Getting to the Core of Creativity

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 5)

So in the end the question is either about life or the opposite of life. Are we going to live the life we are given, or ignore it, reject it, deny it? We have this sovereign choice: what are we going to do with the life God gives us? What? Inside the kernel we can see the spark. But that is it. We can only see the spark. Life itself. We can not wrestle down why, or why us, or why should I, or why now? We can not know those things. We can only know the spark.

Life exists. We exist. We were born. We are born. We have life. We didn’t ask for this gift. We were given it. We don’t have the option in the beginning to exist or not. It is given to us regardless. From the beginning why questions echo into the void. The void is our existence. We are not given perspective beyond it. It is all there is. All we see. All the other intersections of life we are not given privy to. Just our own. Existence. What are we gonna do? Exist? Live. Or not live? Our choice. We are never without this choice. Sometimes it will feel as though we have no power to navigate against life’s forces pulling us away from our life. Don’t believe this. It is not true. We do. We alone are given the responsibility and authority.

We have the authority for our lives. No one else. No matter how subjected we are to others financially, through work, etc, we are still given the freedom to choose. Live, or don’t live? Fight, or don’t fight? Become, or don’t become? While we can not exactly choose who we are (that is a gift we discover), we can choose how we are. We are given sovereignty to love back. We can not choose to be loved, but we are always free to choose who we love back or to receive that love.

Will we accept life’s gifts? Or not. Will we fight through the alien voices deterring our attention? Will we be resolute to hear one voice, to listen to the one inside us that cares, that loves, that creates? The choice, predictably, is ours. So despite us, or in spite of our doubts, insecurities, and fears, the great invitation to participate in redeeming life is ours. It’s always there. Outside and within us. The objectivity of the call can make us feel unworthy or unnecessary to it. Its objectivity is combined with an extremely intimate subjectivity, a language known only to us. It reminds us that while the call is universal, our particular role is needed and cherished. We are not replaceable. We are part of the plan.

So we have the universal and the particular, the objective and the subjective, the inevitability and the hinge moments, the already and the not yet. Life will go on without us, but it does not want to; still it will not wait for us on our terms. It will keep moving. Are we in? Are we willing to participate? Are we open to the flowing water being poured inside us? Drink. We actually individually drink and taste the water. We get to experience the gift before it flows out. Wow! What a ride.

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 4)

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 4)

There is no way to quantify the desires of our heart. We all have them. They are embedded deep within us. No matter how we explain or understand them we do not create them. They are inside us long before we realize their presence. So why do we long so vaguely? Why do we beat at the air so long to identify their name and purpose? Why are we so powerless to either create or name them? Simply, it takes time. It takes a long time to understand those native desires.

They have their own agenda. That’s the beauty of realizing we did not put them in there. They have their own life, though uniquely and specifically they were put into us. “Why us” is an obtuse question we can not know before their fulfillment. But, it is a necessary question. We have been uniquely identified to carry certain attributes of goodness. We are responsible for care-taking them and helping see them into fruition. We are their mother, we are not their father.

So if we did not put them in there then we can not totally know how to get them out. They have a certain sovereignty of existence. Like a woman who finds herself 8-mos pregnant there is an inevitability about the whole thing. This “thing” is coming out. That’s the bottom line. This thing that has been growing in my belly for 9 months is ready to make its way into the world. Now, it is completely dependent when it first comes out and can be shaped in many ways. But, there is an ultimate sense of identity about the thing. It has its own agenda. No matter how we try to coerce it, its form and ultimate functions are written deep within it. It must find those deep chords or it will be painfully restless. Upon finding those things there is that same sense of inevitability on how it was founded. There is that same certainty of sovereign will and destiny. The way it started will be the way it discovers who or what it is. It will make a way for itself.

That is the beauty of great art. It finds a way. Eventually, though it may not be in the artist’s lifetime. Are there cases where great art (and artists) that have been fundamentally compromised and completely neglected? Possibly, but I suppose we wouldn’t know, who we? And we can assume that if there is the true spark of greatness in some piece then one way or another it will eventually make its way to the public. If it indeed has the “magic.”

Greatness goes beyond mere excellence of skill and talent. There have been many forgettable talented artists. Having the skill does not make something great. Being great has to do with the timing, subject, and essence of what was captured. Certainly what pieces make the “great” category can be debated by smarter people, the point here is that something inherit to or even in the work draws attention to itself. It is discovered because of its inherent magic, its ability to stun us into wonder.

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 2)

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 2)

So, we’ve established that in order for art to experience its own destiny it must in some way be experienced by others. Over the centuries artists have been revered, celebrated, jeered, abused, thrown before kings with only one chance. One thinks of David, the young harp player, sought by the first king of Israel Saul. Saul’s increasing paranoia (a trait very persistent with leaders) led him to require music therapy. After being rejected as Israel’s king Saul was tormented by a spirit. One of his servants suggested someone play the lyre for him during these spells. Ironically he summoned David, the already secretly anointed next king. David played and eased Saul’s suffering. His torment was relieved through music.

This is a great ancient example of both the power of music and its unique connection with the service of kings and leaders. For centuries the artists worked for the kings. Some of the greatest art in history was commissioned by kings. So creativity had, in these instances, a definitive goal and end. Even that, for some with a rather bohemian approach to art, would be supplanting the creative core. Now of course within the basic goal the artist had complete freedom.

The Pope did not micro-manage Michelangelo as he painstakingly worked on the Sistine Chapel. He gave him the basic job and let him do what he did best. Having an end was neither necessarily convoluting nor creatively hampering. In fact, some of the most talented artists in the world lack drive, or at least lack focus when it comes to producing works. Some would like the challenge of being commissioned to certain tasks. Some would appreciate the structure. Some would inevitably feel like a production line, fast-fooding their processes in order to keep up with demands. For them it would be an aberration of intent, but only because pressure works differently for different people. Some thrive, some wither.

How does an artist find challenge outside of himself? Does he need it? OR is art on its own terms challenging enough? Or have artists simply thought too much of themselves and their “process” to mistake how quite simple it is to produce? One suspicion is that art actually is very similar to many other creative pursuits. It does not need isolation and some sort of divine inspiration. It requires regular feeding, a regiment of ongoing feedback, and some commitment to to produce.

If we were, for example, to get serious about patronizing the arts, how would we structure our support? In other words, would it be cart blanc, “go ahead and do whatever you want when you feel inspired and we’ll bankroll the process? OR, would it build in some sort of schedule of production and process? Would there be an obvious assumption that at the end projects will get completed and they will be to a certain level of excellence? Of course. We can expect more of artists!

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 1)

There are many theories about how to “open up” creativity. Many assume a sort of boundless freedom and experimentation will lead to the “truest” sort of creative expression. In this view unfettered freedom from constraint is key.

Another view or perspective of how to employ creativity has more to do with discipline and living within creative constraints. It means having a definitive end in mind (“I want to make...with...to say...”), and sticking with that goal throughout.

A third view is a hybrid of the two: it assumes the creative part (or the genesis) of creativity requires a sense of boundlessness whereas the editing stage needs great restraint and discipline (and often the council of “outside” perspective).

Someone once said the first draft with the heart, the second with the head. There is sort of a creative tension necessary between the two. And certain artists are better at one than the other. To make great lasting art both are completely necessary!

Inevitably at some point in the process we get to the critical juncture where we have to start defining the work. What is it? How will it/should it be marketed? Who will be interested in this project? Is this project ready for public release and consumption?

This stage and these sorts of questions can derail a great many artists. The thought of putting my art “in a box” is insulting, genuinely frustrating, and demeaning. OR...it is fun, self-discovering, and inspiring. The choice is ours.

Describing something is not necessarily prescribing it. That’s the key. We are not coercing or forcing the project down a certain path. It already went down a certain path. We are simply trying to understand what path it went down and why.

More than “why” even, we ask “who.” Who is this for? Who needs this particular thing right now? Of course we can not totally know these things, but we can use some basic systems to help us discover them. It’s important we ask these questions at right time.

Ultimately art is not necessary if it is not experienced by human beings. As obvious as it is that fact often gets missed. Music must be heard, art must be seen, books must be read. There is no other way for art to get into the human psyche than be experienced.

So then the latent power of art is only realized when shared. Of course there is the worthwhileness of the art for the artist outside of and in spite of its cultural celebration. There is an innate benefit to the artist that must be accounted for.

So the artist does run a risk taking art from private to public. What was internally satisfying and helpful in the completion of a piece for personal benefit and gain may be lost in an attempt to take that same piece into the public realm.

This is a huge decision, and essential to the question of art’s purpose. Can there be necessarily good art that is never experienced by others? Yes. Can art fulfill its destiny (as a unique creation) without being experienced by others? No!