So I download and run Apophysis (http://www.apophysis.org). I twiddle some settings and come up with this. It's all pretty and fun, blah, blah, blah. But did I create anything?

I guess that could be asked a few ways:
Did "I" create anything?
Did I "create" anything?
Did I create "anything"?

I of itself it seems.... ok.
But for generating abstract backgrounds or rendering smoke trails it seems quite good.

It's pretty. :bigthmb: Sometimes that's all you need.

"Why" are you worrying?
Why are "you" worrying?
Why are you "worrying"?

But is it Art?.............:cold:

Not worrying, thinking. Therefore I am.

I guess that could be asked a few ways:
Did "I" create anything?
Did I "create" anything?
Did I create "anything"?

the viewer isnt concerned; only the creator ;)

But the viewer should be concerned. If I didn't create anything, what the heck are you looking at?

Reminds me of when I sent some of my music files to my sister. She said it was beautiful, such colors! When I asked her how my music could have colors she said, "how should I know? you sent it to me, but it looks very pretty" (it turns out it was the media player random lightshow)

But the viewer should be concerned. If I didn't create anything, what the heck are you looking at? a creation. if you want to credit the program, why ok. i've done that too with filter forge. click a button and instant art. but, what did i do? one may even tend to feel a little guilty over it. but the bottom line is, you had the sense to recognize what was there or to pick that program or that filter or that plugin or whatever it happens to be.

there also tends to be a perception or consideration of some that, if it was created in seconds as opposed to hours of slaving away at a canvas, analog or digital, that it's therefore of little value or not art. and that's just not true. one can take the most beautiful snapshot and get all sorts of acclaims and it really only took a split second to take. sure, others take longer at times, but it's not the time to create it that matters.

and using another analogy, did you make the mountains that you took the picture of or that you painted on canvas? your program is the same thing. it's the mountains. you're simply taking a picture. that you can change the picture or compose it is just that. it doesnt invalidate the end result.

the bottom line is, the method does not invalidate the end result, at least not to the end user/viewer. that you created it or simply picked it isnt the question to the viewer. he's just happy you did (hopefully :) ).

i think maybe you're looking for a nice, deep philosophical debate/discussion here, and i just dont think there's one here. you downloaded the program, installed it and twiddled the dials and so forth. the tool made it relatively easy, but you still made it happen. cause is cause. effect is effect. the programmer(s) caused the program, but you caused THAT effect.

But is there any "there" there? By your logic the Mona Lisa is equivalent to any random mugshot or passport photo. And if there is a spectrum of "creation", there must be a zero point. If the water splashes on my sink in an interesting pattern the last time I washed my hands, did I create anything? Something is definitely there, but if no creativity is involved, can there be any creation?

cre·ate
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

There can be no cause without intent. And we've already established there was no thought or imagination.

Well, look at it this way... you haven't created the alphabet or the English language, either. But you can use it to construct and convey new ideas and meaning that others can interpret and understand. Anything from a post in this thread to a great work of literature or poetry is possible... all emanating from a collection of 26 letters, 10 digits, and a set of rules.

Software works in much the same way. Each program is a tool (like the alphabet or language) that has a certain set or range of parameters, functions, etc. (the rules) that you can manipulate to create unique expressions of intent.

And you can't forget the importance of intent and understanding. There is a certain amount of random chance involved in creativity. Given enough time, monkeys banging on typewriters will eventually churn out the works of Shakespeare. But they will have no comprehension of it, it would be meaningless without intent and understanding. And it is intent and understanding that gives creativity meaning.

So, can something creative be generated randomly by, say, a computer? Yes, it can. But, until it is viewed by an intelligence that is cabable of interpreting it and giving it meaning and understanding (which is an act of creation in and of itself) it is just a concidence of randomness.

The monkeys working randomly without intent or understanding would probably take anywhere from millions to trillions of years to stumble on the right random sequence to produce the works of Shakespeare. But, with intent and understanding and thus directed creativity, the same was accomplished by humans in a micro fraction (near instantly by comparisson) of that time. And, to us it has meaning and value. After trillions of years of typing and finally stumbling upon the Bard's words, the monkeys would just keep on typing, unaware that anything at all had been created.

And we had to invent the alphabet, language, and it's rules first, not to mention all the techology involved in making paper, printing, typewriters, etc. All of which would be given to the monkeys as a starting point.

If the water splashes on my sink in an interesting pattern the last time I washed my hands, did I create anything? Something is definitely there, but if no creativity is involved, can there be any creation?

There can be no cause without intent. And we've already established there was no thought or imagination.

But, like I was describing in my really long post, the water may land randomly on your sink, but when you embue that random pattern with meaning, it's that understanding that YOU are creating. So, then say, you take a picture with a digital camera of that water pattern. Did you create anything even though you didn't actually assemble the digital image pixel by pixel? I think so. You gave randomness meaning, you directed and controlled a device to capture the image and in doing so may take control over the physical space (such as lighting, etc.) so that the image will help convey the meaning you wish to express. Yes, the camera actually assembled the image for you, but it was under your direction and control.

"We become "more," according to perceptual psychology, by means of differentiation, a process that involves pulling a figure out of a background. Learning is not a matter of connecting a stimulus and a response or one stimulus with another or even one response with another. Learning is a matter of improving the quality of one's phenomenal field by extracting some detail from the confusion, because that detail is important, is meaningful, to the person." -- from a web review

You have pulled a figure out of the background -- you have created a perception, meaningful to you. Others may perceive something different, or similar, according to their own perceptual field.

YOU have created a figure, a perception
You have CREATED a figure, a perception
You have created a FIGURE, a PERCEPTION

So at what point does recording something become creating something? The glib response would be that you "create" a record, but I think we're all aware of the differentiation I'm referring to.

So at what point does recording something become creating something? The glib response would be that you "create" a record, but I think we're all aware of the differentiation I'm referring to.

The moment you gave it enough meaning to decide you wanted to record it. At that moment you created meaning, interpretation, and understanding of it. By recording it, you (even unconsciously) gave it your own "spin." Even if you are the only person to ever see it, it's no longer just a record of what was, but it also reminds you of the meaning it had for you when you recorded it.

An example... take 100 photographers and tell them to take a picture using the same camera of a particular pebble that just happened to land where it is on the beach. Each photographer takes a photo of the exact same pebble, but you don't get 100 copies of the same image. You get 100 different photos, each with subtleties unique to each photographer. The camera (as in a piece of software, or language, or the alphabet) was just a tool used in the process.

Change the pebble to a print of Ansel Adams' Moonrise. Do we still have 100 original creations? Is "unoriginal creation" an oxymoron? I'd venture "interpretation" might be a midground between creation and recording.

Change the pebble to a print of Ansel Adams' Moonrise. Do we still have 100 original creations? Is "unoriginal creation" an oxymoron? I'd venture "interpretation" might be a midground between creation and recording.

Yes, the same would apply with a print of Ansel Adams' Moonrise. Each photographer would still be adding layers of their own interpretation onto the already existing creation. For example... shadows, lighting, angle, cropping, etc. might change the mood or meaning of the original. But at that point you're really talking about a dirivitive work.

I thought you were trying to isolate the moment of creation. And in that sense just "seeing" anything is an act of creation on your brain's part filtered through your psyche and experience. Your brain collects information gathered from sensors in your body and "creates" an image for you to see. That image does not exist for anyone else. It can't. Because two objects, in this case people, can't occupy the same space at the same time. And that's just taking into account the physical aspects of the situation, let alone the aspects of time and experience.

So if I put a poem on a copier, each time I hit "copy" I'm creating a new poem?

My point is that, perhaps, just "making" something isn't necessarily "creating" anything.

I guess it depends on how granular you want to get and how you define "create."

Each time you hit the copy button, the copy machine has a little less toner, incurs more wear and tear, etc. which may very very subtlely change the phyical properties of the medium the poem is on, which in some small way may affect the experience of the person reading the poem.

Does that alter the meaning of the poem? Technically, possibly if the words become hard to read or something, but probably not. But the question is if we make 100 copies of the poem do we have 100 unique poems? And, in a way, I think so.

First, we have the subtle differences in the physical medium. I think we can agree to that. Differences in each piece of paper, toner level in the machine, moisture, etc.

Second, we have the idea that is the poem itself. Namly the meaning and interpretation of the words themselves, despite their physical appearance.

Now, here are the two simplest scenarios as I see it. With 100 copies of the poem, either 100 different people will read and interpret it, or on the other extreme, one person will read and examine all 100 copies.

If 100 different people read it, the ideas are filtered throught their own experiences and ideas and will mean something different to each of them, so you'd have 100 different poems as the idea that makes up the original poem is reinvented and filtered for each person.

Now let's say one person reads all 100 copies. The first time you read it, the poem will have certain meaning and call up certain imagery custom to that person. When the person reads the second copy of that poem, they are no longer the same person, because time has passed and they've had new experiences (reading and experiencing the first reading of the poem). So, this time around, the poem means something different to the reader. By the time they read the 100th copy of the poem, they may have turned out to hate the thing, which they loved when they started. Or, they may come to love it even more, or somewhere in between. Either way, each copy of the peom and its idea will have a subtlely different effect on the person. And it could therefore be argued that you'd still have 100 different poems since each copy caused a gradation of change and experience within the reader.

That's getting really nitpicky, but it's a valid argument. I had a similar one once with an old English professor of mine back in college.

Did you hand in a photocopy of a poem? :)

Here's something that just happens to be hitting the blog rounds today:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kickstart70/sets/72157600262869570/

Did the arsonist "create" the new sculpture? Either way, I suspect he didn't intend to. Or, in finding it, did the photographer (for the sake of this discussion, not counting the photo "record" he made of it)?

I found this to be delightful. Marcel Duchamp (the father of "found art") actually did create his subjects and only claimed he found them. This was discovered too late though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_art

Did you hand in a photocopy of a poem? :)
:) No. We weren't talking specifically about poetry, but the conversation was very similar.

Did the arsonist "create" the new sculpture? Either way, I suspect he didn't intend to. Or, in finding it, did the photographer (for the sake of this discussion, not counting the photo "record" he made of it)?
Yes to both. The photographer because he embued it with meaning leading him to want to record it as we've discussed. And with the arsonist the "sculpture" didn't exist in that state before his actions and afterward it did. But nobody observed it in such a way until the photographer came along. But, that starts to get into quantum mechanics and collapsing probability wavefronts like in the "If a tree falls in the forest..." scenario.

In light of that wikipedia article I'd classify the melted keyboard "sculpture" as "Inadvertantly Found Art." :)

So I guess if my making lunch is creatively equivalent to Michaelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel, we need a new word for "create". :)

Well, I'd say that the mechanism by which we create something physical from an idea or thought would be the same. However, depending on what you want to create, different knowledge or skills may be necessary. And the value of what is created is subject to the complexities of human society.

I've seen the Sistine Chapel with my own eyes. It's breath-taking. When you're standing there beneath it, there is no doubt that you are in the presence of one of the greatest creative works to come out of mankind. Yet, if I were about to die of starvation I would probably think your lunch much more valuable to me.

Works of creation can be tiny or gigantic in scale and percieved value. However, I still think that mysterious "spark" that allows us to form an idea and turn it into physical reality is exactly the same at its core regardless of what's being created.

And we do have another word for "create..." it's "made." You don't really go around saying you "created lunch," but rather you "made lunch."

That was my opening argument that you've taken the opposite side of for two pages. You can't have it both ways. If the 52nd and 53rd consecutive photocopies are both unique creations, so was my lunch.

I'm thinking of creating an Ikea bookcase tonight, but I'll probably end up just creating some television show to watch. Scrubs is a repeat, I created the season finale last week :)

That was my opening argument that you've taken the opposite side of for two pages. You can't have it both ways. If the 52nd and 53rd consecutive photocopies are both unique creations, so was my lunch.

I'm thinking of creating an Ikea bookcase tonight, but I'll probably end up just creating some television show to watch. Scrubs is a repeat, I created the season finale last week :)

:) Yes, you can have it both ways. I have been arguing the opposite side. I still stand by it. But, I also said it depends on how granular you want to get.

On the "macro" level, you are right... there are levels of distinction that we humans give to created works. It's that percieved value again. It's human nature.

On the "micro" level, though, that certain "spark" of something that allows us as humans to create anything (be it an idea or the Sistine Chapel) IS exactly the same. And that's where the "miracle" lies.

Think about it. When you make your lunch, you're taking pre-existing elements and combining them and processing them into a dirivitive form... your lunch... as you envisioned it. Michaelangelo did exactly the same thing with the Sistine Chapel. He took pre-existing plant elements and reformed them into pigment and paint. He took pre-existing animal hair and pieces of wood and recombined them into brushes. He then used those elements to bring his idea to reality, just as you did with your lunch. The only question remains... which is more valuable? It all depends on who you ask and their circumstances. The core creative process is the same.

As for the copies of the poem... on the macro level people would tend to say each copy is the same. Again, human nature. Makes things easier to deal with. But, on the micro level, all those copies are unique as discussed earlier. The same goes for your bookcase and episodes of Scrubs. On your macro level, they are considered the same, but on the micro level they are unique. They can't exist otherwise.


And Doug... I have to say this is the most engaging conversation I've had in a long time. I don't know about you, but I've really enjoyed it.

If creativity is as ubiquitous as the air that we breathe, then like the air that we breathe it is valueless. Air only becomes valuable when the supply is limited. I value creativity, so there must be a limited supply of it.

Well, concerning the original. I played with Apophysis but only briefly. It seemed that there were a bit more controls than I used. It's a generator. Given a few variables, it creates an image. Someone (probably many) on dA does this often. Some are more enjoyable than others. It's like "throwing paint" art. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes not. But, I digress. Although you were behind the "controls", I don't find this to be something personally created vs some predetermined parameters combined to result in a final output. Now, if you know what you're doing and actually strive and succeed in making something that you set out to do, then yes . . .you created.

If creativity is as ubiquitous as the air that we breathe, then like the air that we breathe it is valueless. Air only becomes valuable when the supply is limited. I value creativity, so there must be a limited supply of it.

And that's exactly why the creativity involved in doing mundane things like making lunch doesn't impress us, as humans, much. The miracle of "creation" is lost on us because it's too hard to see, and way too difficult to wrap our minds around in any satisfying way. So, to deal with it, we give creation a perceived value. A great work of art or literature is apparently worth more to us, as humans, than what we made for lunch. It's easier to see the effort and talent that went into it. And so creativity, like air, is taken for granted... until it's gone. Then we realize how desperately we need it.

Air is so plentiful that most of the time we don't even notice it's there. But without it, we die. It's the same with creativity. Especially creativity at the micro level. Imagine if you were unable to act on your thoughts and turn your ideas into reality. You couldn't create/make your lunch let alone paint a masterpiece. And so, you would die, and not only from boredom. You would be unable to sustain your existence.

So, creativity is just as crucial to our survival as the air we breathe and it's so plentiful that it's taken for granted and largely ignored... until we're cut off from it and we learn its true value.

Although you were behind the "controls", I don't find this to be something personally created vs some predetermined parameters combined to result in a final output. Now, if you know what you're doing and actually strive and succeed in making something that you set out to do, then yes . . .you created.

And that's been a big part of this discussion. You describe two instances of creativity. One as being merely an "accident" if you will just inputting random values to see what happens. And number two as having an intent that you strive to accomplish using the same means.

Number two you valued as a creative work because of the intent involved, but number one you did not. Though, both times, the same creative process was at work. Again... perceived value.