Quote:
|
Originally Posted by This Is Not Here
I don't buy this idea of inborn creativity ("creative people" - argh! that phrase!), the idea of creativity as a "gift" that some have and some don't makes a mockery of everyone who has worked relentlessly for their art. I can barely play music at all because I havn't worked at it enough. I can draw and paint well because I have. It's as simple as that. It's hardly natural, art in all it's capacity to inspire and blah blah blah comes from working your ass off, actually. It's not natural, and it DEFINATELY doesn't exempt you from mistakes.
|
That's just a definitional issue. "Creativity" is the development of new ideas, not the ability to bring them into existence. You can work your ass off your entire life to completely perfect an existing form of art, and not be the least bit creative. You would be talented, respectable, and a good musician/painter/whatever--but not creative.
Can creativity be learned? Perhaps. I don't know. But regardless, new ideas
make someone creative by definition, whether or not it's innate.
And anyways, there are
absolutely people who are
naturally better at art--both creatively and technically. That should not downplay the effort non-natural talent requires, but there is natural talent everywhere. I would consider myself naturally creative, but I have almost
no natural technical ability in music or visual art. There are people who can pick up a guitar or paintbrush and use it better than I could in 20 years of practice. Creativity, however, would determine what they do with that technical ability.