Two of my favorite “C” concepts are creativity and clarity; and yet, I haven’t found these aspects of language and expression to always be in cahoots.
I want them to be.
Often it seems that creativity is a word applied when someone comes up with something interesting and “novel” but isn’t quite “ready” for others to be exposed to yet. “It’s creative” can be similar to saying, “it’s confusing.”
Somehow it appears that creativity has to be vetted by clarity. All the while, however, clarity does not need to be “truth,” but it needs to be, perhaps, “digestible,” “recognizable” and “receivable” to others. Some may, in my opinion, confound clarity with truth.
How can creativity be more clarifying? Well, it certainly works with analogies. Analogies help people recognize and “experience” information in a format that is receivable.
Creativity can be frustrating, because it’s often “divinely” inspired; yet, that doesn’t mean that others will receive it, so there’s an interpretation or conversion period, the editing process that makes the creativity more “clear,” readable.
Oftentimes I enjoy the original and raw form of art, but this is rarely popular. Most folks have to have an art education to “believe” that they understand art or context. It’s confusing to me because I grew up with art and contemplating art, and then received “some” education in both art-making and interpreting, and memorizing and writing about art.
But this isn’t art, to me.
To me, and maybe you?, Art is raw, art is unformed-becoming-formed. Art involves risk.
Art is process and not product.
And yet. Societally, we reinforce “polishing” and “perfecting” creativity as though it is more true, when maybe it is clearer. I do not see clarity as being equal with truth.
What are your thoughts?