True, but I need to know what is meant by original. — Brett

In regards to art specifically? — Noble Dust

Because it’s the subject of the OP then yes.

So we’re not talking about an absolutely original act, like an Obsidian cutting tool. Assuming I’m correct there.

Originality in the visual arts seems to be about perception. People are stunned, or intrigued, by the juxtaposition of disparate elements, or unexpected results. But they won’t accept just any result and they have their limits. And for the art specialists and critics they expect to see the old made new, or references to traditions, cultures and social mores they had not previously thought about generating new perceptions.

But I would also like to know just what it was that made Elvis an original.

Call if representative if you want. — Brett

Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create. But I think his point was that if one is merely copying, it isn't creative. The creation was all in the thing itself. But the thing itself is generally very different from representative art based on it or representing it. It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative. I am sure there are some works of art that are direct copies, but they are rare.

If we look at what you quoted....

Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?

Representative art based on studying the real thing is not copying. If its a study of a bowl of fruit, copying would be putting the bowl of fruit in some futuristic 3d printer and making a direct atomic level copy. The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented. What facets are focused, what ignored, the style. Even 'trying to be realistic' means using tricks of perspective and shading and also choosing amongst possible facets. And it will include a philosophical/aesthetic take on what the thing 'really' looks like. Pointillists and Impressionists could argue they are more realistic than people who use so called realistic ways of conveying what is represented.

Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed. — Outlander

Except it isn't though. Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it. There is nothing deep or philosophical or transformational about it once you see that nothing about art is original or new, it's all derivative. All you have are quotes that seem to be rooted in ignorance.

Yes art can be called creative, but not necessarily original. — Brett

But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new. Looking at everything I see today it's not really new or original if I think about it. It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new.

I got into the whole area of the debate of 'original' with many on my own post on the idea on original ideas a week ago. One theme which emerged was that being the first does not necessarily preclude inventiveness. In particular, @Possibility suggested that one useful measure is the following categories :originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity. I think these could be useful in considering where you others stand in considering the authenticity of creativity in art.

Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create. — Coben

By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model.

The creation was all in the thing itself. — Coben

And in this you mean creation is in the jug itself being the subject of the painting.

But the thing itself is generally very different from representative art based on it or representing it. — Coben

Yes, they are both things in themselves.

It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative. — Coben

To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field.

So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality. You might refer to Cubism as a style but does it really plain much? I’m not sure about this. Maybe style is a factor in creativity, maybe it isn’t.

Representative art based on studying the real thing is not copying. I — Coben

I think it is copying, because of the “tricks” brought into play.

The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented. — Coben

I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it.

Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it. — Darkneos

In the sense that you can tell that “The Weeping Woman” is Dora Maar then yes it’s not original. But in the portrait of the pain, suffering and anxiety behind the crying then you might consider that as being original or certainly creative. I don’t think there’s anything derivative in that painting. To say it’s derivative you need reference to something earlier that it resembled.

But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new. — Darkneos

As I said, I don’t think you can use creative and original/new as synonyms. You might disagree. I think there are many things that are creative but not original. It’s creative for instance to rewrite “Romeo and Juliet” as “West Side Story”.

It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new. — Darkneos

I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind.

I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind. — Brett

Well art was always like that though.

Well art was always like that though. — Darkneos

What do you mean?

Yeah, I think artistic originality of any kind (visual or otherwise) has always been relative to perception. As self-styled philosophers, we take this grandiose birds eye view as if we're perceiving the entirety of artistic expression through history in all cultures, when in reality, the experience of the individual (if you notice I always come back to this) determines what "originality" means. Each individual possesses a limited perception of what a given art form is, and any time those foundations are shaken, or the vistas are opened, the word "original" is breathlessly uttered. And this is totally fine. It's not something to critique, it's just the reality that can be observed from our "birds eye view". There's always an artistic corner undiscovered to the individual; there's always the potential for the experience of "originality".

By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model. — Brett

Yes, memory, though it need not be a specific face, it could be memory supported imagined people or things. A landscape that is not a rendering of any particular landscape, viewpoint over a landscape, the artist has seen.

To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field. — Brett

I would say this supports the position I am arguming, in fact I nearly mentioned the cubists, because yes, part of what they are doing is showing that what the realist painters are doing is not copying, but is itself also a style and perhaps not one as real as theirs.

So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality. — Brett

I'm not saying it is a door to understanding creativity, I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'.

I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it. — Brett

Yes, all painting relies on tricks. It is all creative. I am arguing against the OPs idea that a realist painter or drawer is not creative, cause it's just copying. They are making a new thing. They are creative.

So maybe it’s the experience of being stunned by what you see, or excited and inspired. Which becomes very important in a homogenised world.

It is that, yes, and specifically, the viewer is stunned or excited because they're encountering something "seemingly" new. But this is where it gets either psychological, mystical, or just ill-defined (if you want to try to remain logical) to me: because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview).

I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'. — Coben

Yes I would agree with you there. The painting still exists as a thing in itself. It’s not the jug it’s a rendition of the jug in two dimensional form. And that artist could easily have titled the painting “This is not a jug.”

because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview). — Noble Dust

Absolutely agree. Which of course opens up another can of worms.

For me, psychological explanations for this sort of experience are indeed compelling, but only to a degree. I can't shake the feeling that they are only descriptive of something else latent or interwoven into the human experience.

Yes I agree. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on dreams and what’s going on there.

What have you been reading on dreams?

If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative? — Darkneos

Perhaps the creative aspect of realistic art is in the method and not in the result. Too, there's the matter of not everybody being able to draw and paint - it takes talent or loads of practice or both - and this makes art, even if it's only copying an object onto a canvas, a rare ability and thus art becomes, if only in a limited sense, an object of admiration and perhaps even a cause for envy for those of us not thus gifted.

My two cents...

You sound envious!

The bolder parts are my interest, apart from the general theory.


“ ... dreaming can be seen as the "default" position for the activated brain when it is not forced to focus on physical and social reality by (1) external stimuli and (2) the self system that reminds us of who we are, where we are, and what the tasks are that face us.”

From a cognitive perspective, dreams express people's "conceptions," which are also the basis for action in the waking world. Dreams are a dramatic and perceptible embodiment of schemas, scripts, and general knowledge. They are like plays that the mind stages for itself when it doesn't have anything specific to do.

However, there is also a significant minority of dreams, perhaps as many as 30% for some adults, which have no easily discernable connections to the person's waking life.

They are more like sagas or adventure stories; Foulkes (1999, p. 136) calls such dreams "narrative-driven" to contrast them with dreams that seem to be based on personal concerns.

Fourth, in-depth investigations of dream journals from a few excellent recallers might help to explain the aspects of dream content that are not continuous with waking conceptions and concerns. These anomalous aspects of dream content may be the products of metaphoric thinking, although very little progress has been made in testing this cognitively based hypothesis (Domhoff, 2003b). Or it may be that unusual juxtapositions, blended settings, metamorphoses, and sudden scene changes reveal the limits of the mind under the conditions that produce dreaming (Domhoff, 2007; Foulkes, 1999).

The Case for a Cognitive Theory of Dreams. https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Library/domhoff_2010a.html

I'm beat, I'll get back to you.

You sound envious! — Noble Dust

Headshot! Sniper! I'm now sprawled on the ground with a gaping hole in my skull, bits and pieces of brain matter everywhere, a halo of blood circles my noggin. Confirmed kill, soldier! You're one step closer to the medal.

Art can be away of dreaming and you only have to think of the surrealist painters.

I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions which could put into words in many instances. This level of expression has healing potential, as well as enabling people to feel empowered by their own creative abilities.

Too many metaphors broh!

Too many metaphors broh! — Noble Dust

Really? All this while I've been thinking of myself as incapable of figurative discourse. G'day!

I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions — Jack Cummins

I don’t understand why it’s called “therapy”. It’s not as if those who engage with art on a committed level are seeking some sort of therapy. Though art is obviously something that drives them. Nor do I understand why it has healing potential unless they’re in a state that actually doing anything would be good for them. From your experience how does it help?

Edit: and do you think they’re actually creating or just doing something. I know that drawing can be used in psychology to explain or make available difficult internal problems. Is that what they’re doing?

I am talking about art psychotherapy. I was undertaking the training, although I did not complete the training. But art therapy is a profession in it's own right, even though it is not given much funding. Having taken a year out , I did not going back and one factor was the increasing lack of jobs in this therapy, and some questions about its effectiveness. There is a need for evidence-based research to back up its value.

However, I have run creative art groups in mental health settings and think that creative expression and discussion of the art can provide a benefitial intervention. It can just be about drawing or can be about communicating specific stories or internal experience. This can be particularly true of people who have been placed in mental health settings, sometimes against their will, and being forced to take medication that they do not wish to to take. Of course, there is a tension between the expression of emotion and art ability.

Some people may feel inferior to others if they compare it with others' art, and certainly I have strived to emphasise that such comparisons should not to be made. However, this is a grey area because I know that when I am making art I do care about the quality of the art I make. So, sometimes it felt hypocritical in trying to overcome the idea of preventing the distinction about quality and this did influence me not to pursue a career in art therapy, as I was questioning my authenticity in the role.

course, art therapy or art psychotherapy does not have to be in group settings, and this may make group comparison to be less of a matter of importance, although the relationship between the the client and the therapist is in itself of great significance. Here, it is drawing upon the whole psychoanalytic idea of the transference, but this large topic is, perhaps, beyond the scope of this thread discussion.

But, in an ultimate sense, we could argue is there good and bad art? From an early age at school, it
always seemed important to me that my art was chosen to go on the wall, but for many others it was probably more important to be chosen as one of the first for a football team. As one progresses in art at school it is about getting good grades and,if one proceeds in adult life in an art career, art exhibitions are important markers, for sharing work with other people.

So, this brings us back to the whole point of art therapy, which is about catharsis and expression of emotion through images. I think that it can also be about enjoyment, especially as it is about tactile and sensory exploration.

Apart from being an intervention in mental health care, art therapy has been used with children in schools and in other institutions. I have no personal experience of running any art facilitation with children, but I know of others who offer testimonials of how art and art therapy can offer major benefits for children, especially those who have experienced great difficulties.

But it's not really being creative though is it?

I can't believe that you are trying to dismiss the whole profession and experience of art therapy as not being 'creative.'

I am wondering what is your actual definition or understanding of creativity? Having read your posts about art it seems that you would dismiss art all together. If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity where would you suggest we look to as the more 'creative' alternative?

Nowhere, there would simply be no such thing as creativity as it's just replication. I mean you can't make something from nothing and everything made is usually a variation of something else. Hence that phrase "there is nothing new under the sun", so you can't call any of that creative. Reminds me of what someone said on here about it just pushing paint around.

This is sort of why you don't look too closely at things, you end up ruining them. The artist technically isn't creative, as they are just replicating or copying. Kind of sad when you realize it. They try to attach all these extra layers to their "work" to give it some semblance of depth but that's just blowing smoke. If you have to explain what it means then that's sort of a failure as an artist.