Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 3)

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 3)

So what of the thought that we have to “open up” our brains to get the creative juices flowing? What of the many sordid tricks out there of producers, managers, agents, friends, etc. working with artists to un-stuck them from a rut? The assumption is that creativity follows the other parts of our life. If we can get the nob to click then something will open and out will come creativity. In all these scenarios, creativity follows, it does not lead. But in Genesis it led. We have the Spirit hovering over the darkness. That hovering term is a bird-term. You can see the wings spread now going over the deep in anticipation, excitement. The creative Spirit was on the offensive, the tip of the arrow heading into the dark.

Why then? We don’t know that part. We don’t know what conditions had to be in place for the act to begin. But we do know the creative act began in the dark. It did not wait for creativity to start flowing. It started flying. Creativity followed hovering. What is hovering? Great question. It may be as simple as walking around a vacant or under-utilized room in the house and just start imagining what could be. It might mean being attentive to our current restlessness. It requires we look at what is not yet. It requires focus on the blank canvases around us. It is not an assessment of what already is. It is not sentimental in the least. It is a determined and almost meditative pondering of what could be.

Some say the great sculptors would stare long enough at a rough piece of stone until they could eventually “see” the piece they would soon carve to. in other words, there job was cutting away the stuff that was not part of the finished product.

We don’t all get to cut away. Sometimes we have to create the materials, or buy the paint, or fix the guitar, etc. There is a step before creating. Do that. Be loosely ready. Then hover. Then wait. Don’t force too quickly in the process a product.

That is the beautiful mystery of the process. We are not ultimately in charge. Those who treat (or are in such a position they must treat) the creative process professionally, this can be difficult. They inevitably will run into their own walls. Pushing ahead of inspiration will lead to some major distractions, as least for content creators. We must wait, and follow, and write, and wait, and follow, and write. The connections aren’t necessarily made, we just follow what is coming out openly.

That great outpouring is not nicely laid out for consumption. It is messy. It is laid out poorly and will need arranging. That is the more disciplined, mechanical part of the process. But arranging the parts is much easier than creating them. That is the part that we must painstakingly bear as artists: creating something out of nothing. Arranging the pieces is part of it, but not the primary. Ours is to create, out of some internal drive and inspiration. Where is will go we may never know.

(start writing!...movie scripts, fiction, poetry, lyrics, whatever...)

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 2)

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 2)

So, we’ve established that in order for art to experience its own destiny it must in some way be experienced by others. Over the centuries artists have been revered, celebrated, jeered, abused, thrown before kings with only one chance. One thinks of David, the young harp player, sought by the first king of Israel Saul. Saul’s increasing paranoia (a trait very persistent with leaders) led him to require music therapy. After being rejected as Israel’s king Saul was tormented by a spirit. One of his servants suggested someone play the lyre for him during these spells. Ironically he summoned David, the already secretly anointed next king. David played and eased Saul’s suffering. His torment was relieved through music.

This is a great ancient example of both the power of music and its unique connection with the service of kings and leaders. For centuries the artists worked for the kings. Some of the greatest art in history was commissioned by kings. So creativity had, in these instances, a definitive goal and end. Even that, for some with a rather bohemian approach to art, would be supplanting the creative core. Now of course within the basic goal the artist had complete freedom.

The Pope did not micro-manage Michelangelo as he painstakingly worked on the Sistine Chapel. He gave him the basic job and let him do what he did best. Having an end was neither necessarily convoluting nor creatively hampering. In fact, some of the most talented artists in the world lack drive, or at least lack focus when it comes to producing works. Some would like the challenge of being commissioned to certain tasks. Some would appreciate the structure. Some would inevitably feel like a production line, fast-fooding their processes in order to keep up with demands. For them it would be an aberration of intent, but only because pressure works differently for different people. Some thrive, some wither.

How does an artist find challenge outside of himself? Does he need it? OR is art on its own terms challenging enough? Or have artists simply thought too much of themselves and their “process” to mistake how quite simple it is to produce? One suspicion is that art actually is very similar to many other creative pursuits. It does not need isolation and some sort of divine inspiration. It requires regular feeding, a regiment of ongoing feedback, and some commitment to to produce.

If we were, for example, to get serious about patronizing the arts, how would we structure our support? In other words, would it be cart blanc, “go ahead and do whatever you want when you feel inspired and we’ll bankroll the process? OR, would it build in some sort of schedule of production and process? Would there be an obvious assumption that at the end projects will get completed and they will be to a certain level of excellence? Of course. We can expect more of artists!

Getting to the Core of Creativity (Part 1)

There are many theories about how to “open up” creativity. Many assume a sort of boundless freedom and experimentation will lead to the “truest” sort of creative expression. In this view unfettered freedom from constraint is key.

Another view or perspective of how to employ creativity has more to do with discipline and living within creative constraints. It means having a definitive end in mind (“I want to make...with...to say...”), and sticking with that goal throughout.

A third view is a hybrid of the two: it assumes the creative part (or the genesis) of creativity requires a sense of boundlessness whereas the editing stage needs great restraint and discipline (and often the council of “outside” perspective).

Someone once said the first draft with the heart, the second with the head. There is sort of a creative tension necessary between the two. And certain artists are better at one than the other. To make great lasting art both are completely necessary!

Inevitably at some point in the process we get to the critical juncture where we have to start defining the work. What is it? How will it/should it be marketed? Who will be interested in this project? Is this project ready for public release and consumption?

This stage and these sorts of questions can derail a great many artists. The thought of putting my art “in a box” is insulting, genuinely frustrating, and demeaning. OR...it is fun, self-discovering, and inspiring. The choice is ours.

Describing something is not necessarily prescribing it. That’s the key. We are not coercing or forcing the project down a certain path. It already went down a certain path. We are simply trying to understand what path it went down and why.

More than “why” even, we ask “who.” Who is this for? Who needs this particular thing right now? Of course we can not totally know these things, but we can use some basic systems to help us discover them. It’s important we ask these questions at right time.

Ultimately art is not necessary if it is not experienced by human beings. As obvious as it is that fact often gets missed. Music must be heard, art must be seen, books must be read. There is no other way for art to get into the human psyche than be experienced.

So then the latent power of art is only realized when shared. Of course there is the worthwhileness of the art for the artist outside of and in spite of its cultural celebration. There is an innate benefit to the artist that must be accounted for.

So the artist does run a risk taking art from private to public. What was internally satisfying and helpful in the completion of a piece for personal benefit and gain may be lost in an attempt to take that same piece into the public realm.

This is a huge decision, and essential to the question of art’s purpose. Can there be necessarily good art that is never experienced by others? Yes. Can art fulfill its destiny (as a unique creation) without being experienced by others? No!

Facing the Dark Suffering of the World (Addendum)

*Ok, here is the bottom line: can we boost economies in developing countries without distorting or destroying the good things about those cultures? Is that even the right goal? Are we really to be about economy boosting or people loving?

Or neither? Do we do people in developing countries the greatest good by staying out of their way (and keeping other people out too)? Do they just need time to figure it out? Or are the needs in such places so desperate they demand action from us?

Clearly that seems to be the case. In such rabid instability the conditions are created not only for extreme poverty but for violent crime that soon leaks out beyond the borders. If we do nothing, we pay the price so to speak.

But do what? Where there are over-crowding, limited natural resources, and little to no local economies people are left with very few options. Being very poor is normal, but can be sustainable, and is not in all cases the worse existence. 

Better to be poor and maintain cultural identity than to have too many options and risk being lured away into other traditions? OR is cultural compromise a necessary condition of globalism? IF we are to take the opportunities afforded, is there a necessary price to pay?

It seems that is the case. The price is the inevitable pull toward materialistic life. Things become more important than people. Comfort takes on all new precedence. People get economic mobility but tossed in with it are some inherent vices.

So is it worth it? Starvation and extreme poverty on one hand or compromised traditional culture with a few scattered bottom of the global barrel jobs on the other. How does one know? How do honest business men in Cambodia know?

The bleakness of the picture or the frailness of the system serve to remind us, if nothing else, that there are other forces involved. The world is not merely or only economic. There are other values to consider, there may even be other worlds to consider.

That otherworldliness thing is probably the expertise of poverty. Those in its grips are almost always gifted with a healthy "far way" detachment from daily life. And, to be honest, for us caught in the throes of first-world navigation, that can be a welcomed reprise.

For most of the world's poor [not speaking here about extreme poverty] there is a remarkable sense of contentment. Certainly this could be seen as weakness, a result of ignorance, but sentimentally there seems to be an envied simplicity that goes beyond this world.

Contentment is not something to be "educated" out of the poor, perhaps it is a gift to the world. Perhaps the poor offer those of us with material resources retreat from that awful first-world poverty Mother Theresa noted (loneliness). Perhaps we need the poor.

Even more than we need them. At the risk of sounding exploitive, we must note the willingness of almost all great spiritual leaders to be poor. There are some freedoms we find only there in poverty, some inner resources the whole world could use. 

Facing the Dark Suffering of the World (Part 6)

Finally what keeps most people away from human relief and development work is the overwhelming magnitude of the problem. It is hard to know what we can do. And, frankly, it feels very serious, almost like we can’t enjoy life if we do it.

What if the opposite were true? What if we couldn’t enjoy life unless we are doing it? In other words, what if mission work is not a cosmic kill-joy? What if it actually is great fun, great community, great adventure? What if we forgot we were doing mission?

Of course there comes a time in any mission that the weight of the poverty and the physical strains take their toll. But there is also something luring about the whole thing, giving life meaning and bringing people together in very unusual ways.

What if mission is actually the great community developer of the future? What if the loads of young adults not sure what to do with life could somehow engage with and belong to a mission community (sort of like a monastic order of sorts)?

It may sound idealic to think of a communal sort of living situation (similar maybe to hotels) but why not? What is stopping us from really pursuing such a living situation? They exist in so many other parts of the world as realities.

Now, of course, those who actually do live in such mission communities would be the first to tell you of the enormous challenge. It is not an “easy” way or an “escape” sort of life. It is a commitment to sharing, giving, living with others in mind.

Americans are absolutely scared of that. We love our privacy. We love our freedom to do what we want when we want. Those certainly are not bad things. But are they that good? Is the return on those ends that great? Look around.

It seems younger Americans particularly are ready for a new sort of life. They are tired of chasing a dream that may not exist, and if it does may not be that worth it. They want more. There is so much more, just outside of our grasps.

Who will brave enough to try? Of course there are intentional communities throughout the states already, many doing very interesting things with the arts and social action. Most under the radar. Most not hip, sexy, or cool.

That’s the hard sell. At the end of the day, community, like actually making a life out of the arts, is not all that fun. It takes hard work, intentionality, long nights, lousy sleeping situations, and so forth to make dreams happen, who really wants that?

But what is the alternative? What are our other options? In this current culture we have only to try, to see what can become of our ideas. They may translate, they may eventually sort of pay for themselves, but they may not.

This is not for the faint-hearted. This is exclusively for those who refuse to barter with social systems that counter their ideals. It’s for those who care too much, who love all but must make hard choices now for a future world that is worth all the sacrifices!  

Facing the Dark Suffering of the World (Part 5)

The “world” for so many is a system of self-centered gain and ruthless carnage for all who get in the way. It is a built on taking things at whatever cost for oneself. Self-interest is the really the only motivation in such a world.

Yet there is another world. It is one we share with all humans. It is the “one blood” reality. No matter our language, no matter our culture, no matter our gender, no matter our perspective, we are all one race sharing the essential quality.

In this sense the world is not necessary evil it is latent potential. It is first article “good.” It is the reminder that God is Creator of all (and therefore it’s Father). It pulls us beyond our creeds to see the humanity of individuals from so many various backgrounds.

How do we get from one world to the other? How do we know which one we are dealing with? How does it go from being basically good to being downright evil? Perhaps this is just the question to get us launched into our discussion on suffering.

What is clear is that “the world” in the bad sense is a pattern of thinking, a perspective, and way of looking at life. Generally speaking, it is to see life as non-spiritual, merely material, humans in that sense are stripped of soul (or at least it is minimized).

People become a means to an end. Sometimes this end can be methodically intellectual, an idea or belief system taken to the farthest degree (think Naziism, Communism). People must fit into this system of thinking.

Sometimes it is only loosely rational. People are simply props to my ever-unfolding dream. They are here, real, and possibly meaningful, but only in the sense they help me achieve my goals, namely survival of the fittest.

People are not, in this version of the world, spiritual beings - profoundly human, a mystery to be celebrated. They are temporary means to an end. The world tends to deal only in the most concrete currencies, namely survival.

Often the leaders of this version of the world are extremely determined, powerful men. Though their ideologies may be at times abhorrent, they have one thing right: we can do what we want. We have the power to do amazing things as humans.

If we decide to end poverty we could. Not that we can actually get in and make people change, but we can change the conditions, systems, and structures that perpetuate cyclical poverty. We could, with concerted effort, actually change this.

Are we determined enough? Do we care enough? Do we believe enough in the power of transcendent ideas to motivate people? Do we believe the innovations of technology can foster more than economic development for first world countries?

Who gets to determine what kind of “world” this will be is largely up to us. Are we willing to remain in the Way, slowly and steadily working for long-term peace? Are we committed to believing the power of good is worth it?  

Facing the Dark Suffering of the World (Part 4)

So the creative impulse somehow births in the midst of suffering. Perhaps it is the impotence to “do” anything about the overwhelming issues. That lack leads to a need for some outlet. The creative world provides a much needed venue.

Is it a cop-out? Let’s save that question. What is born in the trenches of that true compassion (for others, and believe it or not, for ourselves) is art. It is a way to combat the evils, to slay the giant drug lords, to make some real impact.

Artists will soon face the very strange dilemma of what to do with these art pieces, created in the trenches of longing. What purpose can they serve and how worthwhile is their exploitation to the world? Can it stand for such art to be sold?

Considering its beginnings, birthed out of a desire and incompetence to help in more practical ways, it seems all the sillier to somehow profit off such art. Yet if such creating truly is a calling and truly actually helps, why wouldn’t we?

Perhaps in a perfect world art was never intended to be sold. Perhaps artists were and are necessarily to remain, like Franciscan Monks, poor. Perhaps there is an identification with the poor and suffering because it is true for them.

That may be to some degree true. But “success” does not necessitate neglect of such things. There are examples of artists who have become commercially successful and yet stay very focused and involved in their communities and with the poor.

Those artists in some ways give their followers a path. It comes down to an age old question: is the goal of development work really to develop OR is it simply to be with and care for? In other words, do we want the poor to remain such?

If the goal is development and actually equipping the poor than the artist must learn how to do this as well. The artist must become entrepreneur and insist his art become a valuable commodity. This is a desire we must learn to explore and validate.

There is always a tension in development work between the almost romance of poverty (assumes sort of an accept things how they are approach) and the struggle to “get out.” What are we getting out to? Whose world wins as the goal?

That begs the question: is success in the financial sense a particular culture’s world? Or is truly open to all, free of any ethnic preferences? And if it is open to all, do some have natural proclivities and cultural boosts to such a way of thinking and being?

How can we make it ok to succeed? How can we make it guilt-free to advance? Is there a way to get past the cultural bondage of scarcity? If I win, you lose. Is there a way to trust advancement, to see it as not soul-defying?

To get to this we must wrestle down the concept of “the world” offered by many religions. “The world” is seen as the system of success whereby people slowly decay into acquiring machines and lose their ability to be compassionate.