Emulation

[Trevor]

@anon

Yes, you aren’t creative unless it is possible for others to recognize your creativity. What else could creativity be?

Forgive me for jumping in at a random point in this thread but I’m bored shitless. Anyway, wouldn’t those “others” be merely recognizing a standard and not necessarily the “creativity.” For instance, it’s said that certain people are “ahead of their time” meaning their creativity (or products of) isn’t officially recognised in the present but maybe at a later date. So, it would seem wrong to claim someone isn’t creative simply because you fail to recognise their creativity.

[fuse]

@anon

@fuse

@anon

What I mean is this: you don’t think mosquitoes are creative, just because they “produced” something in you.

And I never said that. I said that even if I don’t understand what was going on with an artist, a painter, their work can still be meaningful or useful to me. It was a poor analogy on your part to compare the ideas and feelings one gets from an intriguing painting to those one gets from a mosquito. Mosquitoes do produce ideas and feeling in me, but I do not find them intriguing or useful.

You might though. And it would be a creative act on your part if you did. You might find it a poor analogy, but it serves my purpose.

Sorry? You lost me. What would be a creative act on my part? And what is your purpose?

@anon

I am not talking about theories or ideas that are accidental. In my hypothetical, the physicists are wrong in their assumptions of how the world works and you can justify your alternative ideas that you have thought about and tested. However, for whatever reason, physicists won’t listen to you or can’t understand you or aren’t willing to give up their current interpretations. In the future, they will come to accept your ideas. So again, in such a scenario (can you really not think of similar real-life examples?), were you not creative until people recognized you as creative?

Then you’re talking about theories that relate to a context that is understood by multiple beings.

Why would it have to be understood by multiple beings?

@anon

Yes, you aren’t creative unless it is possible for others to recognize your creativity. What else could creativity be?

Interesting. So if more people recognize person X as creative versus person Y, person X is automatically more creative than Y – no matter what it is they have done? So whatever’s popular is creative?
Also, see trevor’s post.

[anon]

@trevor

@anon

Yes, you aren’t creative unless it is possible for others to recognize your creativity. What else could creativity be?

Forgive me for jumping in at a random point in this thread but I’m bored shitless. Anyway, wouldn’t those “others” be merely recognizing a standard and not necessarily the “creativity.” For instance, it’s said that certain people are “ahead of their time” meaning their creativity (or products of) isn’t officially recognised in the present but maybe at a later date. So, it would seem wrong to claim someone isn’t creative simply because you fail to recognise their creativity.

No problem, Trevor. Jumping in is what forums are for. Yes, it would be wrong to claim someone isn’t creative simply because you failed to recognize their creativity. My point, though, is that it must be possible for creativity to be recognized. What is creativity and how is it recognized? Can there be creativity that doesn’t depend on knowledge of context and convention? Can there be creativity where there is only relationship to context and convention? Consider the notion that “accident is the mother of invention”. Is it the accident itself that is the creative act? Or is it the ability to see the worth of the accident and utilize it to advantage?

Fuse, see this answer to Trevor. To me, it essentially makes my point to you again.

[Arcturus_Descending]

anon wrote…

Creativity can’t occur without training. More precisely, creativity can’t occur without first to some degree making others’ paths/visions one’s own.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, anon. Creativity is part of flow, isn’t it? One is born being creative, having a particular talent.
Creativity is part of a natural energy…like the Sun’s which affects the planets and our own environment. Does the Sun need training in giving off energy/heat?
What we can do is practice ways in which to harness and hone that creativity. But creativity STILL occurs without training.

More precisely, creativity can’t occur without first to some degree making others’ paths/visions one’s own.

So we do not have our own inner voice which speaks to us and defines the way in which our creativity will come to life? Is this what you are saying, anon?

[anon]

@arcturus rising

anon wrote…

Creativity can’t occur without training. More precisely, creativity can’t occur without first to some degree making others’ paths/visions one’s own.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, anon. Creativity is part of flow, isn’t it? One is born being creative, having a particular talent.

I was taught the same thing back in Sunday School, but I think the notion is unsupportable in the absence of a belief in God.

Creativity is part of a natural energy…like the Sun’s which affects the planets and our own environment. Does the Sun need training in giving off energy/heat?
What we can do is practice ways in which to harness and hone that creativity. But creativity STILL occurs without training.

I think you’re confusing the capacity for creativity with creativity itself.

More precisely, creativity can’t occur without first to some degree making others’ paths/visions one’s own.

So we do not have our own inner voice which speaks to us and defines the way in which our creativity will come to life? Is this what you are saying, anon?

I don’t think there is any inherently inner voice. Your inner voice is born from, and shaped by, other voices. It is not some kind of pure creativity. It is not your direct line from God.