is there still room for creativity in writing and painting?

[Scrabbl]

Literature and Painting are not as they once were. There isn't much room for innovation any more. So I feel kind of bad for people who still aspire to be painter or writer. Writing or painting is supposed to be creative, but, like I said, the room for creativity has diminished a lot. Because it seems to me that all the good stuff have been exhausted. All the wonderful techniques and subjects have already been explored. What's left in these fields are indeed quite boring.

Writing:
For Literature, most of the genres have already been defined (e.g. horror, mystery), and the genres are not infinite. So it's really hard to write something totally creative. my definition for creative is not just "different" but it also has to be good. Just to illustrate the point: I don't think there will be another Shakespeare. Shakespeare was only very ground-breaking because there was still "ground" to "break" (bah so clumsy ) during the period in which he lived. What I mean to say is, there are only so much literary devices to invent and only so much good themes to discover. Like that Romeo and Juliet love theme - the idea can only be invented once, and then people start reusing it like mad in their novels and films. I don't go to movies at all (so correct me if I'm wrong) but in my opinion, most movie plotlines are just remixes of old ideas, if it some day gets too boring, they add a twist to it, if that fails too, then people start making parodies of the genre.

Painting:
When you look at the Western art movements, you can see how people gradually explored different subjects of art. E.g., the Greeks fascinated themselves with studying the beauty of human anatomy. The Impressionists studied light and its effects. Realists tried to portray reality as is, without idealizing it. And later having done all that, and with the invention of cameras and photography, painters quit trying to do a camera's job, and went to explore subjects like surrealism, cubism, pointilism and stuff like that.

When they were finally done with that, they started doing some really pointless stuff: Modern Art. I don't want to offend anyone but I don't like those. It just shows that they're running out of things to paint. There was one abstract painting I saw, which consisted of a black square in the middle of the white canvas (see artist). That's just extremely boring, I could do that in Microsoft Paint in 3 seconds. It seems that there aren't a lot good stuff left out there to explore any more.

So my point is that it's kind of sad how everything in art(painting) and literature has been done. I know I'm not really qualified for any of this. I didn't take courses in fine art or literature. And I know some people here have. So I'm really looking forward to see what you think.

So what's your opinion? Is there still room for creativity in those fields?

[edit] haha it's kind of ironic how I said I don't like abstract art and still has an avatar of one lol. The explanation is I don't like it presented as "art". It's ok as decoration because the colours and the geometrical objects are nice and all. But it just kind of too pointless and not very interesting to be art.

 

[cLavain]

Re: is there still room for creativity in writing and painti

[edit] haha it's kind of ironic how I said I don't like abstract art and still has an avatar of one lol. The explanation is I don't like it presented as "art". It's ok as decoration because the colours and the geometrical objects are nice and all. But it just kind of too pointless and not very interesting to be art.

You know, I agree with you. I think many abstract pictures (well...CD-covers for me, as I'm never at any galleries) are pretty cool, but it's not like I go: "Wow, man, that's soooo deep!" Of course, I'm just an uneducated layman so I'll always be more impressed by someone who can paint life-like humans. At which the art critic will no doubt sneer: "You simpleton! This is a masterpiece of the neo-neo-post-modernistic movement currently turning the art community on its head! These three blue lines transcend the walls of reality! Their parallel routes extend towards a higher state of being! No, really, they do..."

Anyway, I've thought about the same thing: There is an awful lot of recycling going on in most artforms.

 

[Quixote]

I think there may be some room left for creativity in the arts, in the sense of clever adaptation and reinterpretation of classical themes, updating those reflections to the current times. Complexity and hidden references to previous works can be added, and are added. It does not necessarily have to be a "lower" type of artistic effort. After all, wasn't Shakespeare himself doing it when he wrote about "love vs family loyalty", or "the heavy burden of command" and such? The themes are probably as ancient as the human ability of storytelling, and one could find far more ancient works dealing with them (think of greek tragedy) yet he was able to build fresh theatrical masterpieces around them. He used "recent" historical material for the settings, added complexity to the characters, now faced with deeper moral dilemmas than before (as suited people imbued with religiosity), mixed comedy with dramatic events, which used to be kept strictly separated, and wrote in english. All in all, he made a wonderful adaptation of old stuff to modern times.

So is there a limit to our ability to find new ways of artistic expression, given this limited definition of what constitutes novelty? I think not, or at least not too much. I too have this feeling sometimes that "all that needed to be said has been said". Maybe some genres are exhausted, perhaps the traditional novel is going to die slowly, and there won't be another Dostojevskij just as there hasn't been so far another Shakespeare (and it's almost half a millenium now!). After all, literary genres naturally come and disappear, and novels are a quite recent idea.

Or maybe, the very idea of "masterpieces", of immortal works able to talk to all men of all ages, is outdated. As the setting changes faster and faster, literary works will age faster as well. A few ancient works, out of their simple force and "essential" topic (such as shakepeare) will survive, some equally good but more "specialized" ones will have to go. Joseph Roth, for example, or Musil, both wrote some excellent stuff, deep as much as one may like, but at the end of the day, their main concern was the decline and fall of the Austrian empire. There may be other elements to be found in their works, but these are the probably the usual ones, already seen in the classics. The most interesting part, the new part, of their contribution to literature, was reflection on the austrian empire. Quite outdated eh? . Replacement of these "minor" works is needed, and that's where modern literature should be aimed at, in my opinion.

 

[LA-girl]

Yes, I definately agree! I actually wrote about that in another thread a few month back about the obvious recycling going on, not only in writing and painting, but also in fashion, music, graphic design etc. But I don't blame them. In fact I did a lot of painting/drawing myself a few years back, but for some reason I don't have the passion anymore, at least not as strong as it used to be. I guess a part of the reason is that when you are into "art" you want to be creative and you have a desire to create something new and exciting, and these days it's close to impossible i.m.o.

 

[Scrabbl]

I didn't really expect so many replies when I first posted this thread hehe. I thought the main forum or even the "off topic" forum would get all the traffic, and nothing goes on in this corner. and also I thought nobody would bother to read my thread 'cause it was so looong. :lol:
Anyway thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone.

I think there may be some room left for creativity in the arts, in the sense of clever adaptation and reinterpretation of classical themes, updating those reflections to the current times. Complexity and hidden references to previous works can be added, and are added. It does not necessarily have to be a "lower" type of artistic effort. After all, wasn't Shakespeare himself doing it when he wrote about "love vs family loyalty", or "the heavy burden of command" and such? The themes are probably as ancient as the human ability of storytelling, and one could find far more ancient works dealing with them (think of greek tragedy) yet he was able to build fresh theatrical masterpieces around them. He used "recent" historical material for the settings, added complexity to the characters, now faced with deeper moral dilemmas than before (as suited people imbued with religiosity), mixed comedy with dramatic events, which used to be kept strictly separated, and wrote in english. All in all, he made a wonderful adaptation of old stuff to modern times.

I get what you're saying. Yeah I agree in that sense it is possible to be creative.


And maybe we're being too absolute in implying there's no room for creative fiction writing. Because The Matrix, although did use some old themes, does have a relatively fresh idea, which isn't a classical theme.


clavain, phantom & la-girl:
I'm not qualified to talk about art because: I'm "art-illiterate" :lol: . I did get interested in sketching/painting for a while and then was discouraged. It's not because I can't draw. I could in fact draw pretty well because I had a lot of practice when I was little. The actual reason is similar to LA-girl's:

I guess a part of the reason is that when you are into "art" you want to be creative and you have a desire to create something new and exciting, and these days it's close to impossible i.m.o.

I actually did some research on art history and aesthetics etc when I was really into art. that's where I got _some_ basic ideas.

I knew that the debate about "what should be classified as art and what as non-art" has never stopped. -- I didn't really plan to talk about that topic originally in this thread, but you guys have some good points. I think if you were to define art as "what is interesting" then you could classify abstract art as art. anyways I'm bad at explaining, so if you're interested, wikipedia has an article on it

 

[cherish]

I don't think all of it is recycling. It's always been that people get their ideas and inspiration from somewhere else and the artist then makes it his own unique thing, adding on to it. I know there is alot of people who instead of reinovating obviously rip off other people's ideas for money or just to be recognized because they have no real talent and it's F ing annoying, but i think there is always room for new ideas and creation of something. Everything moves gradually and it's not like someone's just going to pop up with some amazing idea or new form although it seems that way because history pinpoints certain people and events for starting something or creating it but really it was everyone's consious moving forward as a whole all sharing eachother's ideas. I don't know i think we're moving forward all the time and creating different things constantly, it happens so in line though that we don't even notice it.

I want to be a writer.

 

[Quixote]

Everything moves gradually and it's not like someone's just going to pop up with some amazing idea or new form although it seems that way because history pinpoints certain people and events for starting something or creating it but really it was everyone's consious moving forward as a whole all sharing eachother's ideas.

I agree, except perhaps I would put "unconscious" instead of "conscious". But yes, definitely when we look back at great personalities of the past we tend to forget how they were themselves working within intellectual movements of which they came to constitute the peak. Innovation is a collective process, and Einstein could hardly have dreamed up relativity theory had he lived in the middle ages.

I'm not completely sure about art. I guess it really depends on the definition of art one chooses, as it is for most matters after all :roll:

 

[LA-girl]

'art' is the product of somebody's perception/interpretation of something they have seen/experienced...
... i cant imagine creativity ever drying up...

So true! You're so right, everybody is unique and I guess there will always be traces of our personality in the art we create, which will make our work unique as well. And it shouldn't really matter all that much if we're not engaging others with our work as long as we're content ourself. I'm nearly inspired to dig up my brush and canvas and start drawing again. No kidding, I think I got some of my old spark back!

 

[Scrabbl]

'art' is the product of somebody's perception/interpretation of something they have seen/experienced...
..

In other words, you can express emotions and experiences through art. -- you're right. I didn't think of that before!

That's why people spend lots of time learning to paint or play an instrument. Of course it's good to go to an art museum or a concert and see the works of masters. But I think it would be a quite different (and better) feeling if you are creating art yourself, even if you are only mediocre at it.

So I guess art has two aspects:
1. You want to express your own emotions through the creation of art.
2. But you also want to convey some idea to other people.

So I guess abstract art only 'satisfies' the first 'condition', because nobody knows what an abstract piece stand for other than the artist him or herself.

And it shouldn't really matter all that much if we're not engaging others with our work as long as we're content ourself.

To me though, art has been about the latter of the two aspects of art I listed. I don't really care what it means to me, but how other people respond to it. E.g., when I pick up a pencil I always ask myself "what should I draw?" (as if I want to people to like it) Whereas abstract artists start to splash colors onto the paper without hesitation with an attitude of "we'll see how it turns out". So that explains my bias.

Similarly, in writing, what you write for yourself (e.g. diary) is obviously different to what you would write to entertain other people (e.g. fiction).

So I guess if you're only looking at presenting your work to an audience, and not doing it for your own self-expression, you could feel you're running out of topic.

 

[Quixote]

Whereas abstract artists start to splash colors onto the paper without hesitation with an attitude of "we'll see how it turns out". So that explains my bias.

Well it may be the case of many of them, especially nowadays (modern art perhaps being itself a bit exhausted as a genre), but the early ones certainly believed they were innovating and exploring new paths of creativity, in much the same way as the late medieval painters did when they started developing the deep perspective technique.

Kandinskij, for example (nice avatar, btw ) wrote books explaining his theories about aestetics, and his paintings were meant to be almost "scientific" applications of them, with nothing in the composition or choice of colours being left to chance. And they are quite beautiful indeed, one could not replicate the beauty of them just by randomly throwing geometrical shapes on a white surface. His style can probably be imitated quite successfully, but so can Michelangelo's for that matter... The merit goes to those who did groundbreaking work first.

 

[Scrabbl]

but the early ones certainly believed they were innovating and exploring new paths of creativity, in much the same way as the late medieval painters did when they started developing the deep perspective technique.

Kandinskij, for example (nice avatar, btw ) wrote books explaining his theories about aestetics, and his paintings were meant to be almost "scientific" applications of them, with nothing in the composition or choice of colours being left to chance. And they are quite beautiful indeed, one could not replicate the beauty of them just by randomly throwing geometrical shapes on a white surface. His style can probably be imitated quite successfully, but so can Michelangelo's for that matter... The merit goes to those who did groundbreaking work first.

I had no idea that they did abstract art that way. Thanks Quixote.
I've seen a picture of a painting by him before. But other than that I didn't know who he is at all. lol. :lol:

 

[Quixote]

I had no idea that they did abstract art that way. Thanks Quixote.

You are welcome! But as for today's painters, I completely agree with you that they probably splash paint directly from the bucket!

I've seen a picture of a painting by him before.

A little square one coming in a pink-reddish tone eh? [/quote]

 

[ash_2001]

"Originality is the art of concealing your sources." :wink: