Monday, May 07, 2012
Cycling
Also, I did some cycling yesterday. I have literally one photo. The other one is just a generic photo of East Coast Park.
Creativity
At some point in time, I wondered to myself what drives artists to make art. I wasn't looking for some passionate answer about motivation or drive or some feel-good mumbo jumbo like that. There's a pretty obvious disconnect between those in the creative industries and those outside. And I wondered why that was. What separated those who do from those who don't.
It in interesting to note that when it comes to creativity, some people firmly believe in being "gifted" and some believe hard work overcomes all. Because creativity comes in various forms of expression, it became too overwhelming to think about how much of an effect training actually has. So I decided to use a parallel, and the only one I could come up with was humor. Being funny comes naturally to some people. And some people manage to turn that into their day job. So why then do schools for humor training still exist, like improv schools and acting schools for comedy?
My belief is that it is an innate ability, just like creativity, cultivated perhaps only when we still have permission (or perhaps freedom) to make mistakes. That time period is usually when we're still very young, still unaware of social pressures like guilt or fear. But more importantly, it comes in 2 parts, the ability to see the world differently, and the ability to translate that to a medium. Of course, such an ability is not a dichotomy between haves and have-nots but a sliding scale. That still doesn't answer the question of why formal training still exists.
Training acts as a funnel to direct part 1 to part 2. Many people go through life with the ability to see things differently, but never able to put it down onto paper or film or any other medium, which is one of the most frustrating thing in the world. You can never expect a good writer to paint well or a sketch artist to direct a film. Some people may have skills that translate well across mediums, but it's unreasonable to expect so from most people. What training does is that it simply refines your skill at putting it on a medium. That's why lessons are focused on particularly technical aspects, like shadows, or pacing or special effects. They have nothing to do with what you can envision in your mind, merely how to show it to other people more spectacularly.
And the reverse is also true. Some people have a marvellous ability to draw or paint or write, but not much of creativity per se. So they perform best imitating the work of other. A lot of them do incredible work, but they lack the originality that makes artists artists. Many times, these are the people that training cannot help.
It in interesting to note that when it comes to creativity, some people firmly believe in being "gifted" and some believe hard work overcomes all. Because creativity comes in various forms of expression, it became too overwhelming to think about how much of an effect training actually has. So I decided to use a parallel, and the only one I could come up with was humor. Being funny comes naturally to some people. And some people manage to turn that into their day job. So why then do schools for humor training still exist, like improv schools and acting schools for comedy?
My belief is that it is an innate ability, just like creativity, cultivated perhaps only when we still have permission (or perhaps freedom) to make mistakes. That time period is usually when we're still very young, still unaware of social pressures like guilt or fear. But more importantly, it comes in 2 parts, the ability to see the world differently, and the ability to translate that to a medium. Of course, such an ability is not a dichotomy between haves and have-nots but a sliding scale. That still doesn't answer the question of why formal training still exists.
Training acts as a funnel to direct part 1 to part 2. Many people go through life with the ability to see things differently, but never able to put it down onto paper or film or any other medium, which is one of the most frustrating thing in the world. You can never expect a good writer to paint well or a sketch artist to direct a film. Some people may have skills that translate well across mediums, but it's unreasonable to expect so from most people. What training does is that it simply refines your skill at putting it on a medium. That's why lessons are focused on particularly technical aspects, like shadows, or pacing or special effects. They have nothing to do with what you can envision in your mind, merely how to show it to other people more spectacularly.
And the reverse is also true. Some people have a marvellous ability to draw or paint or write, but not much of creativity per se. So they perform best imitating the work of other. A lot of them do incredible work, but they lack the originality that makes artists artists. Many times, these are the people that training cannot help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)