About Moral Creativity
Post 390:
There’s a litany of methodologies used to circumscribe the creative process and what it takes to achieve something of value and note. We’ll jump around the obvious traits like talent and hard work and dive a little deeper to perhaps come upon a more expansive view of creativity. This is not the ultimate Aristotelian view or even the best one, but it might be a way to simplify what can sometimes be an overwhelming piece of meat to chew on.
When talking about creating, I like to section it off into two categories. There’s practical creativity and pure creativity. Before you fly off and shut down, let me say that these two types often and almost inevitably bleed into each other.
I try to think of a person designing a bridge to illustrate the idea of practical creativity. There’s not much that’s more useful than a bridge, and it has one prevailing purpose: get people across safely and quicker than they might’ve otherwise. Pretty simple goal. Very practical. Still, someone has to build it in their mind, and this takes a potent act of creativity. Add to that the fact that bridges can differ aesthetically and architecturally in myriad ways—this is where some of that pure creation comes into play. In the end, though, after all the ornamentation and adornments, the bridge needs to maintain its structural integrity. That is the very first goal and the one that everything else hangs on. I’d say that it’s the moral duty of the creator to prioritize the bridge in this fashion. Obviously, if some jerk builds a really pretty bridge that might collapse and hurt people, they’ve gone about their work in a completely immoral fashion.
Now let’s go to the pure creative side of things. Put any sort of fiction or song into this category. Less practical, at least at first glance—we’ll get back to that though.
Style is more important in these endeavors, but it’s not everything—not even the most important thing. Your paramount concern here is to create work that makes sense to the reader or audience member. I’ll rephrase: The goal is to craft a work of art that is capable of being understood. This doesn’t mean it has to be obvious. I can read a Tom Robbins book that’s all over the place knowing that he will arrive at a point that, while obscure, is ultimately understandable in the world that he’s created. Vonnegut and many postmodern writers go nuts with their symbolism and structure—it’s all good, as long as there’s a point and a narrative destination that can be accounted for by going through the story. Again, it’s the creator’s moral duty. If a storyteller builds a narrative with plot holes and nonsensical imagery that is only able to be grasped by them, they’ve wasted people’s time. That’s stealing, far as I’m concerned. It’s why when people leave a crap movie they say things like I was robbed.
Having your time wasted isn’t as dire as traveling on a collapsing bridge, but wrong is wrong.
I guess in this analysis, achieving something that is both good and moral relies on using both practical and pure creativity in sync. It’s something to ponder. They’ve been trying to figure this stuff out since Moses was in short pants. Just one more hack’s opinion.
Oh... one more thing. None of this means that your story or song has to be perfect. That’s a ridiculous thing and really I don’t even know what that would look like. As perfect as your mind can make it—that’s the goal—of course subjectivity comes into the equation, but not as much as some schmucks putting out garbage tend to think. Duty. Obligation. Not why a lot of people choose the arts, but the real world has a way of subverting luminous childhood expectations. Deal with it. That way people can keep getting from A to B without wasting their time.
Cheers. See you after.
