When we think of creativity, we think of a process, more or less controlled, that puts together imagination, some skill, and a flow “towards the new”.
But we should question if this creativity, is at all creative. Is there anything original in it, or is it the art of repurposing, modification of the known, copy/change movement, that can never cross the borders of the old?
There is a simple way, that works for me, and I’d like to point here,
Which dispels any confusion around whether a creation is indeed an expression of the new,
And that is the sense of identification of the creator with “his/her” creation.
If a painter, or a writer, or a musician, finishes the work and feels a sense of ‘self’, molded within the creation,
A feeling of ‘purpose coming to be’, a delivery of his essence, which has a place for a ‘signature’ in it, physically or psychologically,
Surely, this is a clear sign of lack of any originality.
Whereas,
If at the end of the work, the encountering with it, by the ‘creator’, is as if it’s for the first time,
And he can’t honestly guess where from, and how, it came to be,
And any association with a signature over it, feels like a self deceive,
Then, it is possible, that the creator was but a brush, a string, a pen, in the service of the new.
I can almost hear you ask:
“So, is your creation original?”
The answer is – “100% no!”
If you now ask, so, how do you know about it?
The answer is – “I don’t.”
Then, you may say, what’s the point of writing or reading all this?
I’ll leave it to you to ask and to find out.
For me, there’s no other way, it is no longer something that I try to direct/control, or justify in any way to another or to myself.
It is so, and I observe it, listen to it, as it is.