3 ms·

What? I mean, seriously, what? The article seriously advances the following thesis: Creativity is basically easy; you just take something other people are alr

by gjm11 15y ago

What? I mean, seriously, what? The article seriously advances the following thesis: Creativity is basically easy; you just take something other people are already doing and make incremental changes; for instance, when Picasso painted Les demoiselles d'Avignon all he did was to paint a typical nude portrait except that he changed a few things. A prostitute instead of a standard Noble Classical Figure. A group of them instead of just one. ... Oh, yeah, and among those little incremental changes was inventing a completely new style of painting. This is, to use the article's own term, complete bullshit. Deciding to take something and make a bunch of incremental changes is easy. Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something good -- that's what's difficult. What made Picasso famous for his creativity wasn't the fact that he made a bunch of incremental changes. It's that he spotted some things to change that other people hadn't thought of changing (e.g., you could say that the step from "show everything from a single perspective, or at least make it look as if you're doing so" to "use a variety of radically different perspectives to show objects from multiple viewpoints and produce a sense of fragmentation" is just a matter of Changing One Thing -- but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?) and that he was able to produce compelling paintings despite making those radical changes. (I don't disagree with everything in the article. In particular, the idea that you shouldn't ever reinvent the wheel is just as ridiculous as the article says. But the alleged recipe for creativity is silly, and the alleged example of how it works is beyond preposterous.)

ajkessler 15y ago
>>Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something good -- that's what's difficult.<< Well of course it's hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be creative geniuses... >>but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?)<< I think that's exactly the point. Who would have considered it? Well, if you systematically break something down into its component elements, and then make changes to those elements, it makes it much more likely that you'll stumble across something totally new. Think of it as a more sprawling form of A/B testing if you'd like. The more salient takeaway is the fact that "creativity" doesn't have to be some mysterious lightning strike or whisper from the gods (or "non-linear intuitive leap" as someone describes below) that only a few of us lucky ones get to be party to.

by gjm11 15y ago

ajkessler 15y ago

>>Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something good -- that's what's difficult.<< Well of course it's hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be creative geniuses... >>but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?)<< I think that's exactly the point. Who would have considered it? Well, if you systematically break something down into its component elements, and then make changes to those elements, it makes it much more likely that you'll stumble across something totally new. Think of it as a more sprawling form of A/B testing if you'd like. The more salient takeaway is the fact that "creativity" doesn't have to be some mysterious lightning strike or whisper from the gods (or "non-linear intuitive leap" as someone describes below) that only a few of us lucky ones get to be party to.