| So many
people use the concept of creativity interchangeably with art. But
creativity is not art. Art is one of the uses of creativity. When
asked to make a list of highly creative works, people might list
the Sistine Chapel, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony or Milton's Paradise
Lost. These are all recognised works of art but only a small subset
of human creativity. Inventions, solving social problems to form
civilisation, engaging in business and finance and the exploration
of the natural world all require and utilise creativity.
Here's my definition of creativity:
perception + decision + action = creativity.
It's about taking action on an idea
that has been formed from observation and decision. So invention,
problem solving, scientific discovery and art all fit in the subset
of creativity. But what is this thing called art, especially in
a modern world where the likes of Damien Hirst present half a cow
in formaldehyde.
One dictionary definition of art
states it is the product of human creative skill appreciated primarily
for its beauty or emotive power. Well that takes care of paintings,
music and books. But what about dead cows? Is Hirst being extra
creative by bending the boundaries of what's acceptable? If the
dead cow is lying in a field or hanging up in an abattoir it certainly
isn’t a work of art. But if a human makes a choice, a decision
to do something particular with it and then actually follows through
and acts on it, then it can claim to be art. So art has to have
human intervention.
The action required to make something
art is the act of putting it in a ‘frame’ of some description.
In effect by pointing it out as art it becomes art. A buttercup
can’t be art when it’s in a field, or even when it’s
picked. But if it’s pressed and displayed, it’s had
the injection of human interaction then perhaps it can become art.
A sunset cannot be art, no mater how beautiful or awe inspiring.
A photograph or painting of it can.
My Apple Mac computer is an aesthetically
pleasing thing. Is it a work of art? I would say no, it is not.
Neither is a Range Rover. However they are both wonderful pieces
of design. But place either one of them in an art gallery (as they
both have been) and they become works of art in that moment.
Design is applied art. Both the Mac
and the Range Rover have function as well as aesthetic properties.
They have both form and function. Good design is described as something
where the form follows the function. That’s why people regard
the iPod as good design. It is small, it has a screen and a click-wheel
interface; it is simple. There are no features on its form that
are extraneous to its designed function; it has no ‘go faster
stripes’. Its casing is not aerodynamically streamlined like
some of its competitors because its function is not to fly through
the air but to be held in the hand and put in the pocket. Its form
follows that function.
Art, on the other hand, has no function,
or if it has, the function is removed once it becomes the art; the
Range Rover is a luxury 4x4 off road vehicle which becomes an exhibit,
a sculpture, when placed behind the guide ropes in the gallery.
So by our definition here, art requires
human intervention. This means that computers cannot create art
and neither can chimps or elephants. If they do produce a painting
or piece of music it is not art until the point that a human puts
it on a pedestal or in a frame and defines it as such. A dog might
think that it has forged a wonderful helical sculpture from its
own scented abdominal putty on the pavement but it is actually a
pile of poo.
Can a computer or an animal really
be creative? I would argue that, for now, a computer cannot. The
current processors in all our modern computers work by carrying
out a single process one at a time and processing them in a sequential,
logical order. This is how the left hemisphere of the human brain
works. A computer can only run a program that it has been given.
A program can even have a random factor entered into it, but it
is still a program, written by a human. It is still the human being
creative. It’s a bit like loading a paintbrush with paint
and shaking it at a canvas which gives an interesting stipple effect.
No-one would think it was the brush that created the painting. It
was the combination of the laws of the behaviour of liquids and
gravity set in motion by the hand of the artist.
There are a few documented examples
of apes fashioning simple tools, or learning to wash their food
where one individual finds a better way of doing something and the
rest adopt it. There is no proof however that any animal has ever
created a work of art, that is a creation that has no function,
only form. There are many beautiful animal creations but they all
have a clear functional purpose.
There is an argument that mankind’s
‘art’, that is pure form, is actually a recent phenomenon.
Ancient art from cave paintings, inscriptions in Egypt though to
Renaissance paintings all had a function, to either capture history
or to inspire religious or spiritual feelings. Perhaps human art
began as a communion with the gods, with the ancestors or with the
future. Perhaps only in the modern, materialistic age has art become
cut off from the sacred.
But there will always be the sacred
in all art and in all creative endeavor. By creating we mimic the
work of the great Creator, adding something new to the universe,
lifting ourselves up from instinct and survival to become, potentially
god-like and eternal.
You can read more about creativity,
what it is and how to unlock it in my book '7 Keys to Creative Genius'
out now in paperback. Click here
to learn more.
Read more on art here.
|
