How do we perceive cessations of sensory stimulations?

[Magical Realist]

The purpose of your art can be didactic, divertissement, aesthetic, etc. and also be either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated.

The article proved that really creative people are always internally motivated. That external motivations, which would be anything else other than creating for its own sake, are less creative if not totally fake. If you're not enjoying the act of creating in itself and for its own sake then you are not truly creative. Which explains your need to use it only as a means for social respect and didacticism and superficial divertissement. As if art for Van Gogh was just a hobby to entertain himself with. As if inventing for Edison was just a pasttime he amused himself with. As if writing for Shakespeare was to teach his audience members some moral lesson. lol

[Syne]

The purpose of your art can be didactic, divertissement, aesthetic, etc. and also be either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated.

The article proved that really creative people are always internally motivated. That external motivations, which would be anything else other than creating for its own sake, are less creative if not totally fake. If you're not enjoying the act of creating in itself and for its own sake then you are not truly creative. Which explains your need to use it only as a means for social respect and didacticism and superficial divertissement. As if art for Van Gogh was just a hobby to entertain himself with. As if inventing for Edison was just a pasttime he amused himself with. As if writing for Shakespeare was to teach his audience members some moral lesson. lol

Ah, you're conflating two difference senses of "for it's own sake." One is in the aesthetic sense, which is art done for the purpose of pure beauty, sensory experience, and visual pleasure. It's done just for the sake of the experience, but this purpose can still be done for extrinsic or intrinsic motivations. You can make aesthetic art motivated by external praise of others, to advertise a product, etc.. Again, motive and purpose are two separate things. Just like you can do didactic art from a personal motive to express a definite message, without any care for the commercial success or critical reception.

Take movies, for example. A movie can be made for the pure artistry of the cinematography and just to invoke an experience, but motivated solely by profit, knowing there's a market for art house films. Yes, the profit motive will likely result in a worse product, but it can be done. Likewise, a movie can be made with an explicit political message and moral themes, but motivated solely by personal belief in the expressed ideology. If not done just to propagandize others or virtue-signal, this can come across as more genuine than the art film made for pure profit.

There can be any mixture of purpose and motivation. None of mutually exclusive.

Motives of "social respect" or "superficial" anything are your own basic misunderstanding. You obviously don't understand didacticism or divertissement if you conflate both as solely extrinsically motivated.

Edison and Shakespeare were both motivated by profit. Invention is its own purpose but Shakespeare was an aesthetic playwright, highly motivated to fill theater seats. I'm also a programmer. While some of my work is for pay, much of it is just me solving problems and enjoying the process. Some of which I share for free and some is just for my personal use. So even with the same task, my own motivation can differ.


But again, thanks for so clearly illustrating your deep and abiding ignorance of any personal experience with actually creating anything. No doubt, this will continue to be completely lost on you, as you're far too wrapped up in "being right" than understanding anything beyond your current, narrow experience. Have fun with your little rambling musings.

[Magical Realist]

One is in the aesthetic sense, which is art done for the purpose of pure beauty, sensory experience, and visual pleasure. It's done just for the sake of the experience, but this purpose can still be done for extrinsic or intrinsic motivations. You can make aesthetic art motivated by external praise of others, to advertise a product, etc.. Again, motive and purpose are two separate things. Just like you can do didactic art from a personal motive to express a definite message, without any care for the commercial success or critical reception.

Nope...you can't have two mutually incompatible drivers for creating. Only the internal motivation of doing it for its own sake, to express your own inner imagination and aesthetic senses, is true creativity. The moment the driver of external purpose enters, the pure creative energy stops and gets replaced by the skill or craftsmanship of only making products that sell or impress others or teach people a lesson. No doubt Thomas Kincaid started out a truly creative artist with his great cottage paintings, but soon that changed to him just mass reproducing them to make millions. He went from true creativity to the manufacturing of a popular commodity.

Take movies, for example. A movie can be made for the pure artistry of the cinematography and just to invoke an experience, but motivated solely by profit, knowing there's a market for art house films. Yes, the profit motive will likely result in a worse product, but it can be done. Likewise, a movie can be made with an explicit political message and moral themes, but motivated solely by personal belief in the expressed ideology. If not done just to propagandize others or virtue-signal, this can come across as more genuine than the art film made for pure profit.

Such movies made for profit express no creativity or artistry at all. And neither do movies made to send a message, like Christian movies. My long history of watching art and indie films reveals that the best directors of them like David Lynch or the Cohen Brothers or Alfred Hitchcock or Woody Allen stuck to their own art for its own sake, expressing from it their own powerful and unique vision and not compromising it for ticket sales or self-righteously edifying the unwashed masses. Truly creative masterpieces that became cult classics among auteurs of true art. That's the power of creativity for its own sake.

There can be any mixture of purpose and motivation. None of mutually exclusive.

Nope..creativity is inherently incompatible with merely producing a product to sell or send some message. That's why art museums are filled with one of kind paintings that were not mass produced to make money or please anyone or preach some moral lesson.

Motives of "social respect" or "superficial" anything are your own basic misunderstanding. You obviously don't understand didacticism or divertissement if you conflate both as solely extrinsically motivated.

I know the difference between hotel art and reproduced interior designer art and religious art and real art. And none of those overlap with each other.

Edison and Shakespeare were both motivated by profit. Invention is its own purpose but Shakespeare was an aesthetic playwright, highly motivated to fill theater seats. I'm also a programmer. While some of my work is for pay, much of it is just me solving problems and enjoying the process. Some of which I share for free and some is just for my personal use. So even with the same task, my own motivation can differ.

Making things to please others or make money isn't creativity. Edison created inventions for their own sake, not to get rich. Shakespeare wrote plays for their own sake, and it shows thru being the most deep and rich explorations of the human soul ever created. Even if you just make things for you to use or to display, that's not really creativity. Again its more like craftmanship, replicating an image in a medium for a specific use instead of creating something totally original and expressive of one's inner vision.

But again, thanks for so clearly illustrating your deep and abiding ignorance of any personal experience with actually creating anything.

Tell me again how my creative writings and artistic observations aren't creating anything original or expressive of my own personal quest for understanding and truth. Tell me again how it is that someone so impressively "creative" as you hasn't posted a single original thought or observation in all your posting here. Now go and fuck off like the good little lowbrow twat you've exposed yourself to be here.

[Syne]

Edison and Shakespeare were entrepreneurs. Both had motives to keep their respective livelihoods afloat. Look it up for yourself.

It's only your ignorance that leads you to believe such things are incompatible, and you're obviously unwilling to learn. Artistic creativity is obviously so far beyond your understanding or experience. You just can't help but continue to reinforce that fact. And the lashing out is just sad.

LOL! It's like you don't even understand the very basic notion that "sex sells." Purely aesthetic with a profit motive. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

"In fact, anything creative tends to be most hampered by end goals. It is almost imperative that you are completely mindful of the moment, creating from a place of simply allowing whatever is going through you to flow out. Because when you have a pre-prescribed path in mind, it means you are trying to align with somebody else’s."--- https://thoughtcatalog.com/brianna-wiest...th-talent/

"Creativity is defined as the use of imagination or original ideas to create something. In other words, being creative involves the ability to utilize objects and information in unconventional ways to come up with new and original ideas."--- https://www.guycryclub.com/blog/the-flow...bi-maynard

"Genuine artists — those not impelled by the pursuit of money or fame — derive fulfillment from the hunt for answers rather than their capture. The thrill of landing on a world of virgin possibilities and the wonder of knowing that there’s no end to the search — these are some of the primary factors that animate artists who respect their craft."--- https://medium.com/the-reckless-muse/tru...9835a51312

[Syne]

I guess you think that refutes something. Sad. You obviously have no personal experience to draw from, and have to resort to cherry-picking things that simply confirm your existing bias. Yeah, real creative. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

You can't even insult creatively. No wonder seeing real creativity here has reduced you to a bragging tantrum-throwing 4 year old.

[Syne]

Is that what you think happen? @_@
I explained to you very basic facts about art and you can't comprehend any of it. Wow, what a tantrum. 9_9

Project much?

Now go and fuck off like the good little lowbrow twat you've exposed yourself to be here.

[Magical Realist]

I don't need your dumbass to explain something I do practically everyday. You know..the reason you started bitching like an overdefensive loser to begin with?

[Syne]

Sure, tiger.