I would really like to start this monologue from a distance or at least to preface his statement about its insolvency. However, this ability of the dog to learn new tricks gives her wish to forget old. So let me go straight to the point.
Much has changed in the age of the dog, but I believe, that the study of the phenomena still makes sense and is of interest, just as long as it is conducted outside. Inside Look inevitably distorted and has a purely local significance in spite of his claim to the status of the document. A good example is folly: medical opinion is more important than the patient's opinion.
In theory, the same should apply to the “creativity”; if only the nature of this phenomenon did not exclude the possibility of their observation. The very process of observation puts the observer here, to put it mildly, following symptoms, he watches, regardless of, whether it is inside or outside this phenomenon. So to speak, Finally, the doctor is also untenable, how and fierceness patient.
Commenting more smaller, certainly, is not devoid of charm modesty, and our region of the galaxy, we are quite used to this kind of procedure. So I hope, that my reluctance to speak objectively about the creative abilities testifies not to a lack of modesty on my part, but the lack of an observation post, giving me the opportunity to say something worthwhile about this subject.
I have no medical qualifications, as a patient, I almost scrap, so there is no reason to take me seriously. Besides, I can not stand the term “Creative skills”, and some of this hostility extends to the phenomenon, which the term, по-видимому, means. Even if I was able to silence the voice of my feelings, rebelling against the, my remarks on the subject in the best case would correspond to the cat attempts to catch its own tail. exciting, of course, occupation; but then, possibly, I should like to meow.
Given the solipsistic nature of any human studies, it would be the most honest reaction to the notion of “Creative skills”. On the part of the creative ability to present a subject of envy or admiration; from the inside — it is a never-ending exercise in uncertainty and doubt is a huge school. In both cases, meow or some other inarticulate sounds — the most appropriate response to every question “creative abilities”.
So let me get rid of heart palpitations and groan, related to the term, that is, allow me to do and to get rid of the term. Thesaurus Webster's dictionary defines creativity as the ability to create, so let me stick to this definition. maybe, then at least one of us will know, what he says, although not quite.
The difficulties begin with “create” (create), which the, I suppose, have exalted version of the verb “to make” (do), and the same good old Webster offers us an explanation: “bring into existence”. Increase is due, probably, our ability to distinguish between familiar and unprecedented result of someone else's Delaney. familiar, in this way, done; unknown, or unprecedented, happening.
No honest craftsman or manufacturer does not know in the course of work, he makes or creates. It can be covered by varying inexplicable emotion at a particular stage of the process, he might even suspect, that produces something qualitatively new and unique, but first, second and last reality for him — just work, the process of work. Process prevails over the outcome, if only because, that the latter is not possible without first.
The emergence of something qualitatively new — it is a matter of chance. This means, there is no visible difference between a doer and viewer, between the artist and the audience. At the party, the former can stand out from the crowd, at best, due to the longer hair and extravagant outfits, but can the same is true in our time to be the opposite. In any case, at the end of work “maker” can mingle with the audience, even adopt their perspective on their work and speak their language. However, it is unlikely, that on his return to the office, workshop or laboratory, he will try to christen otherwise their guns.
We talk “I make”, but not “I create:”. This selection verb reflects not only the humility, but the difference between the shop and the market, For the difference between making and creativity it can only be determined by the other party, viewer. Audience, essentially, are consumers, so the sculptor rarely buys the work of another sculptor. Any talk about the creative abilities, no matter how he may be analytically, It is the market conversation. The recognition of an artist of genius has another, essentially, recognition of the strength and the case, possibly, diligence of others to create circumstances, in the case of this favorable.
So much for one part of the definition of Webster — “make” (do). We now turn to the part “ability” (capacity). notion “capacity” It comes from experience. In theory, the more our experience, the more confident we feel in our ability to. In fact (in art and, я думаю, in science) experience and the accompanying knowledge of the case — the worst enemies of the creator.
The greater the success accompanied you before, so a lot of uncertainty as a result of you to take up a new project. let us say, what a wonderful masterpiece you just made, the less likely, you repeat this feat tomorrow. In other words, more doubtful becomes your ability. only concept “capacity” It gets in your mind a permanent question mark, and gradually you start to consider their work as a non-stop effort to blank out this sign. This is especially true with regard to dealing with literature, especially poetry, which, Unlike other arts, It is obliged to transmit a distinguishable meaning.
Even decorated with an exclamation point, ability does not guarantee the emergence of a masterpiece whenever, when it is used. We all know a lot of very talented artists and scientists, which produce little. barren periods, writer stupor, it's time to silence -satellites virtually all known geniuses, and even less remarkable luminaries complain about the same thing. Often gallery hires an artist or scientific institution — scientist just, to learn, however slight may be the result of.
In other words, capacity can not be reduced to mastery, nor to the individual energy, even more so to the best of circumstances, financial difficulties or the environment. If it were otherwise, we have available would be much more masterpieces, than we have now. In short, human relationship, employed only during this century in science and art, and any appreciable results are as follows, that there is a temptation to equate the ability to randomness.
Seem to be, accident firmly established in both parts vebsterovskogo definition of creativity. so firmly, that comes to my mind, what, possibly, term “Creative skills” It referred not only to the quality of human activity, as a material property, which from time to time this activity is attached; and, perhaps, deformity term eventually justified, because it demonstrates compliance and acquiescence of inanimate matter. maybe, the, who has dealt with this matter at the beginning, It is called the Creator. Hence creativity.
maybe, Webster's definition needs to be clarified. “ability to create”, comprising in itself is not exactly called resistance, possibly, It must be accompanied by a sobering “…against accidental war”. Of course, pertinent question, that primary: material or its creator? Discarding false modesty, on our side of the galaxy, and the answer is obvious sounds arrogant. Other, and a much better question — about someone by chance that we are talking about here: creator or material?
neither pride, nor humility is not here to help too. maybe, I am trying to answer this question, we must completely abandon the qualitative assessments. But we have always been tempted to do just that. So let's use this opportunity: not so much for the sake of scientific research, but for the sake of reputation Webster.
But I'm afraid, that we need to note.
Since human beings are finite, their system is linear causality, ie autobiographical. The same applies to their representation of randomness, because the accident did not causeless; it is only the time of the intervention of other causes system — no matter how intricate it was drawing — in our own. The very existence of this term, not to mention the variety of accompanying adjectives (for example, “blind”), shows, that our ideas about the procedure and about the event, in fact, anthropomorphic.
Good, if the area of human research was limited to the animal kingdom. However, this is clearly not the case; it is much wider, and also the human being insists on the knowledge of the truth. The concept of truth as anthropomorphic and requires on the part of the subject of research — that is the world — concealment, if not open deception.
Hence, a variety of scientific disciplines, thoroughly exploring the universe, which energy — especially their language — can be likened pыtke. Anyway, if the truth of things has not been mined so far, we must ascribe this extreme intransigence of the world, rather than a lack of effort. another explanation, of course, is no truth; lack of, we do not accept because of its enormous consequences for our ethics.
Ethics — or, to put it less pompously, but, possibly, more accurately, simply eschatology — as an engine of science? maybe; anyway, what really comes down to human research — Questioning is to animate the inanimate. Not surprising, that the results uncertain, even less surprising, that the methods and language, that we use in this process, more and more like the very fabric.
Ideally, possibly, animate and inanimate, should be reversed. it, of course, I would have to taste dispassionate scientist, espousing objectivity. Alas, This is unlikely to happen, as inanimate, по-видимому, It does not show any interest to animate: the world is not interested in their men. If a, of course, we do not ascribe to the divine origin of the world, which for several millennia we can not prove.
If the truth about things does exist, then, given our status as latecomers to the world, This truth is bound to be inhuman. It is obliged to destroy our notions of causality, false or not, as well as a chance. The same applies to our guesses as to the origin of the world, whether it is divine, molecular, or both, and others: the viability of the concept depends on the viability of its carriers.
That is, our study — in fact, very solipsistic activity. For the only opportunity to change places with animated inanimate — is the physical end of the first: when a person, so to speak, attached to a substance.