Unlimited creativity from limitations?

[Philo]

I also compose music. There are common "tricks" to composing music. You must create "limitations" for yourself. There are "tricks" of limiting yourself, creating certain boundaries. It has been said and I have read numerous times, in the creative process this is a good thing. That in limiting yourself to a certain "form" you in fact enhance the creative process.

That's all I'll say for now, unless anyone is curious. It gets really involved.

Ok CC, here's your chance. :D

This intrigued me, and thought it deserved it's own thread. This seems exactly like the "blank sheet" problem that writers have, which I'm sure many here have experienced. Even if I have an idea, I can stare at a blank piece of paper for days without ever writing anything, and when I start it usually seems like crap. However, if I start with some limitations (such as the format and content guidelines of haiku) I can usually get something out pretty quickly. Yet whatever I produce that I like typically doesn't fall within the guidelines defined by the form. It's almost as if we hate limitations, but can't act without them.

So why is it that basically infinite possibilities cause us to freeze? Is it that we just can't fathom the idea of infinity, and therefore need some structure to guide us? If that's true, why do we usually end up "scribbling outside the lines" when we do use a given form?

[Arioch]

You need to have rules to break them.

Just as Art needs Taboo's to truly shine

[Geoff]

Ok CC, here's your chance. :D

This intrigued me, and thought it deserved it's own thread. This seems exactly like the "blank sheet" problem that writers have, which I'm sure many here have experienced. Even if I have an idea, I can stare at a blank piece of paper for days without ever writing anything, and when I start it usually seems like crap. However, if I start with some limitations (such as the format and content guidelines of haiku) I can usually get something out pretty quickly. Yet whatever I produce that I like typically doesn't fall within the guidelines defined by the form. It's almost as if we hate limitations, but can't act without them.

So why is it that basically infinite possibilities cause us to freeze? Is it that we just can't fathom the idea of infinity, and therefore need some structure to guide us? If that's true, why do we usually end up "scribbling outside the lines" when we do use a given form?

I can give you an answer based upon my chosen art form - photography. There are some well known rules that allow a traditional composure to be made. For example - the rule of thirds where broadly speaking the points of interest will be at the intersections of lines drawn at 1/3 intervals along both axis of the photo.
Following this rule allows a good photo to be taken. The rule therefore gives a limitation on which a basic photographer can be guaranteed of decent results. it gives a structure around which to compose their art.
Knowing when to break that rule is when a good picture becomes a great one - normally breaking compositional rules will give a glaring or clash result. But if it is done with genius - that scrabbling with the fingernails at the locked door of reality (if I may put it that way) then the result can be inspired. Some of the most eye catching photos are those that break traditional rules. But it is only by understanding accepted rules and limitations that you can know when breaking them could give an inspirational result.
A complete lack of preset limitations and when to make them just ends up with a poor result because the freeform nature is 'too' big - the set of possible creations is too large to reconcile into a useful set of options. In order to recognise excellence above reasonable measure you must first understand the accepted standard of measuring what is good.
Music I think follows a similar system (to pick up from CC's point).

-Geoff

[ApeTheDog]

It's because when you have a structure in place, you can focus on the details. And attention to details is what make masterpieces.

I really think it's a simple as that. When you limit yourself, you only have the details to consider and you can focus your attention and brainpower 100% on them. Resulting in something that is a good as you can make it.

[cjs55]

Geniuses destroy previous structure and replace it with their own.

There came a point in my musical life when I was playing guitar, and I realized every single note was an option and a possibility, that there was no rules, that even the simplest linear melody had infinite possibilities. It was pretty much musical nihilism. I spent the rest of the day just wandering around on my guitar...but I certainly couldn't write any music at that point. I was just exploring my new found freedom.

The next, and much more difficult challenge, is to create from that freedom, structure (for music, melodic structure and archetypes).

I believe that one of the biggest failings of modern art is that they just think freedom is all you need, and structure (which I could replace with idealogy [because I'm an amatuer musicologist]) is ignored. This is because creating is an act of will that scares most people because it's contrary to the current common social philosopy. Not to mention it's alot easier to just take what other people have done and dress it up with new colors (which I consider 99% of most music to be).

Freedom puts us all on the same level. Its those that create 'limits' or melodic idealogy that are on a different one. We are not allowed to rise like that in this society, because we are all equals, and saying one piece of music (and by extention, composer) is better than another would be a breach of social norms.

"That's just your opinion." : Bullshit.

But anyways, to answer the original question, I think we have unlimited creativity in creating structure. And if we find that other people have not worked their way through a structure we can ourselves explore it, but I find this to be rare, as most great artists are comprehensive and enveloping in their works. But I don't think that there is ultimate freedom in any given structure. You still have some freedom in a compositional sense, but the end results will be something we've 'heard' before, thus contradicting that compositional freedom. Whats the point of freedom if you just tread the same ground as everyone else?

[indie]

So why is it that basically infinite possibilities cause us to freeze? Is it that we just can't fathom the idea of infinity, and therefore need some structure to guide us? If that's true, why do we usually end up "scribbling outside the lines" when we do use a given form?

Composition is structure. . . songs, art, photography, writing, all of them are the essence of structure. A song is composed of the various notes in a set structure. Writing is composed of various sentences or stanzas within a larger context. (Thinking "out loud" here, as I've never really thought about this before. And I just had an "ahHA!" moment. :)) Thus the curse of the artist (especially the IN artist) who is able to fathom and visualize those infinite possibilites available to him or her in an infinite array of possibilites. It's too much for one mind to comprehend, so focusing on one tiny aspect is the only way to begin. . . Wow, I almost want to go do something creative now.

Very nice insight, philo. :)

[CoHo]

Oh yeah, human creativity is finite

[nBT]

duh,


The next, and much more difficult challenge, is to create from that freedom, structure (for music, melodic structure and archetypes).

the two worlds: a symbol one and a archaic one. archetypes are fluid and non existent in the Sensing-sense. to make an archetype visible, either by music or art, you have to grab it and pull it out. the problem is as soon as you do this, the archetype assumes only one meaning, namely that of the symbol it 'froze' in.

when looking at an archetype with Ni it can have any shape. the substantiation of archetypes is where real creativity is needed. you want to respect both the listener (S) and the original idea (N). i have not seen artists do anything more than being a mediator between the consious and unconsious.

[Lee]

i have not seen artists do anything more than being a mediator between the consious and unconsious.

While avoiding upsetting that pesky super-ego (conscionce) which is why different people have different tolarence levels for the taboo stuff.

[nBT]

art doesnt need taboos, culture needs taboos. dont confuse me

[Arioch]

art doesnt need taboos, culture needs taboos. dont confuse me

But how can art broaden ones horizons if it cannot play with taboo's?

[nBT]

with SJ's you are at the taboo fast. im not a fan of this soulsearching aproach. art as social big brother, theres many more institutions that have the same role.
art is for that role part of culture, subject to the same rules culture resides in. 'trancendent art' does not obey cultures rules. instead it seeks explanation for itself.

as explained in here before, culture is a set of symbols for universal archetypes. if you dont like the symbol set, move or invent your own. voila.

[Shai Gar]

i have never understood this limitations stuff. i just see a beautiful shot and i start taking photos. most of the ones come out great. i know nothing about the "rules" of photography and i probably would not care if i did. rules are not made to be broken, they are made to be ignored as you do your own thing. if other people like it then awesome, if not, meh.

[PonderBee]

If I am creating for myself I prefer to have no boundaries. However, without any defining limitations I have a difficult time creating for someone else. I find that most people that give you full license to "be creative" are actually expecting something rather pedestrian because they lack a sense of imagination. In my more naive past I'd throw myself head-on into a full license project with very original results. Generally, I'd end up with a quick mention and sideward glances because I'd actually gone too far afield with an idea -meanwhile some dressed-up, dry, generic work would be hailed as breakthrough. The fact that someone I knew to have finite mental agility could trump me on a "creative" assignment while I am left in a corner looking like the oddball would be crushing.

[nBT]

ponderbee

yah, happens all the time. i first ask a few questions to their intent etc. this is for figuring out how far i can push the originality. sadly most people dont understand originality. culturally defined symbols are already enough. if i know the level of originality i can work out how much energy i have to put into it. wich ties to the $$ question.

[PonderBee]

Perhaps nBT, this is one of the most invaluable lessons for true INTP's. The posts on this message board frequently describe the INTP as suffering from a mental/emotional deficiency or distress of one form or another. The general populous in the world promotes this idea of deficiency for most of us because the vast majority of people in the world are either simply unable or unwilling to recognize that many traits attributable to the INTP are worthy of encouragement, development and support. However, I suspect that what INTP's mostly suffer from is “bad numbers”. We are a small minority of the human population and go through life not understanding or realizing our true potential – frustrated and confused, turning to the “the experts” of the general populous for support, a “diagnosis” and advice on navigating a path for ourselves in this world. As the INTP goes through life seeking to find his/her way based on the advice and diagnosis of the general populous the more deeply ingrained or reinforced the idea that he/she is suffering from a set of deficits. INTP’s would be better served by embracing and building upon their abilities, identifying and improving their weaknesses, and learning to read and gauge the people they are surrounded by thereby assuming some degree of control and advantage over the general populous.

[nBT]

yes, ive had that notion some time ago. it rings true. dont limit yourself by the judgement people pass upon you. (i believe mark twain had a similar quote) talk to them in their own language. if you think they are smarter than looks, break it to them, ask more abstract questions. every person has a right to speak, hell to exist. dont be afriad to speak when all your lights go off at once. it may take some time to finally figure out a correct sentence.

by saying 'control and advantage of the general populous' you raise an interesting subject.

[PonderBee]

... by saying 'control and advantage of the general populous' you raise an interesting subject.
There is nothing I want to do less than control others - except perhaps to be controlled by them!