Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

so im writing an essay for a scholarship to full sail university that i just found out about. it asks what the role of creative minds is in today's society, hence the topic title. ive been brainstorming for a while, and i have a pretty good idea of what to write, and in part of my essay, i wanted to get real world people's opinions.

so, what do you guys think? does creativity still play as large a role in society as it did during the Renaissance? or has the age of technology diminished art in favor of a more modern outlet, such as the internet?

any and all opinions would help, thanks!

This post has been edited by dont chocobos rule? on 18th February 2010 02:29

--------------------

Aujourdhui a commence avec toi.

I would say that it doesn't play less of a role than during the Renaissance, and perhaps plays more of a role. Art (note: I'm not limiting "art" to just the visible arts) is more commercially viable now, and people generally can have more time to devote to art.

And I don't see technology as the anti-creativity. The internet, for example allows people to better distribute their creations.

--------------------

"The Lord Bob Bree is my shepherd,
I shall not want;
He makes me post in Scenario topics.
He leads me beside GameFOX;
He restores my karma.
He leads me in paths of moderation
for His name's sake."
-Nick of Five

Look up Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese, and John Ford, and you'll see how creativity has been affected by technology.

Also, think of the great music that has been created since the Renaissance. We're not just talking the Beatles or Bob Dylan (which are great examples, don't get me wrong at all on that), but we're also talking about Mozart, Tchaikovsky, and Beethoven, all of which were post-Renaissance.

And the novels, think of them too. Robinson Crusoe, which is considered the first novel in the Engilsh language, was published in 1719, 119 years after the Renaissance.

What I am saying, is that rather than the enemy of creativity, technology is the means of creativity.

My advice, in writing the paper, is to speak about how technology has influenced art and creativity, but do not frame it as the antithesis of it (especially since Full Saild teaches about film and other media). If you are looking for the enemy of art, my advice is to use commercialism as the mortal enemy of art.

By the way, I have considered Full Sail as well. What are you planning on studying?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Modern technology gives people an inspiring number of outlets for their creativity, endless possibilities to expand and create new things - writing, painting, engineering, acting, Tableto RPGs, sculpting, movies, 3D animation, flash mobs, and of course video games.

There's just one problem: modern society doesn't necessarily cater to new things and tends to misinterpret creator's original ideas or find them unappealing.

To put it shortly, there are many possibilities of expressing your creative thoughts in today's world, however it is discouraged by society, unless you're being an artist for art's own sake.

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

I wouldn't say that modern society necessarily discourages creativity. It used to be that art was for a select few professionals who had the time and resources (or sponsorship), but technology and commercialism have made creative outlets available to everyone. Not only that, but, as has been mentioned, there are many new creative outlets such as photography, digital art, and film. I would say that modern society has facilitated the use of creativity for non-occupational reasons. What do you think the role of creativity was for common-folk during the renaissance?

--------------------

Wha? Thanks to me?

The state of creativity in today's society is to become yoked, just like everything else to, as stated in a previous post, commercialism. The fact of the matter is, art is and already has fallen under the thumb of the Madison Ave god. For example, just look at Andy Warhol, and that was YEARS ago at this point. In fact, the more I read things written recently, and the more I debate their merits, the more similar it all looks. With society where it is today, everybody wants to be an artist, but in my opinion, almost none of them understand what that means and think of it more in terms of the way a child might think he wants to be an astronaut when he grows up.

I guess the point is, with the advance of technologies, most of which will be controlled by corporate interests, "art for art's sake" although always kind of a sham, and was really closer to "art for MY sake" in the cases where anything decent was presented, will soon become "art for everybody's sake", and the more people it can appeal to and draw the better.

This is just speculation, anyway. I've been reading Lyotard in the bathroom

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (BlitzSage @ 18th February 2010 01:15)

By the way, I have considered Full Sail as well. What are you planning on studying?

im going in for Game Art, so hopefully that'll be fun

--------------------

Aujourdhui a commence avec toi.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 18th February 2010 07:15)

If you are looking for the enemy of art, my advice is to use commercialism as the mortal enemy of art.

That's not something that is exclusive to the post-capitalist world. In the past art was commissioned by wealthy individuals or the church, even during the Renaissance. It's fairly rare for an artist to be completely free to spend years working on something of their own design with no influence from any external source. Da Vinci is a pretty good example. I remember Richard Dawkins questioning what amazing works he could've produced if he wasn't limited to what the church set him. Go to any classical art gallery and you'll usually read who commissioned the works. A recent example I saw was an oil painting for a 'wealthy Dutch aristocrat' to put in his dining room.

The point I'm making is that the problems of commercialism is not necessarily new, it's just a change of the problem of influence. Actually commercialism is probably better than before. If there is a nudge in any direction it's towards a sales base rather than the commissioner's taste, so there's a better chance that you will enjoy it rather than just appreciate it.

The next step is exactly what MogMaster writes. Art will be made for everyone, not a commissioner, not a sales base, and not the church.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 18th February 2010 16:29)

The point I'm making is that the problems of commercialism is not necessarily new, it's just a change of the problem of influence. Actually commercialism is probably better than before.

One thing that technology has created is mass media, so while commercialism is not new, it has grown to entirely new heights. As you said, the patrons of the arts back then were Royalty, Nobility, and the Church, in other words: the rich people of the time. And even so, look at the way that affected art at the time. There were essentially paintings and musical compositions of rich families and Christian themes. The Church at that time would not endorse an atheistic painting.

While that is not true today--that atheistic works cannot be published or released--commercialism still exists, and due to the advent of radio, television and other mass media, art has remained to be an industry of entertainment. There are many who don't even consider film to be art due to its commercialization, including certain filmmakers themselves.

I agree, commercialism is better than before. It is stronger, and has much more influence on the works that are created. Look at the b.s. that is created in Hollywood every year. Look at the games that are created and recreated over and over again. How many works of art have not been created due to the lack of financiers? How many have been changed from the vision of the creator because they might make more money another way?

One more word: Twilight . . . I'll leave you with that.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I prefer reading Twilight to looking at another painting of St. Paul the Baptist.

Edit

I'll try to make this hurried post a bit more useful.

Okay okay it was John. But, really, once you've seen enough religious and aristocratic paintings you realise it's the same tired scenes reprocessed again and again: there's Jesus being taken off the cross, everyone looks like they're competing for who can look the most upset; there's another fat guy with his loyal hounds looking up adoringly; there's a few horses; there's a landscape and, in a chillingly original stroke of genius, he's used the light to cast a shadow on the rich family; there's another bust of someone that history really should've forgotten about had he not commissioned a sculptor... I'm sorry but complaining about lack of originality and reprocessing in the modern world in comparison to the past does not make sense. Today there's a lot more freedom of expression, as it were, and a lesser degree of influence. It's not ideal but it's better.

And Twilight may be a horrible lump of goop but at least it's not like the author was held back from her masterpiece by the limitations of the commissioner. No harm done, right?

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 19th February 2010 13:46

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 19th February 2010 03:30)

I prefer reading Twilight to looking at another painting of St. Paul the Baptist.

I believe that's John the Baptist, and you've got to be joking. I'm not even very religious and I'd rather look at the painting, anybody's painting of him, or anybody, than read that book.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (dont chocobos rule? @ 17th February 2010 21:16)

so im writing an essay for a scholarship to full sail university that i just found out about. it asks what the role of creative minds is in today's society, hence the topic title.

Your topic title says "creativity," but your post seems to talk in a manner that indicates that art is a direct analogue to creativity. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's missing a big point if your definition of "art" is too narrow.

The simple fact of the matter is that technology has opened up a world of creativity to, quite literally, billions of people that would never had the opportunity five hundred years ago. Virtually everything that could be considered creative in this day and age can realistically be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, either directly through technological advances or indirectly by the increased leisure time available to the middle class and higher by virtue of technological advance.

If you consider creativity to be only things on par with da Vinci, or Voltaire, or Mozart, sure, I can see why someone might think that creativity has started to ebb slowly over the days of the Renaissance. But what I see is the exact opposite - you see, the "quality" of a community's creative output is subjective, and there are probably more folks out there who subjectively see, I don't know, Michelangelo as being so far above someone like Damian Hirst that there's no point in comparing the two. But for me, it's not the point of comparing two artists of any era or any medium and how technology might have made someone a star who doesn't "deserve" it; technology's role is one of democratizing creativity and making it available to anyone who has something to say and anyone who has a mind to hear it said.

The advent of the still camera enabled, slowly, the portrait to evolve from being something only the nobility could possess to something that you can create on your own at home. One can and probably should debate the merits of a fine oil painting against something that goes on Facebook, but the underlying point is that there's no longer such a hurdle from allowing anyone to try. In a similar vein, you can note the creativity of something like fashion design; couture will always be the domain of the wealthy and those supported by the wealthy, just as patronage has always worked. However, to look only at couture negates the much farther-reaching impact of an Etsy or a Threadless, where fashion is available to everyone in a crowdsourced mode.

If you think of it in terms of the old hack, "give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters, et cetera," it becomes all but impossible to argue that technological advances have done anything but raise the overall bar on creativity. Instead of having a handful of superstars that the world admires while everyone else toils in obscurity, you now have built over the last couple hundred years (and even further back, when you start to consider Gutenberg and the impact of his work) a worldwide community of creative in which the quantity and associated quality, by nature of there being so much from which to choose, has done nothing but swell.

I feel like this post is probably more than a bit unfocused, as I struggled to write it while simultaneously trying to fix a list of about thirty updates to a Facebook application (not for CoN, sorry!). I hope my overall point gets through, though, and apologies if it does not.

Moderator Edit

Well, I think it's common knowledge that Voltaire and Mozart were not part of the Renaissance, so, yeah, you didn't *really* need to nitpick. But, hey, c'est la vie.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 19th February 2010 21:29

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Rangers51 @ 19th February 2010 12:12)

If you consider creativity to be only things on par with da Vinci, or Voltaire, or Mozart, sure, I can see why someone might think that creativity has started to ebb slowly over the days of the Renaissance. But what I see is the exact opposite -

As do I. To me, that is as much of a foolish position as a narrow one. There have been great artists in every generation. I was not kidding by saying that Bob Dylan should be considered right along them for his songwriting. I would also go even further, to say that there have been much better writers than Voltaire. Is Ernest Hemingway not one of the greatest writers of all time?

And I am sure in my belief that Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest artists of all time, with what he did with a camera. These people didn't live or die centuries ago; their careers took place in the 20th century. It's kind of foolish to think that creativity has just died somehow. We have great artists living today.

Edit

I don't want to nitpick, but Voltaire and Mozart's careers were not part of the Renaissance. But that just goes to further prove your point.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 19th February 2010 21:09

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I think R51 said what I feel, for the most part, so I won't say too much as I don't want to merely echo his post, however...

I think it was stated earlier, but let's not forget that prior to, in the "Renaissance" period, and for a long time afterward, the arts were lumped under the banner of trade labor. Masters took commissions and contracts on jobs, took in apprentices, and rarely ever reached any level of fame, wealth or celebrity while still living. Today, to be creative, or an artist, takes on new meaning and is continually redefined. (So, I'll have to disagree with Mogmaster, but that isn't surprising. Not to mention, I think he's greatly misinterpreted Warhol.) Art was an industry first, a creative outlet second, so I don't particularly agree with plotting the abstract concept that "art" may be against commercialism.


New technology offers more mediums through which art can be created, tools through which old crafts can be done differently and in some instances, offers new means with which to experience what has already been done.




--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

Quote (Rangers51 @ 19th February 2010 11:12)

Quote (dont chocobos rule? @ 17th February 2010 21:16)

so im writing an essay for a scholarship to full sail university that i just found out about. it asks what the role of creative minds is in today's society, hence the topic title.

Your topic title says "creativity," but your post seems to talk in a manner that indicates that art is a direct analogue to creativity. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's missing a big point if your definition of "art" is too narrow.

i just made a broad title because i was a bit tired at the time of writing it. i dont solely consider art as the works of the renaissance and early modern era, i only really used the renaissance as a brief comparison for part of my essay, so its not my central focus, sorry if that caused some confusion.



--------------------

Aujourdhui a commence avec toi.

Quote (dont chocobos rule? @ 20th February 2010 03:32)

Quote (Rangers51 @ 19th February 2010 11:12)

Quote (dont chocobos rule? @ 17th February 2010 21:16)

so im writing an essay for a scholarship to full sail university that i just found out about. it asks what the role of creative minds is in today's society, hence the topic title.

Your topic title says "creativity," but your post seems to talk in a manner that indicates that art is a direct analogue to creativity. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's missing a big point if your definition of "art" is too narrow.

i just made a broad title because i was a bit tired at the time of writing it. i dont solely consider art as the works of the renaissance and early modern era, i only really used the renaissance as a brief comparison for part of my essay, so its not my central focus, sorry if that caused some confusion.

What exactly do you have to write then? What is the question or assignment they are giving?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!