Boris, these sort of replies, such as the one you give below, often sound pithy but almost never get to the real issue. In this case the issue is the identity of individual creativity. Unfortunately, we don't have a universal general definition to begin with. Yet individuals may claim to be creative without seeking affirmation or proof. A good example would be the claim to have invented a new process or tool. But no one can be sure until it's been tested and examined against other things of the same sort. In America, The U.S. Patent Office is an ultimate authority for such cases. In art and other performative areas that depend almost entirely on expert debate, evaluations, marketplace conditions, and other unstable and thus almost impossible-to-measure attributes and as you know, much discussion both legalistic and philosophical centers on the broad area of "intellectual property" of which "creativity" would be a sub-topic. In an extreme view, one might argue that every conscious act is a creative act since it involves a choice and where there is choice there is the fundamental requirement of creativity. In fact, there might even be subconscious acts that are creative in the same way but involve masked choice. That is the realm of psychoanalysis, to expose the masked or repressed choices to daylight to make them truly subject to conscious choice. But mostly the tradition is to distinguish between routine and habitual acts, solutions, questions, options, etc., and that which is not only unique in some crucial way or urges us to consider things in a new light. And that takes some consensus, at least one other person than the "creator".
I think creativity is a wonderful topic. But to meaningfully engage it we need to get past blustering assertions of "individuality" as trumping any inquiry. So far, I think the most productive view is that creativity is a social construct, measured against what seems to be the case, by unstable consensus involving more than one person even though it may be claimed, rightly or wrongly, by one person. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 2:23:17 PM Subject: Re: "Delbanco is primarily engaged in discovering how creativity con tinues into old age." There are institutions and then, there are institutions And yet there more institutions,then there are creative individuals. ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 8:19:37 AM Subject: Re: "Delbanco is primarily engaged in discovering how creativity con tinues into old age." " Being creative is not so much an attribute of individuality as it is an approbation of society. No one is creative until someone else, an institutional authority or consensus, says so". WC Existence of cars, computers, Museums, architectural structures or great novels does not need authority or consensus to say anything. Edison, Einstein and Tolstoy tell them to shut up and follow. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Delbanco is primarily engaged in discovering how creativity continues into old age." Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:02:52 -0800 (PST) Delbanco's argument, like many others on the same theme, is largely anecdotal and clearly tautological. He finds accomplished, still "creative". old artists, and claims them as affirmative proof of his thesis. Does he mention the legions of artists who do not remain creative (and by what and whose standards?) in old age? Anyway, the whole issue is bogus and of value simply and only as romantic musing. Being creative is not so much an attribute of individuality as it is an approbation of society. No one is creative until someone else, an institutional authority or consensus, says so. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 11:00:01 PM Subject: "Delbanco is primarily engaged in discovering how creativity continues into old age." (Review of new book): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR20110225030 40.html
