Creative Acts

Just some thought (not aroused by somebody or something) which came to me on a Sunday evening. Is there a difference between art and creativity? I'm often annoyed by the fact that a lot of people overuse the word art. Especially since the dusk of post-modernism.

Difference?
Is there a difference between art and creativity? And if there is, could one speak of a difference in quality? I would, on the fly, without even deeply thinking about it, answer the first question with 'yes', and the second one in a 'who cares'?

Connections
In my opinion it is too easy to say that creativity leads to art, or is art, and art is the end product of creativity. Creativity is something everybody has, and which many consciously or unconsciously bring out in their daily activities. That makes the result of their creativity not art, merely (not a degrading 'merely') a product of their own imagination, or, in other words, a creation. I do not have a clear cut definition, but I am sure that 'art' requires more than just 'being creative'.

Art?
Again I'm not giving a list of what is required to call something a piece of art, and it's just my feeling, not a universal law, or an attempt to achieve such an idiotic thing.
First, art cannot be named so by the creator, the term can only be given by others. Therefore one never makes art, one constructs a creation which can be named art.
But 'art' isn't just label or sticker which can be stuck to a statue, picture or piece of music. Art requires individual touches. Though every piece of art is a construct of all kinds of other creations, formed to one whole (consciously, unconsciously and subconsciously), each piece of art has a personal touch, or fingerprint.
Art must always be, in some form, harmonic, even chaotic art requires harmony to be a piece of art (that is the rule of reality, from which we cannot escape). There must be an idea behind it, simple or intricate, there has to be some form of unity; being witty is also a good art-maker.
And finally we as contemporaries cannot claim modern art to be 'art'. Real art, requires time, just like some good wine. Contemporary wines can be tasty, but the matured ones always contain something 'deeper'. I do not believe in the word modern art, as being contemporary art. Merely creations filling some void.

Creation!
So we should not strive for art. Not bulk the word out like some political slogan. 'Art' remains for those who satisfy themselves labelling creations without actually enjoying them. 'Art' is beyond our capabilities as creators, it is not higher in degree, it is something different, something the creator should not worry about. Creation, or being creative, gives form to thoughts locked inside the consciousness. Being creative is a personal business, you don't write, paint or compose for your friends, you do so for yourself.
The good thing about creation (giving form to thoughts) is that it mirrors it's effect. Thought brings creation brings thought. Therefore, the more you create, the more you improve your own thoughts (in whatever way, philosophical, psychological, sociological, artistic etc.).

I must therefore come to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother ourselves (as being "I shouldn't bother myself") with the question (or the exclamation!) if something is art or not. Being creative has more value for the personal being. We should put more effort and more time in being creative than wonder if that which we are doing is actually art.

We should also be more careful with using the word 'creation'. Creation is something that you have to do, not talk about. You cannot force somebody to be creative. It has to come from within. Some people just want to be free by being silent.

Just some thoughts on Sunday evening...

----------------------------------------------
But, a work being art, in my eyes, is Brillo BoxesBrillo Boxes not an opinion, but a fact.
----------------------------------------------

In my opinion every work of art is one big mass of opinion.

Disgust
One of the most important ideas I get from your post is that art does not necessarily has to be something beautiful. According to Modernism and Post-Modernism it can evoke any emotion, including disgust. By creating a certain feeling you are creating an aesthetic experience. But there are two things I disagree with.

Angry and Sad
First of all, an emotion is an emotion but not necessarily an aesthetic experience. If I find something beautiful it does not create that higher feeling of boundlessness. I do not feel exalted when I disgust something. I am not in rapture if I'm having an opinion on something. When I see contemporary 'art' I mostly feel angry and sad. Angry because of the selfishness of contemporary artist (not even the art itself). Why does the artist think himself such an important person I have to look at his opinion in public over and over again (Loesje posters are humble in comparison with many of these contemporary pieces of 'art')? I find it arrogant, because many pieces of modern art are not chosen to be seen (they are not in a museum), but are forced upon the people by placing them in public places, modern architecture being the worst of all.
Sad because, in my opinion, this arrogance is destroying creativity. Surely Andy Warhol had some fine ideas, but the only thing contemporary 'art' is doing is copying people like Andy Warhol, Picasso and Mondriaan. We already had vacuum cleaners in showcases, we already had the whole hexadecimal colour panel on canvas but what does it say? What does it create? It's pure individualistic opinion, forced upon an other individual, with either the claim that if I dislike it, I'm in rapture, or that I mustn't disregard the freedom of expression. There is nothing wrong with the freedom of expression, but in my opinion, 'artists' could be more humble with the way they force their creations on the public.

Everything is Nothing
The whole problem(Post-)Modernists left us is their claim that anything can be art. This remark destroyed art, because everything is nothing. Art becomes blurred in the grey society (despite the many colours contemporary art uses).

Individual & the World
It is true that the Modernists had some great ideas that changed the world. I'm still of the opinion that Modernism has been more important than the famed Renaissance in terms of human development. But those ideas are now being used as an excuse to make almost everything in the name of art. It is true that the only way out of the hermeneutic circle of (Post-)Modernism is individualism. But the paradoxical thing about this is that one cannot leave the world out, because one is part of that world (also a Modernist idea).

Therefore, one should focus on creation and leave the 'art' to time.

Dancing: art work (or not?) by Kat O'Brian, one of her "Seven Shrines"

When I hear a discussion starting about "what is art" I mostly get tired before I have even started to listen or to think about arguments myself. I experience that these kind of discussions can become very "heated" because quite some people consider it a very important question and want to prove the truth in their opinion and I don't think it's worth all that fighting with words. So I get tired but still, I listen secretly to the discussion because in some way I hope to find an acceptable answer to the question myself once. (and by the way, I like the decent and reasonable way of your discussing here:))

Instead of "do I think this is art" I try to ask myself the question if that object called art moves me, so quite like one of the definitions FRH gave. If the answer is positive I tend to call it art for myself but for someone else could find it just a meaningless silly thing. I have a weakness for cute "art", like the picture of the wooden dancing lady I attached.

FRH: "And because most of the art from the early middle ages till 1800 is made as an order by the royal court or the pope, meaning no creativity was used."
I don't know much about art history but I don't believe I agree to this. I think those "sponsors" (what was the specific term again?) were just the only option for artists in that time to do what they really wanted: being creative. In that time there was no government money for these kind of people. So I think it was working in order of a rich person or finding another job. And who says some of those rich people didn't honestly appreciate it? I don't think all of them just wanted paintings of themselves, or am I being too romantic now? Maybe some artists saw it as a good job and had as a goal to "make art" and not "to be creative" like you have nowadays as well.

Now, we haven't yet really talked about a definition for "creativity". With Loesje the Netherlands we have spent about 4 hours discussing about a possible definition once during a member weekend. Very interesting, but not yet satisfying it was. Personally it sometimes irritates me that Loesje spams us with the sentences like "just come and we'll be creative" What is meant with it and does everyone interprets it alike?

~We could not all be cowboys, so some of us are clowns~

Art cant be boring it has to be new and refreshing

i think the word that your looking for instead of merely (not degrading) is purely. and i think the line between art and creativity lies within purity. pure art is creative. pure creativity is artistic..

and i think you are understating creativity by a long shot. 'Art' would always be a task or a recreation of something already done without it..