac was talking about with a modern “case study”, the conversation then derived; re-quoting him:

There is a deal made, I think, once we started to commodify that relationship between creator and audience (and yes, audience is indeed part of the decision process) . On the one hand, you can see how audiences will greatly value creations by individuals who seem gifted in some way at creation. The things they are able to feel when experiencing exquisite creation are valuable to them. It speaks to another part of our human nature, then, when certain individuals began to use their – at first – social capital to gain exclusive rights to such creations, and then their physical capital (aka. “money”) to do the same thing. At these points, the exclusivity of fine creations became tokens of social power, moreso than simply pieces of art.

Now there are some topics I have first hand knowledge about!

Would love to hear more personal stories :slight_smile: and also your take

I think its a mistake to mix up freedom from constraints with creativity. Suggesting that photography is less creative than photography for instance.

+1


(nosle) #60

Your timing in impeccable. Swedish tv just made the film available online (free). I’ve been wanting to see it for years!

Haha I just mentioned it as it surprised me at the time. I was the youngest and least important person in the room at these meetings but he remembered names and just seemed genuinely interested and non pretentious. Imagine the shock!

The contemporary art gallery world cater to a hyper extreme version of @Isaac’s social power token hunters. But it seems it’s not cynical, many hyper rich really believe in art but I can’t help feeling it’s a bit desperate or compensatory. The artist genius myth and and some sort of purity ideal where artists become a channel to ‘real’ things. Same goes for much normal art appreciation, it’s hard to separate learned status seeking from genuine interest. I’m pretty sure it’s most often a unholy fusion, I don’t mind unholy fusions that much.

I’m one who laments the separation of art and life but also work and life. I find institutions such as museums and galleries problematic in how they help create a distance and the potential for the myths mentioned above. I still love going to museums and galleries as it’s the only way of accessing the work.

@isaac do you know if skilled artist/craftsmen were worshiped (broad meaning, think celebrity) in earlier cultures?


(Gord) #61

Exactly what I was hoping would be the reaction! :smiley:
There’s lots of room for creativity even if you color (mostly) within those lines.