HOME | DD

Description
      The term “creation” is often thrown into conversation and written forms of communication without true regard for the scope of its meaning.  Creation, by its very nature, is an abstract concept.  Yet, instances of creation are often connoted as being concrete and physically palpable.  Creativity, the airy, subjective characteristic of creation, however, contributes to immaterial works as well as material ones.  I apologize for the extreme generality; whether any specific thing is or is not a form of creation remains subjective (as creativity itself is), but I hope to define the inevitably blurry lines so we can recognize and appreciate it more completely.  My definition is broad but pointed: I argue that creation is not to be bounded by being physical substance, but rather by the process in which it came to be.

      We can see the first and perhaps most obvious examples of creation in the conventional arts—dance, painting, photography, music, literature, theater, and the like.  We can examine these to pinpoint the characteristics of their overriding similarity.  All of the arts are certainly results of human thought; the choreographer creates a ballet, the painter creates a watercolor, the musician creates a solo, the writer creates a novel, and the director creates a musical.  The human aspect in this case is inseparable, as each creature requires an artist.  In the act of creation any particular type of artist applies his understanding of the craft in a personally singular way to achieve a unique final product.  In fact, this very personal care and effort taken hold the essence of creativity in the process.  In this way, creation is a type of specialization.

      Creation and vocation are closely linked via the theme of specialization.  To specialize is to treat each task as its own.  Every job, according to the specialist, is different and ought to be taken as such—there is no set protocol that could possibly fit each one.   A profession requiring specialization also requires creativity.  Here is where we see unobservable creation, where it branches off from the arts.  Consider a doctor.  The doctor does not construct, or compose anything that you or I could necessarily touch or witness, but instead generates a cure.  And this cure is no less of a creation than any painting or song despite its atypical embodiment.  It merits original thought just as would any of the arts.  Even more, it has a usage, which is how it is associated with vocation.  So, in the case of the working specialist, creation is a utility resulting from work.

      In all cases we can see that creation is the product of a process.  The process may be physical handiwork or based in thought, but there is an important sequence of human action involved nonetheless.  The common habit of using the term “creation” for anything simply made disregards the process, and places the final product as the prime importance.  Specialization is then wrongly neglected.  Consider two shoes, one made by machines on an assembly line and the other by a shoemaker.  The former is not a true creation according any meaningful standards.  Although virtually the same in function as the shoemaker’s, it holds no creative value since its production lacked ingenuity.  The shoemaker took time using his tools and hands to make a shoe (or hopefully a pair of them) that no other shoemaker could in quite the same way.  He made a shoe that actually reflects himself.  A special shoe.

      And that is exactly what characterizes creation!  Anything emerging from an act of creation contains its mode of formation as a part of itself.   Every stitch in the leather of the shoe was pulled as the shoemaker saw fit, and his presence is therefore a component of it.  The doctor’s cure was dependent on research and data that he compiled and analyzed as nobody else could have.  The doctor is a part of his cure.  Conversely, any number of machines could create an identically styled shoe, each one indistinguishable from the other in physical display and in personality.  They would not be specialized, but instead treated exactly the same.

      Looking at myself, I came to see that many manifestations of a creative product are possible.  I have different feelings that I associate with what I would like to be doing.  Over time I noticed that I have the same feeling associated to a wide variety of activities, namely: playing the drums, programming on my computer, taking and developing photographs, making digital art, and solving mathematical problems.  Whenever I want to do one of those I truly can’t help myself.  As different they all are, the common denominator became quite clear to me: they’re all forms of creation.  Sure, even math.

      I sit down at my desk with no more then a sharpened pencil and pad of paper.  With a particular problem in mind, either one I’ve pondered personally or even more likely a problem that has been solved millions of times, I place my pencil to paper and attempt to represent it symbolically.  I close my eyes and ex-out pages of work however many times I consider necessary, and all to come to a conclusion that has been determined so many times in the past.  Even once I realize the answer I labor to prove it, to express wholly why the answer is what it is.  And why would I do such a thing?  Well, as I hope to have made clear, my answer isn’t my own without the process.  Sure, in class all fifteen of us got the same answer as Euler did 250 years before us, but mathematics is a creative process, and final results are relatively uninteresting on their own.  If you asked to see my solution I would not only hand you the answer circled darkly and written with a dull pencil, but also three pages before it filled with calculation, as my proof is inseparable from the actual solution.  I know you’re interested in the path I took to get there.

      Now, it may seem as though I have overlooked Creation in its broadest sense—as the existence of everything, often in association with a deity.  I do solely speak of humans as creators, but I believe the overall definition can be expanded based upon belief since philosophical subjectivity arises with arguments about, for example, what can be considered a valid creator.  I do wish to address the idea of Creation.  Nature undoubtedly demonstrates a marvelous uniqueness.  Humans, flora, fauna, and the cosmos all demonstrate amazing qualities that closely parallel the definition I have described.  Some say that there is an unmistakable presence of a Creator in nature that points to a god, and others dispute this fact.  Although I have further distinguished the term creation, clearly grey areas will remain to exist.  And this is due to discrepancies in how we view originality or personality in a final “product” coming from its course of inception.  I personally find the singularity of nature—of Creation—to evidence a greater creative force.  Our varied perceptions demonstrate our uniqueness of thought rather than an inconsistency in my definition.

      So, next time you call something a creation, take a moment to examine its properties.  Consider its originality associated with the path by which it came to be.  Look for the presence of its creator and appreciate the object, concept, or experience for more than its literal presentation to you.  Do this because creation is exceptional.  And be inspired to create, to put yourself into something that you can find meaning in or purely enjoy.  I encourage you to give a shoe your soul.

Description
      The term “creation” is often thrown into conversation and written forms of communication without true regard for the scope of its meaning.  Creation, by its very nature, is an abstract concept.  Yet, instances of creation are often connoted as being concrete and physically palpable.  Creativity, the airy, subjective characteristic of creation, however, contributes to immaterial works as well as material ones.  I apologize for the extreme generality; whether any specific thing is or is not a form of creation remains subjective (as creativity itself is), but I hope to define the inevitably blurry lines so we can recognize and appreciate it more completely.  My definition is broad but pointed: I argue that creation is not to be bounded by being physical substance, but rather by the process in which it came to be.

      We can see the first and perhaps most obvious examples of creation in the conventional arts—dance, painting, photography, music, literature, theater, and the like.  We can examine these to pinpoint the characteristics of their overriding similarity.  All of the arts are certainly results of human thought; the choreographer creates a ballet, the painter creates a watercolor, the musician creates a solo, the writer creates a novel, and the director creates a musical.  The human aspect in this case is inseparable, as each creature requires an artist.  In the act of creation any particular type of artist applies his understanding of the craft in a personally singular way to achieve a unique final product.  In fact, this very personal care and effort taken hold the essence of creativity in the process.  In this way, creation is a type of specialization.

      Creation and vocation are closely linked via the theme of specialization.  To specialize is to treat each task as its own.  Every job, according to the specialist, is different and ought to be taken as such—there is no set protocol that could possibly fit each one.   A profession requiring specialization also requires creativity.  Here is where we see unobservable creation, where it branches off from the arts.  Consider a doctor.  The doctor does not construct, or compose anything that you or I could necessarily touch or witness, but instead generates a cure.  And this cure is no less of a creation than any painting or song despite its atypical embodiment.  It merits original thought just as would any of the arts.  Even more, it has a usage, which is how it is associated with vocation.  So, in the case of the working specialist, creation is a utility resulting from work.

      In all cases we can see that creation is the product of a process.  The process may be physical handiwork or based in thought, but there is an important sequence of human action involved nonetheless.  The common habit of using the term “creation” for anything simply made disregards the process, and places the final product as the prime importance.  Specialization is then wrongly neglected.  Consider two shoes, one made by machines on an assembly line and the other by a shoemaker.  The former is not a true creation according any meaningful standards.  Although virtually the same in function as the shoemaker’s, it holds no creative value since its production lacked ingenuity.  The shoemaker took time using his tools and hands to make a shoe (or hopefully a pair of them) that no other shoemaker could in quite the same way.  He made a shoe that actually reflects himself.  A special shoe.

      And that is exactly what characterizes creation!  Anything emerging from an act of creation contains its mode of formation as a part of itself.   Every stitch in the leather of the shoe was pulled as the shoemaker saw fit, and his presence is therefore a component of it.  The doctor’s cure was dependent on research and data that he compiled and analyzed as nobody else could have.  The doctor is a part of his cure.  Conversely, any number of machines could create an identically styled shoe, each one indistinguishable from the other in physical display and in personality.  They would not be specialized, but instead treated exactly the same.

      Looking at myself, I came to see that many manifestations of a creative product are possible.  I have different feelings that I associate with what I would like to be doing.  Over time I noticed that I have the same feeling associated to a wide variety of activities, namely: playing the drums, programming on my computer, taking and developing photographs, making digital art, and solving mathematical problems.  Whenever I want to do one of those I truly can’t help myself.  As different they all are, the common denominator became quite clear to me: they’re all forms of creation.  Sure, even math.

      I sit down at my desk with no more then a sharpened pencil and pad of paper.  With a particular problem in mind, either one I’ve pondered personally or even more likely a problem that has been solved millions of times, I place my pencil to paper and attempt to represent it symbolically.  I close my eyes and ex-out pages of work however many times I consider necessary, and all to come to a conclusion that has been determined so many times in the past.  Even once I realize the answer I labor to prove it, to express wholly why the answer is what it is.  And why would I do such a thing?  Well, as I hope to have made clear, my answer isn’t my own without the process.  Sure, in class all fifteen of us got the same answer as Euler did 250 years before us, but mathematics is a creative process, and final results are relatively uninteresting on their own.  If you asked to see my solution I would not only hand you the answer circled darkly and written with a dull pencil, but also three pages before it filled with calculation, as my proof is inseparable from the actual solution.  I know you’re interested in the path I took to get there.

      Now, it may seem as though I have overlooked Creation in its broadest sense—as the existence of everything, often in association with a deity.  I do solely speak of humans as creators, but I believe the overall definition can be expanded based upon belief since philosophical subjectivity arises with arguments about, for example, what can be considered a valid creator.  I do wish to address the idea of Creation.  Nature undoubtedly demonstrates a marvelous uniqueness.  Humans, flora, fauna, and the cosmos all demonstrate amazing qualities that closely parallel the definition I have described.  Some say that there is an unmistakable presence of a Creator in nature that points to a god, and others dispute this fact.  Although I have further distinguished the term creation, clearly grey areas will remain to exist.  And this is due to discrepancies in how we view originality or personality in a final “product” coming from its course of inception.  I personally find the singularity of nature—of Creation—to evidence a greater creative force.  Our varied perceptions demonstrate our uniqueness of thought rather than an inconsistency in my definition.

      So, next time you call something a creation, take a moment to examine its properties.  Consider its originality associated with the path by which it came to be.  Look for the presence of its creator and appreciate the object, concept, or experience for more than its literal presentation to you.  Do this because creation is exceptional.  And be inspired to create, to put yourself into something that you can find meaning in or purely enjoy.  I encourage you to give a shoe your soul.