But I think that you are missing the whole spirit of the artistic quest, which I don't see as being limited to the visual arts.

I think that each artist does see the world differently. Apart from visual art, do you not appreciate literature and music?I don't think it has to be classical literature alone. My own literature tastes include plenty of dark fantasy and science fiction. I also love plenty of on the edge music ranging from goth, metal to psychedelic, and the weirder the better.

i see the arts, appreciatiing them and creating art is a whole way of transforming and transmuting the mundane and painful aspects of life. Without the arts I think that life for many would be unbearable and each person's art is unique, which I think is a better word than original.

I also think that philosophy and writing these posts is a form of art. Here, you could say the posts we write may not be entirely original insofar as they may touch upon ideas touched upon previously. But, they include variations, subtle differences rendered through different ways of viewing issues and the stylistics of the writer, and in that sense, you are an artist too.

I just think art isn't your thing man. To each their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, the message of the flower is the flower, etc., etc.

Nope. In 18th century draftsman wouldn't call himself artist. He could call himself craftsman. I have in mind those draftsmen who arrived in Egpit with Napoleon. They wanted only copy what they seen for scientific reasons (like Darwin).

I think that reason is very important. It's different when human want to express himself. Painting landscapes also.

I mean you can't make something from nothing and everything made is usually a variation of something else. — Darkneos

I think that’s an interesting point of view and pretty much what I was suggesting until @Noble Dust posted:

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing. — Noble Dust

Meaning that for the sake of the OP we need to focus on originality in art. Which makes sense. But what interests me about your posts is that you can stand back and look at art reasonably objectively because as you said:

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? — Darkneos

So I think you should chip away at these posts because, from my point of view, art is so important to me and yet not to others and we make every effort to bolster that point of view. Because it’s possible it’s importance is zero.

and @Darkneos

Darkneos, your question seems to suggest that art only has value if it's "original" or "creative". While I'm very much interested in creating original and creative art, I nevertheless think the question is misguided. If you or anyone is questioning whether or not they should create art (and dragging feet about these concepts), the answer is easy: yes, create. Don't over think it. The longer I create art (music in my case) and the older I get, the less I understand what I'm doing, and that feels very correct. Maybe I'm just in a rare mental space of positivity recently, but I'm content with that conception for now.

I.e. the closer I study music itself, the more confused I get. I like being confused!

Interesting, because the more I think about art these days the more I find myself tying it back to a primitive nature and therefore it having greater significance than how it’s presented or sold to us.

So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art?

Can art be creative? The answer may be, not any more. Unless we reframe the meaning of creative to accomodate that, which I think is happening.

So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art? — Noble Dust

I’ve thought that for a long time but time has helped me join the dots. In fact I’m more interested in thinking about it than doing it these days. My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were.

Wait, to accommodate what?

Wait, to accommodate what? — Noble Dust

The fact that art is largely irrelevant now and the idea of creativity being any form of expression. We are probably all creative creatures in a primitive sense. But most have lost touch with that and don’t even know what it really means. It’s like the vestigial fingers of the dolphin.

My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were. — Brett

I like what I see of your thought process, so this is not an accusation, but this sounds a bit like the classic line of "they don't make it like they used to". Which in my view is a simple psychological projection of your (not you specifically) perception of the world of your formative years unto the actual world you find yourself in when you come of age.

In relation to some things that’s possible. But I don’t think so with art. I was interested in all art movements and periods but there were some that had more meaning to me than others and some artists in particular who were trying to connect the dots as well. It’s also tied in with thoughts and reading on anthropology, religion, early comprehension of the world, myths and the unique qualities we have of comprehending and explaining the world and ourselves. Like what I found of interest in the article on dreaming about Metaphoric thinking.

I don't think art is largely irrelevant. To expand further on what I said above, I worry that this arm chair philosophical perspective allows us to create fake perceptions of art across history. When we read art history and connect it to the art around us, we form a concept of what happened and is happening, but we're at the mercy of historical data and, more importantly, technology. I.e. our technologically influenced perception of history is warping our perceptions: 200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, in fact more so, because the masses didn't have the intimate access they have now; they didn't have the internet; they couldn't wax philosophical to strangers about art. Now that we can, we form these hackneyed perceptions that are a symptom of our weird birds eye view. I worry that the farther out we zoom from reality, the more warped our perception becomes.

Sadly I'm starting to be more of the view of Brett. It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere. It's hard to look at art the same way again, kind of makes me a little sad. Philosophy ruins life yet again.

200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, — Noble Dust

I understand your point there. But I’m going way back. I have a sculpture from New Guinea carved out of wood of a bird as large as the man whose shoulders it stands on. All the skill and craft of the person who made it is in the sculpture. But he wasn’t making it to hang on the wall to make his hut a little more homely. This meant something. This was a time when you might have hurried past a mask hanging from a tree that makes you shiver with fear as you pass by.

The same as when someone believed a crucifix protected them from the evil out there that actually existed to them.

In old black and white movies I’ve watched Aborigines dancing. The men seem to be duplicating the movement of particular animals, like an Emu. The movements they make create the emu. Now are they pretending to be the Emu or do they actually become an Emu?

Those are just two aspects of art: sculpture and dance. Which we still have. But what does it means now?

You just don't seem to understand art or creativity. Why do you place 'originality' as supreme over all else?

However, the main reason I am posting you again is because you say that philosophy is ruining your life. I wonder what do you mean by this?

If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity — Jack Cummins

I don’t think the work is the source of creativity. The work is the result of creativity. And as in the discussion with Possibility, in a spontaneous dance the work itself disappears as you watch it.

When I spoke of art as being the source, and not simply the result of creativity, I was speaking of how others' artistic creations inspire us in our own art making.

I am not sure what point you are saying about the discussion I had with Possibility. I was simply making a reference to a comment she made to me on another thread. I am not aware of any dancing, and am a useless dancer, but love dance music to play when I meditate.

Thing is I do. Art is not creative. It's not creative to duplicate something you have seen before.

I just do not understand what you are trying to argue. Are you a depressed artist? If you are, I do empathise because my greatest love is creating art, even above philosophy.

So what is creative then?

How do you duplicate it? with a 3d printer? Do your duplicates look like other people's duplicates and those from other cultures?

I am not sure what point you are saying about the discussion I had with Possibility. — Jack Cummins

Sorry, of course you were confused. I had mistakenly thought you were involved in the OP “The purpose of Creativity”.

There have been efforts in art that we could regard as producing something original with the Surrealists and Dadaists.

“ Automatic drawing (distinguished from drawn expression of mediums) was developed by the surrealists, as a means of expressing the subconscious. In automatic drawing, the hand is allowed to move "randomly" across the paper. In applying chance and accident to mark-making, drawing is to a large extent freed of rational control. Hence the drawing produced may be attributed in part to the subconscious and may reveal something of the psyche, which would otherwise be repressed.” Wikipedia

I think their work was more about tapping the unconscious mind rather than looking for originality, though you could say they are the same thing. But the point was that the work which would otherwise be repressed was produced without rational control.

The same might be said about William Burrough’s “Cut-ups”. The problem was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.

So can we really cope with truly original work? Do we just reject it as crazy or threatening?

Duplicate in that art itself imitates something that already exists.

What does music imitate?

What does music imitate? — Noble Dust

Oooo, I think you’ve been saving that one.

Though it doesn't really imitate it, even if the artist is trying to and many don't. It is inspired by something that already exists. I am not sure where the idea came from that to create entails making something with no connection to what has gone before. To create every facet of it. Would this entail shapes never before found, colors?