- To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.
It seems to me that we always put some parts of it in action (mainly the dining part) when trying to create something. And although i think it is not a formula for new ideas, it provides many ways of improving the creative process.
What do you think? You disagree about some part, or think there is something missing? My first comment guys, haha, dont know if thats the way to start a conversation or if im just being repetitive.
Welcome :) I agree with a lot here. One of the takeaways that's stuck with me in the week since I've read it is that five or six people is indeed the upper limit for stimulating conversation -- a conversation with five doesn't have me actively having to wedge into the conversation. I'm not saying that listening is unimportant, it's just that at some point, large group conversations becomes more the group's social dynamics (who is more assertive) than everyone simply sharing great insight without elbowing.
Are you talking about the ritualizing of the creative process itself? Because, if it is a way of improving upon the creative process, as you said, then it definitely could apply to some "formula" for stimulating it. I think, more so, it is de-ritualizing the internal process by making it creating a codified space that is open and free-wheeling, allowing the un-fettered flow of information. You are somewhat just re-stating the central idea, but how do you think you apply yourself at an idea? Or what led you to generating something you're proud of? I find myself coming up with ideas after a combination of exposure to information, and just plain sitting around, thinking back on what I've learned. Most of the time, they just come out of seemingly nowhere, but trying to create a de-ritualized space (a dinner table, a bench at a bar) has always been helpful in my experience.It seems to me that we always put some parts of it in action (mainly the dining part) when trying to create something.
An interesting read. Most intriguing to me was this part: The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display. We came upon a somewhat similar sentiment during one of the piece I studied for my critique of research module. Allbeit, it approached the notion from a different angle. This is from Milton Babbit's article 'Who Cares If You Listen?' The difference being that Babbit, a serialist composer from the 50s, believed that best and most creative ideas were inhibited by the ignorant masses, rather than a fear of embarrassment. Either way, I think general idea of isolation is certainly a key factor. Beyond either interpretation of why that's important, I also think it has do with translation. Within a group situation, you not only have to conceive new ideas, but also almost immediately have to process a way of accurately portraying said idea to an audience. This has the danger of setting something in place before it's really had time to come to fruition within the mind. But then again, in 'cerebration sessions', I guess you'd have a good chance of that idea then developing with a multitude more minds. I love exploring the foundations of creative thought, there's so many unending facets to be explored. I reckon I'm going to do my essay for the aforementioned module on creativity and tradition, exploring what relationship there is between the two and why.My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it. (The famous example of Kekule working out the structure of benzene in his sleep is well-known.)
And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from the public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition. By doing so, the separation between the domains would be defined beyond and possibility of confusion of categories, and the composer would be free to pursue a private life of profession achievement, as opposed to a public of unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism.