Well then, why didn't you simply answer the question yourself? However, I think a distinction must be made between creative and art. The two terms are not synonymous. The term "creative" refers to a state of action, a cognitive and expressive activity; the term "art" refers to some state of being, generally. Nowadays, most serious thinking on creativity is centered on the cognitive and neurological patterns that seem to denote "outside the box" thinking but in real world contexts, the creative action needs approbation -- some consensus by "experts". Of course there are no firm agreements among various groups of so-called experts as to what exhibits or evokes creativity. The jury is out. With respect to the term "art " there does seem to be general agreement that it only exists as a proposition, or by some consensus, and not in fact but it could also exist as a proclamation by an artist or by anyone at all: "It's art if I say so". Yet some proclamations or agreements become historical facts and that lends the illusion of ontological reality to artifacts called artworks, as in saying The School of Athens by Raphael is a work of art.
In a more subjective way the problem is exacerbated by the practice of artists who "finish" making something because they believe they have achieved the creation of a work of art. Did Raphael stop his work on the School of athens when he considered it finished as a work of art? What artist would "finish" a work while thinking it's not yet art -- even though that's exactly what happens every time! Some degree of self-deception is involved in claiming creativity and art , not only on the part of the artist who "finishes" an artwork but also on the part of an observer who suddenly declares it a work of art. However, I suppose we need to distinguish between an "artwork" and "work of art" Anything at all can be an "artwork". But a "work of art" cannot be anything at all. The work of art must have that consensus, presumably a consensus that accumulates and survives varied interrogations by institutional "experts". Further, a work of art might -- might -- be something that has not only survived contentious institutional interrogations but is also firmly proposed as belonging to the cultural streams of things deemed artworks. By that I mean it provokes or elicits what we generally mean by moral contemplation, an embodied human-ness. But each case needs to be argued and woven into the art discourses. This is so complicated and deeply fascinating. The matter of aesthetic experience is actually another issue entirely. Kant and others, even the great formalist critic Clement Greenberg (whose art rules implied otherwise) said can occur without any relationship to artworks or works of art. Is it purely an involuntary emotional response? Ineffable? Or is it a sudden awakening into consciousness of subconscious animal vitality? Sublimation? The real question to me is not what provokes the aesthetic response but what happens to sustain the response? WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:01 PM Subject: Re: "Delbanco is primarily engaged in discovering how creativity con tinues into old age." On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:09 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > I didn't say that there weren't creative individuals. I said it takes some > consensus to to realize their creativity. Henry Ford failed over and over > until > he got people to back him with enough money; besides, he didn't invent the > automobile. Edsion had a big crew of people always working to get his and > their > inventions accepted by users. Great novels aren't deemed great until a > large > audience says so. Individuals do stuff. Others say it;s creative > Didn't I ask previously if art could exist w/o a consensus of shared values? As far as I am concerned, the answer is no.
