Creativity. It's own reward?

Subject: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:28 PM

I have enjoyed reading the thread about drugs and creativity and I would like to discuss the subject of creativity but without the drugs. (Spooky, just as I wrote that, Billie Holiday began singing on the T.V).

More exactly, how do you measure the success of that creativity? Is it necessary to have your efforts appreciated or is creativity it's own reward? Do you stop creating if you do not receive that acclaim?

Is the process helped or hindered by great acclaim and it's resulting celebrity?

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:33 PM

Do I stop creating if I do not receive compliments?
Depends how much Self Worth I have that day.

BB

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Mbo
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:42 PM

For me, I really need my work to be appreciated. Right now I'm writing music, and when finished writing a song, I throw it on the side. Maybe one day I'll make a MIDI out of it. I hardly ever sing them (I don't perform--not my fault). When I was Composition class as college last Spring, I found myself becoming excited over what I had written, hoping to provide enjoyment to the other class members. The feedback I received was very good--one student (all the class members were old friends) always wanted copies of my tunes. This made me refreshingly satisfied--that me, who 5 years ago claimed ago that I could never write music, was writing music that my classmates AND my teacher, a Professor who was a composer himself. This made me write more and more music. The excitement of presenting new music gave me this creative burst where I wrote 25 songs in 3 months. But now I'm getting back into it, getting excited about making recording of my songs that could be played on Mudcat Radio. I find without acclaim, my songwriting becomes rather studious and scholarly--while with that much-needed acclaim, it becomes fun and exciting!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 08:47 PM

I am rarely creative and have found that I need to be feeling pretty low emotionally before I have produced anything. Having said that, I do think that a little bit of appreciation does help and when I have shown somebody my work and the best you get most of the time is "That's all right" it does nothing to encourage me to try and do more. There is one of my tunes, Jayne's Jig that I genuienly believe that had it been written by one of the larger bands, would now be played in a lot of sessions etc. but coming from an unknown person, tends not to get listend to properly so on that score, I think that celebrity does help.

I suppose the down side with creativity and celibrity is that many people must be under pressure to come up with what the record companies will sell which may well be counter productive in terms of coming up with anything original.

Jon

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Michael K.
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:49 PM

Thanks for starting this thread Shambles. I have a feeling it will ask more questions than it will answer, at least as far as my reply is concerned.

In answer to your post:

Depends on how your define success.

Are you a working, full time musician, song-writer, able to support yourself through your artistic, creative and marketing endeavors? If the answer is yes, then I suppose you are successful, if we define success as monetary reward, and recognition and approval from others.

Conversely, if you've given your heart and soul to music (and the music business), have more natural talent and ability than Rev. Gary Davis, Merle Travis, Doc Watson, Chet Atkins combined yet cannot support your family, does this make you a failure?...and any less creative?

Do we need validation (others acceptance and approval) to know that what we are doing, playing, writing, recording, etc.......is good? Or do we have enough self confidence, taste, and ability to know within ourselves that we ''have it?''

I suppose somewhere along the way, we all need that validation or positive reinforcement from others (the key being those, who's opinions we respect) to encourage and inspire us, to continue onward with our creative processes.....especially when we are young and still finding our way.

I find for me personally, that I am most creative when all the boundaries are removed, including validation from others, and I have nothing to guide me except an idea; my talents; and an inate sense of taste, which I can only hope will be good rather than poor.

When I want to experience a complete sense of zero gravity musically, the vehicle I choose is, jazz and piano is the weapon of choice. The thing that I find so ironic about jazz, is that there are so many fundamentals involved to master, and once mastered, you then realize you don't have to rely on these fundamentals.....you just have to have a semblance on how far away from home you are, so that eventually, you might want to find your way back. Then, again you just might want to stay ''out there.'' It doesn't really matter, from a sheer creative point of view. It only matters if you rely on what others are going to think -- buy -- accept.

When I want to go somewhere melodically and with structure, I'll choose finger-picking and blues, and the weapon of choice is a 6 string acoustic guitar.

I think we can be much more creative when we don't have to earn a living from it and the commercial pressures we'd have to deal with, or for maintaining celebrity and fame where the axiom ''you're only as good as your last album (or gig) '' seems to apply.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 03:10 AM

I agree with 100% Michael on the jazz.

For myself NOTHING is original, it is all theme and variations and the theme is stolen.

It is the hybreds - that appear to be original - but they are shadows of their genetic roots.

When I have backed up from my current Renaissance research (a weekend will stretch into probably several years thanks to Bruce's page) , I have no doubt that elements of some very unusual "modals" (to my own current ear)will find their way into improvisations and be considered "original." They won't be..... they are only ghosts of the past revived in a modern setting.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 11:08 AM

Jon

Re your point about 'Jaynes's Jig'. After performing one of my tunes at a session (something I don't tend to do very often), I was asked what the tune was. I told him the title and on further questioning, told him that I had composed it. To which his less than encouraging reply was, "there are enough tunes already, we don't need any new ones" (a pretty ridiculous idea, which adopted would mean that there would be no more new books, movies, painting etc). I didn't think the tune was that bad but I feel if I had been someone of celebrity, I suspect the reaction would have been a little different?

Why not try this. Keep playing your tunes, but try crediting them to Kevin Burke, Fairport or whoever and see if the reaction is different. When the whole session has happily adopted it, saying what a wonderful composer Kevin Burke is, you can then reveal your deception.

All the posts so far have made very interesting reading, looking forward to some more.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 11:13 AM

The rewards of "Creativity" are likely different for everyone you'll ever ask. For some it's just a smile from the listener...

As for the "why" of creativity, I would venture a guess that it's something one simply must do, and there's no getting around it...

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 11:52 AM

GG, Interesting point and one I have pondered over. How does one define what is and isn't original? I think that it is possible to come up with new sequences of notes, change the feel.... but how much of it is based on what we have already heard? Do you know of any articles on this subject?

Jon

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 02:02 PM

Creativity its own reward? Yes it is and to hope or expect otherwise, will result, sooner or later, in a very painful realization or crash. Doesn't mean to say that it is not nice to receive the occasional kudo, they can sometimes provide an impetus and everyone needs a proverbial hug, but they can't sustain creativity.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 02:39 PM

Excellent thread Shambles, and excellent points folks.

I decided to take up Jazz fiddle 3 weeks ago, and since it's been many years since I learned a new instrument (I was able to scratch out "boil 'em Cabbage Down" in the key of "A"...but not very well) I'm finding the process fascinating, frustrating, and amazing. Just trying to improvise melodies from a five note scale is reminding me once again the astonishing number of combinations of notes available.

By the way, the impetus for this new project came from Mudcatter Jeri, a website called Redhotjazz, and some illuminating posts on Mudcat. Plus reading a wonderful book by Eddie Condon, called "We Called It Jazz".

Rick

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 03:10 PM

Well put Mets.......and I'll go further. Anyone who does anything, creative or otherwise, for any reason outside of personal satisfaction/gain is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and will likely get one.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Mbo
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 05:54 PM

Iron men don't get bruises. Some people have remarked they don't like some of my chord choices. I say fine! but I'm not going to change them because I like them. Writing music for me is not a selfish act. I'm not writing because of personal satisfaction. I want to entertain people! I want to make them happy or sad or excited by my music. I've already taken a lot. I want to give back now. That's what makes me happy. If some folks don't like my stuff, well who cares? There's always another night and another crowd and new people to play to. And if you touch just one person out there you know that it's worth it. Hoarding music gives me no satisfaction at all. But as I do write to share to the world, neither do I compromise my style or philosophy for something the public will take an interest in. If I like myself, and I like my music, I think other people will like me & my music. After all, Marilyn Manson & Nine Inch Nails got famous too somehow, didn't they?

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 08:25 PM

I'm with you, Terry- creativity isn't something I do for any "reward" other than the fact that when I give myself time to be creative: practice my new instrument (fiddle- Rick, you have my sympathy!), arrange a new song for my chorus, even attempt ever so feebly to write a song- then I am in a state of being that feels alive, when I can give of myself to the demands of family and work and feel nourished as well. When I'm not being creative, I'm cranky, depressed, and down-right bitchy! You choose!

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: WyoWoman
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 12:37 AM

From my refrigerator/gallery: j "The truly creative mind in any field is no more than this: a human creature born abnormally, in humanly sensitive. To this person a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death.

"Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create -- so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. He must create, must pour out creation. by some strange, unknown, inward urgency, he is not rally alive unless he is creating."

I've had this around for so many years I can't remember where I got it and who said it. But it completely describes me. I have no choice. I create or die. It's lovely if someone notices. It helps a great deal when I find playmates to create with (e.g. a band, collaborators on a theater project, etc.) but whether or not I get anything back from the external world, I create because I can't help myself.

WW

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 01:33 AM

Dear Wyoming Weed Wacker,

Plagerize, plagerize, plagerize, I must plagerize or I will die, is more likely the tune of mankind.

Within the context of "borrowing" or "infecting" is the theory of meme (rhymes with beam)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a meme as "a unit of imitation"

The newly "popularized" soft-science or "weird-science" of memetics is based on the rough concept of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and its application to the "ideas of a culture."

Music is very much a part of any culture. There are patterns, tones, rhythems which can even define a "culture." Paul Simon's GraceLand is and example of extending western music and infusing it with primative nuances....and the patterns have spread. Music plays strongly within the memetic paradym. Sometimes the "spread" of ideas or concepts or musical trends is compared to a "virus" which mutates and infects.

Much as geneticists are tracing DNA, it is possible to trace the roots of musical concepts....but sometimes it takes a genius such as George Gershwin to bring it together....(HG Wells wrote of time/space relationships in the late 1800's but it took the genius of Einstein to quantifiy them into a coherant theory)

There is a research paper The memetic origin of language: modern humans as musical primates which explains a little of this.

It agues that song (musicality, singing capacity) underlies both the evolutionary origin of human language and its development during early childhood. Specifically, language acquisition depends upon a Music Acquiring Device (MAD) which has been doubled into a Language Acquiring Device (LAD) through memetic evolution

Language, they conjecture, owes its existence not to innate language learning competencies, but to innate music-associated ones, which - unlike the competencies hypothesized for language - can be straightforwardly explained to have evolved by natural selection. The ability to sing not only may explain how we came to speak, but may also be a partial answer to some of the very specific sexual and social characteristics so typical for our species and so essential in understanding our recent evolution.

As the learned sage said, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 01:53 AM

There is an interesting site, that lists the originals and the "rip-offs" of Bob Dylan ORIGINAL?

The page also has a few quotes appropriate to this discussion.

If There's An Original Thought Out There, I Could Use It Right Now: The Folk Roots of Bob Dylan Matthew Zuckerman

"The world don't need any more songs. They've got enough. They've got way too many. As a matter of fact, if nobody wrote any songs from this day on, the world ain't gonna suffer for it." Bob Dylan, 1991

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 02:01 AM

Bob Dylan is an ass and always was.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: wildlone
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 11:01 AM

If you take all the letters a-z throw in some dots and stuff,add all the notes as well then you can have on one bit of paper all the books written in english, past present or future, all music written again, past present or future.But they will not be "tunes","songs"or "storys" That comes with the creativity.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 11:32 AM

Creativity IS its own reward... oops, I have to get the phone,... Hello? (Oh... it is the colection agency,...) What do you mean I cant send you an ounce of creativity! Sheesh! The demands of modern living...
Larry

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Pete Peterson
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 12:16 PM

The synchronicity here is this is a large discussion I have been having at work (I'm a research chemist) with my great-grandboss, who believes that if you take a large machine, program the variations that you want to make into it, and have a second automated testing machine, that we could screen new compounds and formulations a lot more quickly. I directed him to a couple of Doug Hofstadter's essays "On the Seeming Paradox of Mechanizing Creativity" where he says "Making variations on a theme is the essence of creativity." What I didn't dare quote was Arthur C. Clarke's "The Ultimate Melody" (written in about 1955! the listener went mad, like Ulysses's crew on hearing the Sirens) and Spider Robinson's short story, "Melancholy Elephants" where he depicts a world in which all of the good melodies have already been discovered (after all, there can only be a finite number, and we may discover that the vein gets mined out more quickly than we ever imagined) and are permanently copyrighted, and, as the Preacher lamented, and Gargoyle has quoted, there is nothing new under the sun. My personal thoughts: my g-gboss is wrong (how does one tell the dictator politely that he is wrong? very much another question) and that the work of deciding which variations are worth programming into the machine will require far more creativity than the present system, and that this approach is a blind alley. That having been said, there was a time, some years ago, when I found a creative solution to a problem I had been wrestling with for six months (work-related) and the joy of realizing that that was the right solution and HAD to work (it was testable in five minutes once I thought of it) was one I will never forget, right up there with watching my daughters get born. I wish I were that creative musically and able to write good tunes or even sequences of chords. I wrote down BanjoBonnie's chord progression that she discovered/invented/created about four months ago and I said WOW, this is nice! (and felt just a little envious) when she gets the musical tools to match what's going on in her head, some very nice things are going to happen. And 100 years from now our descendants may be playing them.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 01:18 PM

It's not really important for your creation to be totally original, if such a thing was ever going to be possible. It is only necessary that what comes out, is a result of all of the influences and input the creator has received, has the creator's own individual stamp on it and does not arrive as a conscious attempt to reproduce something that already exists.

As to it being necessary, I think for some, it is indeed impossible for them to stop creating even if they receive no encouragement at all.

It would however be nice if they did receive some acclaim. There still seems to be a thought that it should be left for composers to compose, writers to write, painters to paint and so on. The point seems to be missed that anyone who composes IS a composer.

Whether that composition has any value is another argument. I tend to hold the view that the art is necessary and that the artists are just a necessary evil.

No one has even remotely suggested that I may be a genius (whatever that may be) but I'm sure that to have to live up to that title, would become quite a strain to one's creativity.

Is it not possible (no matter how unlikely) to have only one creation and for that one attempt to be considered a work of genius or does the work have to be the product of someone considered to be a genius, before it can be considered as a work of genius?

The other side of this is that is just as important not to overlook training, hard work and just 'paying your dues' but this position does have the advantage in that your creation may at least be taken seriously.

It may be unfortunate but it must be recognized that for the results of ones creativity to become really successful (in a commercial sense), it pretty much has to be packaged, marketed and sold in the same fashion as any other product. That is a skill that many creative people do not have and tend to look down on. It probably explains why there are a number of, shall we say, less than unique creative talents, who have reached tremendous commercial success?

As to the extent of creativity. We are all different and have different needs. We all need a house to live in. Some of us may move in to a house and be happy to live in it pretty much as it is, some may change it around a little bit and some have the need to build one, from scratch exactly how they want it to be.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 02:48 PM

The word gives me problems. I only know a very few really creative people, though I know lots of people who create, write, paint, etc. I have nothing against the latter people, actually I revere them, and wish I could be one more often; but a really creative person is something else, though again I want to say that without denigrating general creativity or getting into the question of whether everyone is an undiscovered creative genius stifled by a dull society. A really creative person is certainly something new under the sun: is the sun, actually. And I don't think people who are ordinarily creative (like me, on occasion) resent that kind of difference: it is like objecting to a sunrise. I have a friend who is a playwright, but cannot make a living at it currently, for personal reasons. She is a real creator. How do I know? Whenever I mention her name to other people, they smile and shake their heads. People are in awe of her, and she is absolutely ordinary in many respects. It has nothing to do with her talent, there are lots of talented people: it is that something else. I think she makes people feel freer in her company: as if anything is possible. She opens windows onto worlds where no one thought there were worlds.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 07:21 PM

Peter T.

I think you must be in love?

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 16 Jan 00 - 11:52 PM

I am!!!

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 17 Jan 00 - 12:42 AM

...just a thought...somewhere in my distant past, I remember the idea of creativity needing discipline, I forget the exact quote. An example (and I thought of your variations machine, Pete) is the scales (and modes) superimposed on the musical note spectrum. This discipline forces some kind of creativity. Maybe it just brings order to the randomness. Then again, if your machine spits out all combinations, aren't my creative sequences of notes just redundancies?

Sleepy Mary

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 00 - 06:20 AM

I have a more of a problem with the concept of "really creative" people and terms like genius, for I think that these terms reflect our needs as an audience, disciples, critics, fans, journalists, followers or whatever, rather than representing any definable quality. How on earth are you ever going get any agreement on the difference between who is considered non-creative, creative and really creative?

I am reminded of the speed of which certain members of the 'art world' will adopt an unknown artist and champion his or her cause and importance (until the next one or movement comes along). The art remains the same but the general perception of the art's relevance and that of its creator changes very quickly. It really reflects a need to be seen to be as one who is, 'in the know'.

The same thing is true in the 'pop music' field, writing and in just about every other form of creative expression. This is a world made by journalists, critics and PR people and whose job is to talk up, down and about what creative people do. Creative in its way I suppose?

The folk world is mercifully still largely considered as too unfashionable now to attract that sort of coverage but I do see the approach being tried in some of the folk magazines. How about starting a KEEP FOLK UNFASHIONABLE CAMPAIGN? The KFUC that sounds good?

The music that Mudcatter's are attracted to here, is pretty broad but is by and large made by folk for folk.. We both enjoy listening to it and, unlike fans of a lot of other forms of music, we also enjoy creating it. I don't know if it is desirable but surely it is possible to have a folk genius, or do those two words not go together?

To change the subject. Is not, in a major sense all performed live music, (as to opposed-recorded music) ORIGINAL? In the sense that it never has been created exactly like that before and never will be created in exactly that way again?

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Jan 00 - 11:52 AM

(Gee, Shambles, how did you know? Me and about 500 other people). As I implied, I was very reluctant to make some kind of a separation between generic creativity and something like a kind of genius. But you know it when you see it. It may have something to do with being creative according to existing categories, versus going somewhere altogether different. The difference may have something to do with the reaction: the first can be beautiful, exciting, compelling, wonderful: but the second has a bit of fear in it, something archaic, as if some boundary had been crossed that the gods had taken great care to hide -- a kind of vertigo. Beethoven's late String Quartets, Van Gogh's last paintings -- these are really scary. You just say, where are these people?

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 10:14 AM

Peter T.

Sorry about the love, suggestion, I think I knew what you were saying but the example you gave did not see the logic in it ("Captain"). As for the person you described as very creative; it was not their talent, they were not currently creating and they were very ordinary? So it must have been love? Please take no offence, personally or on behalf of your friend, for none was intended.

Do you not think what you were talking about there could better be described (if not love), as charisma, personal magnetism or whatever? The French have an expression for it, I think. There are indeed special people in the world. I know, for I was lucky enough to find and marry one of them, all of 25 years ago.

If however all those personal qualities you and others detect are communicated through your friends work and the audience subsequently shares the feelings that you do now, then it may indeed be something else. It would definitely be successfully creative but still subject to individual taste. I do take your point about the unsettling nature of your friends gifts but you do not specify if this is transmitted in her work?

As I have said, I believe that creations are far more important than the creators. For however exceptional their talents are in their chosen fields, they are still flawed human beings just like the rest of us and would have many areas of their lives that they were less than capable in. They may point us to the sun, but they are not the sun.

Society seems to have generally accepted that great works can only produced by tortured souls in garrets, by those who would beat their wives, neglect their children and cut off pieces of their own bodies. Van Gogh is certainly better known for his act of self-mutilation than for the body of his work. This romantic view is immediately summoned up when you see the words creative genius. The two words going so well together that they form a cliché. There is a view (that does have some worth), that these clichés represent some universal truth but they also reflect lazy thinking and an unwillingness to upset or re-examine the accepted view.

It is also interesting to consider how those, who some would describe as geniuses, view themselves? How would they measure themselves against their own heroes, influences and inspirations? On the TV here today, there was a quote from Picasso, after he had visited the site, in France of the famous Stone-Age cave paintings, which were painted in 15000 BC. He said, "we have invented nothing".

I think it was you Peter, in another thread that made the point that only some of Shakespeare' s works were responsible for him being considered, to be a genius. At the end of the day, whether the creations are considered wonderful or not is just a matter of personal taste. I am not too sure how many of these people despite the acclaim given to their work, would have been thought of as charismatic, in the manner of your friend, by those that knew them well?

The important thing is that everyones creations are encouraged and allowed to see the light of day, to enable others to exercise their tastes, not hidden away because the creator may not be considered to be a creative person and that the merits of work are judged rather than the merits or reputation of its creator.

I am also reminded of all the people I have come across, personally and on The Mudcat, who write poetry that they never intend or require others to see. To them, creativity is certainly its own reward.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 10:41 AM

Always nice to talk about creativity, rather than doing the hard work oneself. My friend is a genius in her work, not in her person (though she is pretty good there too). I think that there are all kinds of people who were creatively innovative and were mostly normal (Chekov seems to have been only ordinarly strange; James Joyce was mostly ordinary). But I think it is generally creditable that artists have a high incidence of mental instability, simply because the ability to balance the uprush of free creative stuff with the hard need to hammer it out into something coherently new is so rare. There is a great phrase: the mystic swims in what drowns the psychotic. True for artists too. If you can't shape the molten psychic material, you aren't an artist: you are mad. My Thought for today is an excellent example: this poem is only worthwhile because Holderlin was able to briefly hold his mind together -- but what makes it stunning is that you can feel the disintegration/integration as it goes along -- like a Van Gogh painting. It may be that the reason we are so attracted to the "mad tortured artist" model is that it makes the creative process overt -- we like the feel of the danger, as if we might go over too.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 10:57 AM

Taking up The Shambles point, I believe I'm incredibly creative and a genius as well.

Trouble is, when I wake up I can't remember any of it!

mcmoo

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 12:52 PM

mcmoo

Take a look at the end of this thread Mudcat Songbook. I did try and write down the dreams as soon as I could but it was a pretty forlorn effort.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: annamill
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 01:02 PM

I find the pleasure in the process of creating itself. If someone comes along and enjoys it with me, great, but if not, I enjoy what I've done myself. Kind of like watching a beautiful sunset. It's wonderful to share, but still as awesome by myself. I still smile.

Love, annap

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 01:08 PM

Should have read this before moaning on the performing songs thread. And then abstained.

Penny

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 01:54 PM

Good insight PeterT. It is much easier to talk about and analyze other's creativity than to explore your own.
Create for yourself. If it inspires another person to get 'a move on' their own creativity, you win bonus points.

BB

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 03:26 PM

I think some people may have so readily bought in to the tortured soul thing to enable them to get on with the wife-beating, the child neglecting and the limb cutting off and have forgotten the creating part altogether!

It also helps with the marketing, for we all do like a little bit of scandal. How many books would this have sold? Mary Smith has been happily married to her childhood sweetheart Tom for twenty years; they have lived in their hometown all their lives and have three lovely children. This is Mary's fascinating first novel about life in small town America. This book may contain the most original observations and I incisive writing ever but who would ever find out?

Sorry I sound cynical but I think here in the UK we seemed to have reached the stage where the artist themselves are considered to be the art. The artist' name is known, and if she puts her un-made bed in a gallery, complete with tampons, then you have 'those in the know' explaining to the TV how significant it is. She shits and those turds are art. I do exaggerate but only a little.

Subject: RE: Creativity. It's own reward?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 18 Jan 00 - 09:02 PM

Ahhhh, the secret..... of appealing to the masses
Is to first recognize ....that they are all asses
When marketing for the plebian consumer
Focus on innuendo, suspence and rumor

John Irving, Steven King, Spielberg, Lucas......Insane in the brain Curt Corbane, Madonna, all practice the same identical formulae.....as Dickens, Kipling, Beatles did before them.....i.e. look for some "twist of irony" some "shock to the senses" some "nuance of tone", some tantalizing element.....to keep the audience coming back, searching for another "Oh!!!MY!!!!" that has titilated their immediate fancy.......and given them a shock that moves them to turn another page, or buy another albumn.

The formalaes are basic, repetitive, and profitable.