Wednesday, September 28, 2005

New ideas, and the science of art

An interesting discussion on the importance of solitude of vision. When writing (in any form) gets homogenized, stagnation is sure to follow, and we’ll be forced to (gasp!) develop some new ideas. The obvious problem that comes along when you’re writing something with the sole intent of making money is that by the time you’re finished with your sure-fire cash cow, the market (i.e., the prevailing taste of the public) has probably moved on to the Next Big Thing. You’re better off just writing for yourself.
  • Rebecca Saxe delivers a discourse on moral reasoning at The Boston Review.
Studying psychology provides great lessons on how to build interesting characters. Saxe’s piece introduces an interesting moral dilemma at the outset and examines its complexities; on the whole, however, the essay does beg the question, exactly how much can science explain human nature before it starts chasing its own tail? Still, the ability to create morally complex dramatic dilemmas is a storyteller’s greatest gift, and this piece is a good reference point in that regard.
Personally, I think we’re all fucked up somehow, so this is kind of old news; yet the topic still has a tide-current pull to it. Creativity is not limited to the arts (never has been; never will be) and yet the prevalent stereotype of the artist is that they’re all nuts. You see the mad-scientist syndrome in cooks, cab drivers, engineers, firefighters, et cetera; the impulse to employ an innovative solution to a problem will always be found wherever there’s a pulse. It’s what you do with that impulse that makes you great.

No comments: