[sonofhans]

Creativity isn’t magic, it’s a skill. There is no creativity without the application of it. By definition creativity produces something. Without skills it’s not possible to produce anything.

The act of creating teaches you to be better at creating, in that way and in that context. This is why people with practice and expertise (e.g., professional artists, like screenwriters and musicians) can reliably create new things.

[jppittma]

To an extent. Take cooking for example though- I don't doubt that writing recipes and trying them builds ones creative muscle, on the other hand, I don't think being we'd be at a loss for great chefs if we were to automate the cutting of onions, the poaching of eggs, and the stirring of risotto.

[sonofhans]

Of course we would. That’s my entire point.

Take poaching eggs for example. Let’s say you automate that 100% so as a human you never need to do it again. Well, how good are your omelettes then? It’s a similar activity — keeping eggs at the right temperature and agitation for the right amount of time. Every new thing you learn to do with eggs — poaching, scrambling, omelettes, soft-cooking for ramen — will teach you more about eggs and how to work with them.

So the more you automate your cooking with eggs the worse you get at all egg-related things. The KitchenBot-9000 poaches and scrambles perfect eggs, so why bother? And you lose the knowledge of how to do it, how to tell the 30-second difference between “not enough” and “too much.”

[consteval]

> Creativity isn’t magic, it’s a skill

I don't agree. There's some skill, some theory, behind it. But mastering this alone is almost worthless.

There's a huge overlap between creatives and mental illness, particularly bipolar disorder. It seems perfectly mentally stable people lack that edge and insight. To me, that signals there is some magic behind it.

And it's magic because then it must not be rationale and it must not make sense, because the neurotypical can't see it.

I think it's sort of like how you can beat professional poker players with an algorithm that's nonsensical. They're professionals so they're only looking at rationale moves; they don't consider the nonsensical.

[spookie]

All artists I have known have spent most of their lives practicing. Just as I have practiced programming.

That's the biggest edge, commitment.

To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an artist is non-sensical and stating mastering the craft itself is worthless is indicative of a lack of respect for their work.

I'm baffled by this type of comment here in all honesty. Really, broaden your horizons.

[psychoslave]

Certainly, life-long commitment to some discipline is not something that is in the middle of the bell curve.

I don’t know if neurodivergence might have any overlap, but I wouldn’t be surprise that a study reveals it to be as correlated as the fact that most rich people were born in wealthy families.

[consteval]

> To think that you _need_ to be neurodivergent to be an artist

You will notice I never said this.

All I said, and is true, is there is a correlation between being an artist and being neurodivergent.

> stating mastering the craft itself is worthless

Where did I say this too?

It appears you're having an argument with a ghost. You're correct, that argument is baffling! I wonder then why you made it up if you're just gonna get baffled by it? Seems like a waste of time, no?

Look, art is two things: perspective and skill. One without the other is worthless.

I can have near perfect skill and recreate amazing works of art. And I will get nowhere. Or, I can have a unique and profound perspective but no skill, and then nobody will be able to decipher my perspective!

[spookie]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but please clarify how this two quotes don't align with what I said?

> But mastering this alone is almost worthless.

> And it's magic because then it must not be rationale and it must not make sense, because the neurotypical can't see it.

Not trying to take them out of context, but specifying them. You mention, from my understanding, that mastering is almost worthless without the magic, and the magic only being there if you're neurodivergent.

This implies one cannot be a proper artist if not neurodivergent. Now, I could be misinterpreting it, so I apologize in advance.

[consteval]

I never said the magic is "only" there if you're neurodivergent, I said it seems to me neurodivergent people seem to be more likely to have the magic.

> There's a huge overlap between creatives and mental illness

Keyword overlap, but I don't think it's 100%

Magic is maybe not the right word here, but I do think it's indescribable. It's some sort of perspective.

But I stand by this: > that mastering is almost worthless without the magic

How, exactly, you obtain the magic is kind of unknown. But I do think you need it. Because skill alone is just not worth much outside of economics. You can make great corporate art, but you're not gonna be a great artist.

I think if you're perfectly rationally minded, you're going to struggle a lot to find that magic. I shouldn't say it's impossible, but I think it's close to.

[spookie]

Fair, I think the "magic" depends on other factors that may or may not lead to neurodivergence. Those being:

- Life experience

- Exposure/education when young

Of course, these might lead to neurodivergence or might not. The key thing is that the magic is a very unique, personal thing. Human, one can say. Also, through practice you come to understand new perspectives, something that is perhaps lessened in your view.

Either way, I've missunderstood your take to a degree, and had a much more radical interpretation of it.

[hackable_sand]

You spent your life in *your* lane. Why don't you stay there and keep committing.

We'll be over here trying new things, making new art, and expanding the horizon bye

[farts_mckensy]

I'm not sure I completely agree. In some ways, developing technical skills can drill creativity out of you and condition you to think in ways that are really quite rigid and formulaic.