The Creative Acts...

[sacriface]

This topic refers to another section of the forum, but as it isn't a 'creative act' as such, but rather exactly 'something on my mind', I'll throw this small observation out here.

Basically, I think that the forumers as a collective, don't take enough care of the "Creative Acts" section.

Of course the board is a massive, massive creative act, in every section there is a display of lots of hard work, research and constructive discussion; sheer creativity. Also to note the already present creative acts are not to be belittled by any means, this observation does not refer to these ones, but to those 'absent'.

Soo, is it 25 pages since the establishment of this board??? Come on! How many users participate in here??

I'm a complete newbie here, but still, I would dare saying we can do a lot better than that.
What about this pure joy of creating? A mindful while of drawing, dance, performing, music, painting, sculpting, collage, writing or a mix of those and what not? Have YOU tried these things? When was the last time?

Is there a nasty program called "not my piece of cake for a million of reasons" that are carried probably from the first years of school, thus usually rooted very deep within?

Making things like that soothes and opens the mind. One learns about himself, learns to express things from the inside and outside in different ways and then deal with them better; It can lead to enhanced understanding. Thus I believe it can be called 'The Work', too, but this one is oriented towards this undeveloped, unused, intuitive, creative side of our mind; 'The Right Brain'.

With the principle of intent present as always, and when the intent is clear, this way of 'resting' from all hard-knock, analytic and cold-minded parts The Work needs not and cannot feel like an act of slacking around in comparison with the former, to address just one likely obstacle. It can bring closer to the unknown/unknowable - and - to being able to better stand it's presence! Learning via Playing.

Gurdjieff's division of art into subjective/ objective, purposeful and nearly useless rises the bar quite high, especially given that examples of pure, objective art don't seem to exist in our current world, and if they do, they are the remnants of antiquity that we cannot comprehend.
This alone can be another halting, discouraging factor, but either way, when one pushes this issue to the side, for a moment, and just makes something- it's always worth it. Simply. And even knowing of this great division and how distant objective art can be we will never find out what it is if we won't give it a try in any chosen way, shape or form!
One more thing about this division is that, as Osho stated in regards to G's theory, subjective art is like vomiting: it will make one feel better afterwards, although, it isn't good for those around him. But as G says, each piece of art has elements of both within in varying ratios. So, again, vomit can be colorful and interesting just if you stop seeing vomit in there for a moment! Have some imagination! Have some fun that isn't just another form of self-gratification.

Then, if any form of creativity has this good side to it, and given that the pure creativity is such a vastly undeveloped part of human existence I think one doesn't necessarily have to concern himself with how right, or subjective/objective is what he makes, because an act of creating has a potential to be an important exercise always. And it can balance the brains, relax, in the end have a very beneficial influence on every day life, The Work, as a whole.

Didn't the creatures in the shadows split our brains in two? And hasn't the matrix made sure we use only one side??

Well then couldn't a joyful act of using that other side be another act against the grid?

 

[Diane]

I think maybe it's in the perspective and definition of creativity. You could call it creativity with a little "c", and creativity with a big "C".

Not all creative people are alike, which makes defining creativity a challenge and assessing it a monumental undertaking.

The traditional psychological definition of creativity includes two parts: originality and functionality.

"You can't be creative unless you come up with something that hasn't been done before," says psychologist Dean Keith Simonton, PhD, of the University of California, Davis. "The idea also has to work, or be adaptive or be functional in some way; it has to meet some criteria of usefulness."

And in the U. S. Patent Office, which approves intellectual property rights for products and ideas born of inventors' creativity, there's a third criterion, Simonton says: The creative idea should not be an obvious extension of something that already exists.

But the study of creativity by psychologists, active since the beginning of the 20th century, has taken that definition and expanded it, complicated it and questioned it.

The personality-creativity connection

There is, for example, a distinction to be made between "little-c" creativity and "big-C" creativity, Simonton says. Little-c creativity, which is often used as an indicator of mental health, includes everyday problem-solving and the ability to adapt to change. Big-C creativity, on the other hand, is far more rare. It occurs when a person solves a problem or creates an object that has a major impact on how other people think, feel and live their lives.

"At the little-c level, creativity implies basic functionality," Simonton says. "And at the big-C level, it's something that we give Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes for."

That being said, it's good to concentrate on big "C" creativity, but we shouldn't forget that before the big "C", came the little "c". We know how new inventions, cures for disease etc. can lead to bettering our lives. Problem would be here is if you were onto something in the big "C" category, would you post about it in an on-line Forum for all to see? I don't think so, and maybe that's part of the reason why the size of the Creative Acts area may be smaller in size than expected.

I too am concerned about the lack of small "c" creativity, not on this Forum, but in life and what we do or do not teach our young. Might seem like a silly thing, but teaching a young child to sew with needle and thread and design their Teddy Bears outfit is an important and creative, (with a small "c"), lesson. If you do not teach them how will they survive when the power goes out, the stores are closed, and they're cold and in need clothing?

In my line of work imagination and creativity are very important little "c" components. I see time and time again how people cannot use a needle and thread, how they do not know how to use glue, mix colors, or create anything that doesn't already come pre-packaged. How they can't look at a stick and see it as a spear that could be used as a prop for a theatrical production. I could go on but there's a real lack of original creativity and imagination. It's not seen as important these days, and I disagree with that assumption.

Small "c" creativity can inspire big "C" creativity.

Tinkertoys were the favorite toy of computer science/artificial intelligence genius Marvin Minsky, designer of the first LOGO turtle. Minsky explains the relationship to the stonemason's wooden toys to his cyber-world invention:

[Programs] make things come to be, where nothing ever was before. Some people find a new experience in this, a feeling of freedom, a power to do anything you want. Not just a lot -- but anything. I don't mean like getting what you want by just wishing. I don't mean like having a faster-than-light spaceship, or a time machine. I mean like giving a child enough kindergarten-blocks to build a full-sized city without ever running out of them. You still have to decide what to do with the blocks. But there aren't any outside obstacles. The only limits are the ones inside you.

Myself, I first had that experience before I went to school. There weren't any programs yet, but we had toy construction-sets. One was called TinkerToy. To build with TinkerToy you only need two kinds of parts -- just Sticks and Spools. The Spools are little wooden wheels. Each has one hole through the middle, and eight holes drilled into the rim. The Sticks are just round little sticks of various lengths, which you can push into the spool-holes. The sticks have little slits cut in their ends, which make them springy when they're pressed into the holes, so they hold good and tight.

What's strange is that those spools and sticks are enough to make anything...

The secret is in finding out how much can come from so few kinds of parts. Once, when still a small child, I got quite a reputation. My family was visiting somewhere and I built a TinkerToy tower in the hotel lobby. I can't recall how high it was, but it must have been very high. To me it was just making triangles and cubes, and putting them together. But the grown-ups were terribly impressed that anyone so small could build anything so big. And I learned something, too -- that some adults just didn't understand how you can build whatever you want, so long as you don't run out of sticks and spools. And only just this minute while I'm writing this, I realize what all that meant. Those adults simply weren't spool-stick-literate!

When my friend, Seymour Papert, first invented LOGO, I had the same experience again. LOGO has some things like sticks—except that their computer commands: a stick 100 units long is called "FORWARD 100". LOGO also has things like spools: "RIGHT: 90" starts a second stick at right angles to the last one you drew. I recognized old building-friends at once.

 

[sacriface]

Yes you are very right in all that you wrote here, Diane. Thank you for bringing these issues up in such detail.

I have realized about overseeing these discrepancies between small and big 'C' creativity soon after posting this observation.

The differences can, in fact, be looked at in terms of the juvenile dictionary as well; a division with another slant to it.

What I meant was probably the acts of smaller 'c' creativity in a way that they do not explicitly aim to change people's lives, but on the other hand still deal with things that are outside of the juvenile dictionary of reality. That alone could assign them to big 'C' acts, but would it..? And here I lose any certainty.. These acts that border between learning and playing, known and the unknown, aesthetics and functionality.

When one writes a poem, or creates a painting, something that is not in the inventory of design (practical problem solving) that deals with the inner world, or with the outer, but is not essential for comfort or survival. Is that already a big 'C' creativity because it surpasses (or ignores???) the basic functionality? Or does it have to reach a high rate of approval and interest from ones around it to be the big 'C' in traditional terms. Like the Mona Lisa, Hamlet or Chopin's compositions?

Or could it be a bigger 'C'-but not yet the BIG 'C' Creativity. Like an invention that has a tangible impact on human or any other world, that could be measured (in the amount of saved or bettered lives, for instance).

Where should we assign the items from Creative Acts section of this board within small and big 'c' creativity?
I'm akin to a notion that there are different c's within both functionality and originality.
Where would each lie on the spectrum between subjective and objective art?

Of course, it is not expected of someone to share his big (in all ways) 'C' work in progress that aims to fix the world on the online forum (isn't this forum itself one of them, though? :D) I rather thought of artworks, bigger or smaller items that deal with the feeling as much as knowledge, that shared can interest, inspire, pleasure, teach. Those rather unobliging and playful acts.

I devote all my time to image making and since encountering the C's and G nothing has been the same, many directions changed and new ones emerged. Thus I have a more serious approach to it, but still believe that a great benefit can come from treating the matter more casually. It can be nothing more and nothing less than using more of your 'right brain' while the 'left brain' takes a little rest in all aspects understood by this division. Getting a slab of clay, a set of watercolors, a sketchbook, these things can seem very trivial but I have seen them change lives of my closest ones, and maybe not as means of waking up, but leading to saving and/or generating great amounts of positive energy nonetheless. Little by little. And as you mention people not being able to use anything non pre-packaged, we all come from more or less the same environment and everywhere it always lacked the small 'c' and as you say it comes/it came before the big 'C', it is it's foundation in a sense. And the issue of BIG 'C' can be approached from all different angles, and all 'creative acts' can too be within them.

I know that there is a world out there and it's in a state that it's in.nuff said. But I just wanted to recommend this creative acts section as a potential recharger, as much as Eiriu Eolas and meditation is. Maybe the forumers have their own ways, other ways of doing this and it doesn't happen to fall under this category. I also didn't mean to antagonize by suggesting that if you aren't active within this area you must have that nasty program you haven't gotten rid of and that's the problem YOU have. But I just found this place a little underdeveloped in comparison to just about every other category.

As the world lacks so much all the things that this forum is working to redefine and restore, I just thought this simple, unobliging for most, part could bulk up a little, as an encouragement.

Maybe it's size, though, is an information and manifestation of certain things in itself. The world in fact needs small unobliging acts of instinctive and playful creativity least of all. But their presence in small amounts evenly distributed over longer time-space continuum can have as much nonlinear effects