stARTling reflexion

Philip Patston discusses the distinction between art and creativity and explores if his ‘stARTle reflex lark’ is creative.

* * *

While in Wellington in May I spent some time at Te Papa. One of the exhibitions that caught my attention was John Reynolds' Cloud. Here it is described on Te Papa's website:

Comprised of 7081 small canvases bearing words and phrases from The Dictionary of New Zealand English, Cloud is a galaxy of words written in silver marker mapping some of the particularities of New Zealand English.

Essentially it's a white wall with a mass of small white canvasses, each with a word scrawled in silver pen, most too high up to actually see. Intriguing. One of those artworks that makes you think, "I could do that." And then you feel bad because you know that, if you could, you would have done it, so obviously you couldn't. Or could you, if you set your mind to it?

Of course you - ok, I'll own it: I - wouldn't want to copy it, because it wouldn't be original. So what could I do instead? Part of my unique function (that's impairment or disability in the current lexicon) is what's known as a startle reflex. That means I "jump", similar to the way a baby does, when I am startled, usually by a loud noise – a bit like Corbin in the clip below.

So I thought, what if I had two big paint brushes, dipped them in paint, put a canvass (or two) behind me and got people to startle me. My hands would flick up and paint would spray over the canvasses. After a few goes I'd have created an abstract painting (or two).

Question is, would it be art? And if people watched, would it be performance art, even? If you Google "what makes something art," you get "about 137,000,000,000" results. Read the first few results and you begin to think no one's particularly sure, but it's probably got something to do with beauty, emotion, reality and intent. I'm interpreting this to mean that it's less about what you do than why you do it. And the more you can create some sort of complex meaning and articulate it, the more likely it will be considered art.

Ok. So what I've described probably wouldn't be recognised as art. It could be, but I probably wouldn't go much further than explaining it as a bit of a laugh inspired by John Reynolds' Clouds. At worst it would be seen as disrespectful; at best, trivial.

Next question: is it creative? Google gives "about 131,000,000,000" results for that query but, here's something interesting: that's not a question we're asking ourselves/each other, at least not online. It's not until the eighth screen that anything remotely near the question comes up. Ironically and coincidentally it's a guy I've been following on Twitter for some time, UK creative coach and trainer Mark McGuinness (@markmcguinness). In a post on his site Wishful Thinking, he asks, What Makes a Creative Person? He concludes, "one way of defining the ‘creative person’ is simply someone who enjoys creativity and therefore does a lot of it" and he points out three differences between creatives and others:

1.They think of themselves as “creative”.
2.They love doing creative work.
3.They put themselves in an environment where creativity is encouraged."

Well, I'm quite happy in the knowledge that I'm a creative person, but is my stARTle reflex lark (as I'm coining it) creative? Let's apply Mark's logic, albeit crudely:

1.It's thought of as “creative”.
2.It's done in the spirit of loving doing creative work.
3.It's done in an environment where creativity is encouraged.

My Apple dictionary defines creativity as "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas." I dreamt it up and I don't know anyone else with the medical diagnosis of cerebral palsy flicking paint on canvasses, so I'll tick number 1.

I think I'd enjoy doing it – in fact I can see myself fair getting into it. Number 2: tick.

Where would I do it? To be authentic to the idea of being startled, I would need to do this with at least one other person, whose task would be to make me jump. If I wanted to turn it into a performance, I'd need to somehow entice an audience to come and watch. Either way, the collaborative nature, the humour of it and the potential entertainment value would all construe as a creatively encouraging environment. Three out of three.

Hopefully, my musings have given you an opportunity to reflect and have some sort of startling insight into the distinction between art and creativity:

1.Art is objective - it is defined by the audience. Creativity is subjective, defined by the creator.
2.Art often has an element of negativity and struggle (the tortured artist). Creativity is an act of love.
3.Art is cloistered in galleries and theatres, a club of and for the elite. Creativity is fostered in an environment of abundance and inclusion.

These blogs take on a life of their own. What began as a simple musing over a silly idea has developed into a case for its creative value – and indeed the value of creativity itself. And of course, by analysing it in such detail, even though I have yet to execute it, I may have unintentionally elevated it into the realm of art.