Sunday, January 28, 2007

I'm scanning a bunch of books on art and creativity before I put them on the floor of the shop. I've gained some good insights that I've tucked away (I should have jotted them down to share with you, but they're tucked in my mind somewhere and will come out eventually...) I've also read a bunch of hooey and rules that have nothing to do with what I understand about creativity.

The biggie that got me (and made me stop reading what this guy had to say) was his comment that art is not entertainment. Excuse me? Why not? I entertain myself both by creating and viewing or listening to/watching others' creations. He was on a roll with the ideas of art and genius and child's play. In his discussion he somehow forgot to let go of the rules.

Why would someone say that Art Is Not ...anything? Isn't creativity the nothing that is something and eventually everything? It would make more sense to say that Art Is Nothing than to say art is not entertainment, or not decoration, or not play, or not whatever. There is pure potential in Nothing. Nothingness is the space in the bowl that holds the soup, the cereal, the flowers, the rocks...

The idea that something is Not ties in nicely with my latest questions about being judgmental and evaluating. The words good and bad, like and dislike come so easily to me. They open and close doors in my mind like a strong wind. But what if in our need to find patterns and categorize we lose by shutting out?

What if trying to say what something is or is not were used only to include and not to exclude? For example, what if we could only say what art is and could not find validity in saying what it is not? Would that solve the judgment/values battle that pulls us apart inside ourselves and between us?