How You Can Be Creative – A Lesson from Pablo Picasso
sebastianmarshall.com
sebastianmarshall.com
It would be fitting if it were bullshit, since it motivates an argument that all anyone had to do in 1907 was decide to paint a few whores and they'd end up with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.
I mean, seriously, what?
The article seriously advances the following thesis: Creativity is basically easy; you just take something other people are already doing and make incremental changes; for instance, when Picasso painted Les demoiselles d'Avignon all he did was to paint a typical nude portrait except that he changed a few things. A prostitute instead of a standard Noble Classical Figure. A group of them instead of just one. ... Oh, yeah, and among those little incremental changes was inventing a completely new style of painting.
This is, to use the article's own term, complete bullshit. Deciding to take something and make a bunch of incremental changes is easy. Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something good -- that's what's difficult.
What made Picasso famous for his creativity wasn't the fact that he made a bunch of incremental changes. It's that he spotted some things to change that other people hadn't thought of changing (e.g., you could say that the step from "show everything from a single perspective, or at least make it look as if you're doing so" to "use a variety of radically different perspectives to show objects from multiple viewpoints and produce a sense of fragmentation" is just a matter of Changing One Thing -- but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?) and that he was able to produce compelling paintings despite making those radical changes.
(I don't disagree with everything in the article. In particular, the idea that you shouldn't ever reinvent the wheel is just as ridiculous as the article says. But the alleged recipe for creativity is silly, and the alleged example of how it works is beyond preposterous.)
Well of course it's hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be creative geniuses...
>>but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?)<<
I think that's exactly the point. Who would have considered it? Well, if you systematically break something down into its component elements, and then make changes to those elements, it makes it much more likely that you'll stumble across something totally new. Think of it as a more sprawling form of A/B testing if you'd like.
The more salient takeaway is the fact that "creativity" doesn't have to be some mysterious lightning strike or whisper from the gods (or "non-linear intuitive leap" as someone describes below) that only a few of us lucky ones get to be party to.
I've never really looked at Picasso's art with any diligence or perseverance, but I have definitely been inspired by the picture in that post, to go download some of his cubist nudes and use them as screen backgrounds.
I'm sure Picasso would be happy to see people using him as an inspiration to creativity.
At least when it comes to audio production and being asked to alter or re-invent the work of someone else, the results will benefit if you don't have a very clear reference point but just a bunch loose jigsaw pieces, that don't have any right or wrong combination attached.
I thought this approach might be relevant to the topic as it seems like an extension of the idea the article describes: If you try to make something different, it's helpful not to know how it's done "right".
In my opinion and I spent a long time on this topic creativity is something completely different. The reason I spent so much time thinking about creativity is that I don't consider myself to be a very creative person. So I wondered what causes this lack. I considered a lot of things until I came to the conclusion that creativity is a form of expression, which means that creativity describe the ability to express "stuff". In most cases it's about emotions.
The outcome of creativity is usually considered to be art. Think about something you consider to defiantly be art, for example a book or music. What is it about or what makes it art? Yes I know, it's another term that can be very hard to describe, but one can deny that art is generally related to some kind of emotion or the absence of emotion. It's also why art often provokes.
So creativity _probably_ (it's all just a personal theory) means expressing yourself, so learning to express yourself means becoming more creative. It also means that as long you can in some way express yourself, especially your emotions you are creative, maybe not very creative, but you are.
I think this can also be backed by science. Humans, as (generally speaking) social species depend a lot on expressing themselves. They aren't like ants for example, with a relatively small scope of action. They are very individual and so it is important to understand emotions and express their own ones. If this isn't the case it's considered to be a sign of a mental illness. I guess that's also why people with mental illnesses receive a therapy where they do something creative (usually drawing) and why most artists are usually very emotional. Some of them also mention that their main reason for creating art is a psychologically.
Last, but not least their are hackers (the ones at the CCC and not necessarily intruders) who usually have a deep emotional commitment to the work they are doing. I think it's probably also related to geeks, who often play role playing games and when you think about science fiction stuff and things like Commander Data and Mr. Spock it's also a lot about emotions.
By the way, there is also emotional intelligence which might be related to this, but I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know a lot about this.
Ex: Just listen to music from the same genre. Each artist has their own song but there are similar elements from each song of all artists in that genre.
I'd imagine that most people just get stuck in a loop, reaffirming that those are, in fact, the necessary elements.
I use this system in photography all the time. I find breaking something down into distinct elements really helps you identify what's going on. It feels decidedly "uncreative" when you're doing it, but it works.
Because we're all born geniuses and perfect in every way.
This isn't Reddit, so I'll hold back my impulse to tell you where to put your awards and your attitude.
"michaelpinto".