{"id":232,"date":"2007-12-23T12:23:35","date_gmt":"2007-12-23T12:23:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ljudmila.org\/~savskib\/?p=232"},"modified":"2025-01-04T22:09:44","modified_gmt":"2025-01-04T20:09:44","slug":"on-creativity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/?p=232","title":{"rendered":"On Creativity…"},"content":{"rendered":"

[ saved from http:\/\/www.3via.org\/BasicQuestions\/<\/a> – not there anymore]<\/p>\n

\u201cBeware of the creativity of the powerful\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once I wrote an article \u2013 a complaint on the lies and double talk of representatives of the local government \u2013 and ended it with the following line: \u201cBeware of the creativity of the powerful\u201d. It was a response to the repetitive answers of the public officials \u2013 that they have different plans. What plans can an official have? It’s just a job!<\/p>\n

Creation as Self-creation
\n<\/strong>
\nMy notion of creativity as it enters various fields is based upon thoughts that I repeatedly had after hearing a lecture by Slovene art and media theorist Janez Strehovec, in which he looked into reasons for the new creative (artistic?) field \u2013 the area of genetics and creativity as a concept that had entered the field of biology since the start of cloning experiments. The area was described as \u201cnew (mass) media\u201d a couple of years before by artist\/activist Heath Bunting. One can understand that genetics will help humans to get a couple of years closer to \u201cimmortality\u201d and medicine will help us to be just a couple of operations away from the beautiful. So, it is about self-creation.<\/p>\n

The changing paradigms (in this postmodern, postindustrial,\u2026 posthistoric time) were pointed out as a dynamic \u201cmodus operandi\u201d that redefines the relationships in the discursive fields and therefore also our understanding. Since these fields are \u201clocal\u201d systems of evaluation they are not necessarily in conformity with broader, more basic evaluation matrices (humanistic, religious, scientific). In the ideal case, this conformity would exist at least to some extent. The broader evaluation systems are based on the ethical dimension \u2013 linked to notions such as civilization, collective, social aspects and humanity as a species. And it is these fields that are the only fixed points of reference and therefore \u201cthe critique\u201d for the technologically advancing areas. If new areas are not viewed as parts of the broader picture, the perspective gets twisted \u2013 the humanism suddenly becomes old and conservative and all relationships from here on get transformed. Not in an illogical manner, however \u2013 it is therefore a truly credible system of evaluation.<\/p>\n

Since I am interested in seeing creativity as the basic concept, some questions would be: why is art associated with creativity and should it necessarily be so? And: what becomes of generally positive aspects of creativity when subjected to different discursive fields \u2013 why is art good for creativity and why are science, biology, politics, business not so good? Is it always the ethical dimension that poses problems? When I speak about artificial life, I am actually speaking about understanding Life, but on a model of lesser life. If I forget that the model is just an \u201cimage\u201d (a representation, etc.) \u2013 I will start to speak also about self-creation of the model \u2013 and quickly about the Life of the model. The basic mystification (be it religious, scientific or humanistic) is lost and the world becomes arbitrary \u2013 a designer’s playground.<\/p>\n

What is Creativity?<\/a><\/strong> (from Wikipedia)
\n<\/strong>
\nFor ancient Greeks \u201cpoiein\u201d meant simply \u201cto make\u201d. Poetry was the high art of creation, other artistic fields were imitating rather than creating. Ancient Romans introduced the word \u201ccreatio\u201d \u2013 and used two words for \u201cto make\u201d \u2013 \u201cfacere\u201d and \u201ccreare\u201d (\u201ccreatus\u201d \u2013 to have grown). The word \u201ccreation\u201d was used to describe artistic work. In the Christian period \u201ccreation\u201d was reserved for God’s \u201ccreation from nothing\u201d. It was not until the\u00a0 Renaissance (15th century) and especially the Enlightenment (18th century) that the word creativity was again used to describe human work. In the 19th century it was only art that was regarded as creative. At the turn of the 1900s, the discussion of creativity in the sciences and in nature began. Today we talk about creativity in all fields of human activities \u2013 Industry, Business and Economy \u2013 describing the creation (the growth) of anything.<\/p>\n

Creativity and Politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

We like to say that we know that Politics goes hand in hand with the capital \u2013 the profit. How and when does Politics become creative and what are the reasons and the consequences? Here I point to the fact that we mainly live in a \u201cwestern style democracy\u201d, governed by elected members of government, the parliament, an independent legal system, independent media control, religion systems separate from the state, etc. What we have to perform the governing role are public officials \u2013 the public servants, as they used to be called. Individuals don\u2019t count much in the long run \u2013 the \u201cinstitutions of democracy\u201d are the foundations that keep societies stable.<\/p>\n

There is no need for a public official to become creative, since his\/her job is mainly about the system that must be continuously repetitive and only slowly transformable. No abrupt revolutions are needed in the contemporary notion of democracy. For such a stable, almost fixed situation there would be no need for \u201cpeople with vision\u201d.<\/p>\n

But for any kind of situation demanding fast reaction time \u2013 like crisis endangering the system \u2013 there comes a need for a faster \u2013 \u201ca reduced\u201d democratic system. \u201cCreativity\u201d has now entered politics and quick changes can be made. The usual situation in war: democratic\/civic institutions are put aside. What happens if no war is declared or no democratic\/civic structures are disbanded \u2013 they are \u201cjust not functioning very well\u201d \u2013 or the other way around? In the case of the USA (and the western world …) the War on Terrorism was declared, but the civic institutions continued to function \u2013 just \u201cnot very well\u201d.<\/p>\n

Externalizing the Economic Problems
\n<\/strong>
\nThe same \u201cnot-very-well-functioning\u201d of civic\/democratic institutions is going on even without the direct threat of terrorism. In the case of Europe the economic systems in the past two decades are not growing enough to sustain societies in the long run. The fall of the Eastern bloc didn\u2019t bring as much gold as expected. The War on Terrorism also didn\u2019t bring as much as it did for the USA.<\/p>\n

While the US economy managed to successfully \u201cexternalize\u201d problems of the local economy to the global level, Europe has been yet unable to do something similar. I would say that all these actions can be defined as creative, since they have provided growth (of certain segments of economy, certain profits \u2013 especially in the case of the US), or the reduction of costs of production (the cost of social security) in the EU.<\/p>\n

The main reason that the economy in the EU has not \u201cgrown\u201d is said to be the well-developed social system, which is very costly. It threatens to become even worse in the next decades. Without economic growth (which is not possible), or radical changes to the social system (that would include lowering of the social rights of the citizens) the crash of the EU economies is expected. And this means that an open call is out to the politicians for a \u201ccreative approach\u201d.<\/p>\n

Crisis & Creativity
\n<\/strong>
\nSo, the creativity of the mighty clearly describes the crisis of the system. The system needs to be changed from within \u2013 it must go through the process of \u201cpoesis\u201d (creation). So, the prime ministers become \u201cpeople with vision\u201d (or people with vision become prime ministers \u2026) and a lot of changes are proposed to the not-very-well-functioning democratic institutions. These changes are usually on the brink of legitimacy, some openly fascistic, like the ban on smoking \u2013 which is actually a ban \u201con people smoking\u201d \u2013 successfully enforced all over Europe, debate on actions against paedophiles, who should be publicly marked as such, etc. It all becomes more and more an image from the near past.<\/p>\n

I remember not long ago quite a lot of people were boldly saying: \u201cI am a Stalinist\u201d. They came from the part of the \u201cultra left\u201d at the end of seventies, but they have kept repeating it up to this date. What does it mean? Being a Stalinist means that this person has a stand that the aim justifies the means. Soviet Russia leader Josef V. Stalin ordered the elimination (killing) of millions of citizens in the 1930s. In order for him to be able to act creatively, he had to eliminate this option for the others. So, the creativity of the mighty eliminates\/negates this option for anybody else.<\/p>\n

The saying \u201cI am a Stalinist\u201d actually means that the speaker does not believe in the technology of democracy. The other option is the absolute ruler, the enlightened ruler. The leader of the State becomes the creator \u2013 the artist. When politicians become creative they are moving away from democracy.<\/p>\n

Creativity of Institutions = Conservatism of Citizens?
\n<\/strong>
\nWhat happens to the citizens when the politicians become creative? The systems going through the process of creation are not stable systems \u2013 everything is changing \u2013 there are no fixed grounds, truths, institutions. The system seems to be a self-balancing one. So, is it out of denial of the right for creativity that the common people feel the need to provide firm grounds? The common people move ideologically to the more stable \u2013 conservative\/traditional values. Is it a natural approach (some mystified self-balancing rule?) to keep the system in a balanced situation?<\/p>\n

The institutions are supposed to be the pillars of culture in any society. By definition the institutions should be traditional, conservative. But when they turn creative, it is the people that in turn become conservative.<\/p>\n

From Art to Design \u2013 the Creative Industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

When art is a just form \u2013 it is only about Aesthetics \u2013 it is mimesis (it \u201clooks\u201d). When it is an act of creation it is also about Ethics \u2013 the poesis (it \u201cbecomes\u201d). As in the difference between some thing and its representation. As in the basic difference between \u201cart is the most beautiful lie\u201d and \u201cart is the search for truth\u201d.<\/p>\n

What is missing with transplantations of \u201ccreativity\u201d to other areas is Ethics (the firm stand). You have Design as the high peak of creativity, the Market as the basic field of discourse (the Economy as it\u2019s ideologic –\u00a0 evaluation system) and the Profit (the creation of\u00a0 more and more exchange value \u2013 the money) as the basic creative force. On the market the value of objects is always translated into money (which is just a representation of value, the symbol of value). The money however is not being treated as a representation anymore \u2013 but as the object of desire itself \u2013 the main motive. Lately the Market is becoming more and more just the exchange of the simplest form of imaginary symbols –\u00a0 the numbers. It is a very dubious belief system \u2013 very light and easily disintegrated (\u201dfrom the material the dreams are made of\u2026\u201d).<\/p>\n

One segment of work is constantly on the rise in the last decades, having emerged from the artistic field and is denoted as the creative industry. In the US there are about ten to twenty million workers in this segment. Their playground is the production of abstract values \u2013 the added value for the products. These are abstract goods for the leisure time market. People from the creative industry are designers. These are the people that use, misuse and redefine (redesign) evaluation systems, so that they get the most out of fictive (but totally tangible) \u201cadded value\u201d systems.<\/p>\n

From Social Democracy to Showbiz Democracy
\n<\/strong>
\nAs with any system that relies on imagination\/fiction \u2013 the added value system is a belief system \u2013 a religion of some sort. Designers are the high priests of today. People from the creative industry are well paid and seemingly out of the traditional worker\/owner division. They represent a big part of the so-called precarious class. They are not organized in workers\u2019 unions, they even do not have any means of civic pressure at their hands \u2013 they act as if they are just temporary employees (workers) \u2013 working their way up to become employers (owners). In this way they have no social identity and are just mixing up the well-known class division of industrial times. People from the creative industry do not have their own social body.<\/p>\n

The creative industry is the entertainment industry, show business \u2013 a lot are called but only a few are chosen. Show business is an effective mechanism for rejuvenating the ruling class in the post-industrial time. It is one of the rare possibilities for a member from the lower class to jump higher. It is a bypass, allowing for a few jumps of a couple of designers, but conserving the basic social structure. Today\u2019s new members of the ruling class are Paul McCartney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs \u2026<\/p>\n

Borut Savski<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Once I wrote an article \u2013 a complaint on the lies and double talk of representatives of the local government \u2013 and ended it with the following line: \u201cBeware of the creativity of the powerful\u201d. It was a response to the repetitive answers of the public officials \u2013 that they have different plans. What plans can an official have? It’s just a job!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,1,28],"tags":[36,34],"class_list":["post-232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-turboblog","category-archive","category-concepts","tag-discourse","tag-turboblog-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=232"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2361,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232\/revisions\/2361"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}