Ralph Goings began painting realism in the 1960s. He has so refined his skill that his work is now referred to as super realism. His diner series reminds me of a HD Norman Rockwell. Although Goings is not the first to paint realism, his work is so real that it bears the brand of illusionary (Inset Ralph Goings' - Duke Diner).
The work of Ralph Goings is a great launching point for debating the differences and similarities of being creative or innovative. Clearly Goings is innovative in his methodology. But if he is essentially capturing an image of his eye in minute detail, how can that be defined as creative? Hold on. The battle within is going to take a few posts to work out.
When writing about being creative versus innovative, definitions can be helpful or they can be lost by common use. I prefer in this instance to use creative (adj) over creativity (noun) and innovative (adj) over innovation. They will blend at some point, but for now I want to focus on these words as qualities of the nouns that they modify: people.
Words, properly used, should describe for the recipient what the messenger intends to be received and comprehended. If, when referring to a system or process, I say that the new system is better then I am referring to that modification as innovation. To achieve innovation a person or team of people must be innovative. She will take what is and transform it into something new and potentially better than the previous process, product, or system.
The dilemma starts there. If an artist (encompassing all arts) uses a tool or process and alters it to create something new, is that creativity or innovation? From what I can tell from my limited exposure to formal art training, all art is evolutionary. Each successive generation builds on the discoveries of the past.
Tommorrow I want to tackle the question: What is the source of being creative?
No comments:
Post a Comment