Netflix released an interesting documentary this year called “The Creative Brain” by neuroscientist David Eagleman. It asks some really thought-provoking questions about creativity and dispels some myths. It was filled with so many gems of quotes from a variety of artists that I had to rewind as I reached for my notebook.
This film touched on so many common themes that content creators struggle with. Here are some quotes that I found worth sharing. Ultimately they all seem to tie together some basic fundamentals about the creative process that I am sure many of you have experienced either as a frustration, or concern, or just common feeling.
“I think originality is bunk!“
~ Michael Chabon, novelist
I got a smile out of this from Michael Chabon, a novelist well known for his very creative writing. Especially with photography and the volume of work in existence, does anyone ever feel they have created a truly original photograph these days? I did note that they made a distinction between “originality” and “unique.” Eagleman made the argument that anything we as individuals create is inherently unique because our own life experiences that influence that creation are unique. He remarked that it is better to think about how you can use what predecessors have done to build upon rather than struggle with creating something that is “original.” Solid advice.
“It’s always easier to be a critic than a creator.“
~ Nathan Mhyrvold, inventor
Another smile provoking comment that brought to mind so many examples of judging and the associated problems with it in our society. It certainly has become more “visible” in the age of the internet and the rise of social media platforms where critics can spread opinions like diseases. Of course, sometimes critics are creators themselves, which is supposed to bring some type of credibility to what they offer. You see this a lot with photography contests. But someone so detached from what was the motivation behind making something is always going to be at a disadvantage.
“Creativity is getting off the path of least resistance.”
~ David Eagleman
Eagleman speaks about how our brains are extremely energy efficient biological machines. They have evolved to be this way by finding the best neural pathways that utilize the least amount of energy. We have heard before when it comes to the flow of water – it seeks the “path of least resistance.” The same thing happens with our brains and it’s neural network.
As a default mode, our brains will naturally follow the path of something we have done before. A predictable outcome that will use up the least amount of resources. Sometimes this is a good thing – think of training and muscle memory. As it turns out, this is not the path to take when it comes to being creative.
Studies on creativity show that it emerges from trying new things, forcing our brains to explore new and different pathways. This led to a discussion that I found quite interesting.
Testing those new pathways seems to be balanced by how it is received by others. Creating something that is so commonplace is likely to be met with boredom. Going too far can make something completely obscure and contorted.
Successful creative ventures lie somewhere in between those two boundaries. Eagleman discusses that line of “too far” is one that is always being tested by creative people. One never knows until they try to push the boundary. Go too far and it can fall just as flat as creating something boring. However, failing in testing that line doesn’t mean it wasn’t of any value. Failure is part of the process.
Failure isn’t always something that is pleasant to deal with, but at least I know it is actually doing something for me. I probably don’t test those upper boundaries enough. In a field that is so saturated with work like photography is, it can also be difficult to know if you are truly testing boundaries, or just repeating works done before that you were unaware of. Ultimately I suppose that doesn’t matter. As long as I am testing my own upper boundaries, “the world” can decide how derivative in nature it is. After all, originality is bunk right?
“The Creative Brain” is a documentary I’d recommend if this type of probing into the process interests you. It includes some great interviews with a lot of creative people. It certainly added a number of things for me to think about in my own wandering and struggles.
This looks like an interesting film. I just read a book about autism written by an autistic person, and it was a fascinating look at how the brain functions. It sounds like this will be a good companion to it.
Every so often I think I’m getting too comfortable in the studio, and begin looking for the boundaries.
Thanks for the comments Melissa. Those boundaries are the part of the film that interested me – though it probably could have gone far more in depth with that subject alone. Like you mentioned, the aspect of being too comfortable vs.knowing when to push further.
How many experienced photographers make photographs with a goal of producing the same or similar photo time after time, year after year. Not many or at least not many once past a certain point in their career or experience level. I recently read an article that recommended steps on how to learn from the work of other photographers… a Study, Copy and Transform method. Can originality survive in an age of Internet over-saturation?
It seems what begins as “the path of least resistance” becomes a ‘poisoned chalice’ in our search for our own unique voice and photographic originality. Mark, thanks for this post and my associated mental exercise it required! The inversion image is lovely and it drew me in.
I also enjoyed learning about “chalk and cheese” from the comment discussions! Thanks, Cedric! 🙂
I don’t really know on the first question. I know many stick to the same “style” even if it is a different subject. I have seen a lot of technically flawless photos that I felt were empty voids of emotion. I’ve seen camera clubs/contests promote the same type of imagery over and over and over for decades. Beautiful but boring if that makes any sense. I am not implying I know any better, just voicing concerns with any type of creation.
I often process my iPhone photos just using apps on my phone. Sometimes the convenience actually helps creative explorations. Sometimes I like what I did on my phone better than anything I could replicate with a “real camera.” All questions enough to fill an afternoon pondering. Thanks for your thoughts on this one Earl.
I think my questions were mostly rhetorical in nature and were tossed out into the universal void without expectations. Oh, I absolutely do understand “beautiful but boring.” Have a great week, Mark!
I saw this doco recently too, but I can’t say that I liked it beyond the insights given by some of the people interviewed. Maybe I should watch it again. Perhaps I was in the wrong mood.
In any case, I stopped by to say that I like the two images accompanying this post. The cracked concrete and rebar one is excellent on multiple levels. Well seen and executed. I cannot imagine too many people walking by this scene and seeing what you saw. The other image made me smile because only recently, I did something similar. Similar scene, similar treatment but sadly, chalk and cheese in terms of results (and by that, I mean mine was chalk, yours was cheese. Cheese is much nicer than chalk 🙂 )
Lol! Have to admit first time I’ve heard “chalk and cheese.” An Aussie thing? 🙂 Perhaps this doc then gets a chalk rating from you? I’ve had the cracked concrete pic in my files for awhile. One of those that keeps simmering away, even though I didn’t do much with it in development.
I just saw a lot of symbolism in that photo. The place, the city, me. Perhaps doesn’t mesh well with the “nature” genre, or perhaps a very sharp commentary that does fit.
The “chalk and cheese” expression is British but commonly used in Australia. It’s really to say that two things are completely different from each other without necessarily stipulating that one is better. In the case of the tree inversion experiment, I wanted to express how different the images were from each other in terms of artistic quality, but also that the difference lay in the fact that yours was beautiful while mine was not 🙂
I hope that makes sense.
Anyway, I watched the doco again to figure out what I hadn’t liked and decided that Eagleman’s desire to break down the creative process into easy-to-follow steps kind of took away from the experience and left me feeling as if he didn’t really get it. And unlike Michael Chabon, who put a new spin on the whole steal-like-an-artist idea relating to creativity, Eagleman didn’t really provide anything inspiring. I do agree that everyone is, or has the capacity to be, creative, I just don’t get the need to break it down into some formula. It goes against the whole idea of being creative somehow. I feel that trying to package up such concepts is little more than a precursor to monetising the research: “7 Habits…”, “6 Steps To…”, “10 Things You Should Do To…” etc. But hey, maybe that’s just me.
Hmm, interesting. What did you find formulaic about it? (Cuz maybe I need to write that formula down lol! ) I know he didn’t go too much in depth, perhaps for reasons of making the doc “more digestible.” The individual concepts I found interesting if only to provide some subjects to think about further that were not conveyed in depth on the film.
Mark, let me assure you that you have absolutely no need for a formulated approach to creativity. Even if there is such a thing, then you already have it perfected.
I’ve been thinking about signing up for Netflix. This looks like something I would really love to see. I suspect it will be one of the first things I watch when I sign up. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention!
Oh man, I cannot be responsible for the future time you spend in front of the TV. This is only one of the many interesting things you will find there.
Lol, you will not be held responsible!