The problem of creative people

The argument placed before us today was roughly this: “If we agree that all tools and resources necessary for the creation of art have already been provided in the universe or rather the earth, then as creative people, what is our job?”
A problem rises in the acceptance of the first assumption itself. Is it really true that all tools and resources necessary for the creation of art are provided to us?


Certainly all the inspirations and motivations are there in the universe. The world around us and the various things taking place in it are the sources for inspiration of the creation of art but the means of expressing it are not always provided fully. The first forms of art which we have are the cave drawings. The inspiration for those paintings, the animals and plants were provided in full to the early men, but the media was not. Man had to discover it for himself before he could create such primitive art. The materials were there, but they had to be processed in some way before their use.


As various new forms of art were created, it was clear that the inspiration was still provided fully for any art form. But the media, which was always changing had to be discovered and processed. In paintings we had the pigments used for colouring, the use of paper and ink for literature, instruments and the notation system in music, and even dance, which was expression through certain movements and postures had to be created and develop over time.


Coming to modern times, the advent of films clearly shows that new forms of media had to be created, e.g. film, camera etc. So it is arguable that the tools for creating art are not provided to us fully.

Coming to the crux of the argument, what is our job as creative people?
My opinion is that our job is to express. All people can feel, but it is accepted that not everyone can express in the same manner. The people who are better at expressing are termed “creative”. Creative people are supposed to express their thoughts, feelings, inspirations etc through various media. And use different methods of expressing it in the same art form, e.g. various types of painting, literature etc. But another thing I feel is that creative people must also look for different new media of expression. This has been happening throughout history. Various new media have been discovered over time by people and more people have carried it forward. From cave walls to canvases and installation art, pen to keyboard, advances have been made and will be made, and this is also the job of creative people.


From the concept of expression comes the “frame”; not the technical frame we know of, but it is a representation of the entire space in which the artiste can express his or her art form. For the painter, it is the canvas, for the author, pen and paper and so on. Since we are dealing primarily with films, which are nothing but moving images, the frame to us is the cinema screen. All our expressions must be done through this frame.


Then the argument arose “is it possible to show all our expressions in a frame?”

There are certainly things which are invisible to both us and the camera. An example and its subsequent solution were put forward: A breeze will be invisible, but we can show its presence by the effect it has on the objects around it. And here again it was argued, “Why must we be restricted by limitations like this?”
My opinions on this matter are divided. There are objects which are invisible to our senses because we cannot sense them without aid. There are tools to sense such objects and then express them, e.g. bacteria, far away stars etc.


There are things we cannot see, with or without tools, since they have no physical form, but they can affect us physically, like emotion. In this case, since emotion is not a physical entity, we can only show it by either showing the effect of emotion on the physicality of a person, or by personifying it with some image or object, thus creating a physical representation of to show in our frame.


Then there are objects which we cannot see since they exist only in our imagination, like fairy tale creatures. Again the only way to show these objects is through personification, either by actors or by the use of special effects.


But the limitation we were discussing lies with us, not our tools. It is our senses that limit us. A camera can see objects in more minute detail than our eyes, but unless it captures it in a matter which is perceivable to our eyes, it is of no use. Many things we capture must be processed so they can be sensed by our sense organs, and that is where we must restrict ourselves. So in my opinion, it is not our tools that are restricted, it is we who are.

Somak Mitra
02/09/2009