Are all artists creative?
Monday, April 13th, 2009 by Lucinda M. DuggerWhat’s the difference between a creative artist and an artist?
That’s the question I’ve been contemplating the past few days since I read a letter to the President that ridicules him for his administration’s appointees on intellectual property issues.
The letter urges the President to create offices that support innovation and free expression, which apparently he has not done, because, the letter argues, his appointees have represented the copyright industries. (Is this not the President who invites artists into his house? Is this not the President who supports arts in education? Is this not the President whose entire campaign has been built on innovation and free expression? I digress….)
The letter also raises concern that “overly broad IP protection might favor established distribution models at the expense of technological innovators, creative artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and an increasingly participatory public.”
Creative artists?
Are there artists that aren’t creative? At what point in an artist’s life can she be considered creative? And, if there are some artists that aren’t creative, who are these people?
My mind has been reeling back through my life as an artist, reflecting on the many places I’ve met artists, and even scrutinizing my friends and family who are artists. The community theatre where I would spend my evenings playing backstage and in the costume shop while my mom directed a show. The school of art where I obtained my painting degree. My graduate studies in arts management. The many arts-related conferences that I’ve been to just recently….
Are these people not by nature creative artists? What if they’re not? Who will tell them that they are just artists and not creative artists?
My mental search took me to the American Heritage dictionary, which defines an artist as:
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
Ok, so to be an artist, by definition, one would need to have imagination, talent, or skill to create. Simple enough. That sounds a bit like creativity to me. (I won’t even begin to get into the debates surrounding talent, aesthetic value, or even high-arts vs. low-arts in this blog).
So, how does the dictionary define creative? The Random House dictionary defines creative as:
1. Having the quality or power of creating.
2. Resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing.
This is where I start to get confused, because according to this definition of creative, it is a result of “originality of thought, expression, etc.” This is also implied in the definition of “artist” above. Yet, remixes and mashups, which are supported by many groups who signed this letter, are not a result of original thought or expression. They are a hybrid of others’ thoughts and expressions.
Clearly, however, these are the types of creative artists that this letter is referring to. These are also the artists who, according to these groups, are the ones who enable free expression and innovation.
Most people, I think, who are real artists, who spend every waking hour creating, whose minds churn with ideas and the execution of those ideas, who voluntarily use the very distribution models scorned in the letter, wouldn’t call themselves creative artists.
They would just call themselves artists. Because they just are. Creative.
And, when something by nature just IS, then it’s really not necessary to make a point to say it again. Unless, of course, you don’t actually create, then it’s important to make sure everyone knows that you think you are creative. So, then you call yourself a creative artist.
