Creative Genius

What do we mean when we say that someone is a creative genius? Is it even a real thing? As I understand it, genius is someone of an unparalleled intellectual capacity, and therefore an ability to deduce what others cannot.

What is so "genius" about producing art anyway? From the common knowledge, and also personal experience, although it is sometimes takes effort to create something worthwhile, creative process very dissimilar to any form of logical thought. It just "comes", no actual hard logical thinking is involved. Of course creativity comes from neural activity, but so do skills in basketball, videogames, and doing cool skateboard stunts. We don't call someone who is adept at that a "genius". Sure, we award praise to people who are outstanding at sports or even vidya, but word "genius" seems to imply an outstanding, unmatched skill at a hard intellectual activity, which I think art is not. Artistic creativity is something that has only subjective value, and even further, unlike, for example, pure mathematics, does not even require intellectual effort to create.

tl;dr: Art is cool, and good art takes effort, but it is NOT a "smart activity". Is creative """genius""" thing a meme, Veeky Forums?

Art has always stayed on a subjective side of things, no matter the formalities we impose on it. Unlike physical strength, physical attractiveness, games, intellectual disciplines, and other human activities which all can easily have a sense of competition imposed on them, it seems that art emerged purely for the sake of art. Seems like it cannot have any sort of competition imposed on it at all, without destroying the initial idea. Which seems very weird and unproductive for our Darwinian universe. Consciousness also seems to serve no evolutionary purpose, and since there is no reason to objectively value art in an evolutionary sense, we commonly associate two together, like it was commonly thought that "robots are incapable of creativity".

Why do we, as a species, have this nag to create that which cannot be used for inter and intra-species competition, and attribute immense value to it? Why do we think of it as of a hard intellectual activity?

pls respond

it derives from useless aristocrats jerking each other off

Why are we conscious? Just to suffer?

you're right man, creativity is a meme
art quality is subjective so there are no geniuses, just people that happen to get their dick sucked more

The term genius in this context is obviously used to indicate that the subject has some kind of rare proficiency in a skill. The issue here is your selective interpretation of the definition, or that you're being a deliberately obtuse asshole.

>i've never heard of Bach the post
>art is outside of logical thought
>no actual hard logical thinking involved
>muh creativity

Found the brainwashed """logical"""man
The only reason why art is being so looked down upon nowadays is because it has no use in a capitalistic society, when everyone think of nothing but "investment returns", "productivity" and, my favorite, so called "efficiency"

You can't pay someone to make an actual piece of art that will take him literally years of hard work to produce, the only reason why people like you overlook art is because you can't make it profitable.

If you can't sell something it implies absence of demand. Don't go about how it's "abstract", we sell abstract shit like software and algorithms all the time. You want to waste your time with something that is not useful to the society - sure, but you deserve being frowned upon.

>The only reason why art is being so looked down upon nowadays is because it has no use in a capitalistic society, when everyone think of nothing but "investment returns", "productivity" and, my favorite, so called "efficiency"
>brainwashed

Whew sounds like someone's in debt because of their liberal arts degree. You're just mad cause you can't compete.

>ad hominem
I'm a somewhat EE major student at Centrales Paris (using somewhat because that's absolutely not how it works here, but it'd be a pain to explain) so I don't feel targeted but still, ad hominem is as low as one can get when getting into an argument

The demand for art exclusively comes from intellectuals and people with actual taste. If you didn't understand it already, you should know that the people who actually has the funds to finance someone for years to produce art are the kind of people retarded enough to spend tens of grands on ""abstract"" >>>>art

cont.

Another problem, as I said, the one paying the more for art are those with absolute zero taste, who'll justify the attention they give to their newly acquired abstract masterpiece relatively to the price they put into, since they're are incapable of qualifying art, they ll at least try to quantify it.

But as you said, the production will appeal to the demand, if the market ask for shit, then shit will be produced, hence that's where the whole problem lies.

Although, generalizing and saying that art is "nothing but creativity", "devoid of logic and reason" and "without actual hard logical thinking involved" just shows how fucking alienated you are.

doing art is definetly a cognitive task. Ghe part that requires physical skill is just the craftsmanship part of it but thqt is often seperated from the art anyways.
When you make a "composition", which could be an image or music or smth else, you create it with your mind. And when others are impressed by it they say your mind has great capabilites, i.e. genius, makes perfect fucking sense.

The reason people 'pay' high prices for art is precisely because the value of art is hard to quantify, and so it serves as an effective vehicle for moneylaundering (and artificial wealth creation, if you're good friends with the conneiseurs).

Art, just like music, literature and play, both enriches and cleanses the spirit, allowing your mind to temporary rest outside of your surroundings, and to return refreshed. A painting to the inventor is what a hammock is to the fieldworker.

you are a legitimate moron if you think art has no value

I agree with you, withone condition:

"creative genius" is just something idiots say when faced with a person who has skills far more developed than their own. Most of those "creative geniuses" simply put in the time, worked hard, and have become adept and efficient at creating their art. Most people simply do not have the drive or discipline to achieve anything "extraordinary", so to them it is magic.

A true creative genius is rare however. Most of us will never come across somebody that fits the literal translation of the term.

I think the real problem is trying to equate everything in terms of intelligence. It's easier if we don't even talk about skills like that. 'Intelligence' as defined by most IQ tests is a very useful predictor of life success, but not very good at saying "Who's the next Van Gogh". We need to stop equating things that are not intelligence to intelligence (emotional, artistic, etc.). You can be good at those things, but that's not necessarily intelligence.

>As I understand it, genius is someone of an unparalleled intellectual capacity

the term genius seems to be an overt, romantic way to place someone on a pedestal to break from the monotony of common knowledge of the times.

>do you think cavemen looked upon the one fellow caveman as a genius who created fire by rubbing two stones together?
>air flight is relatively young in our world. Yet Leonardo da Vinci DREW and DESIGNED a helicopter that would be the basis for how Man 500 years later would use to understand the principles of flight. Does that make him a genius?
>if someone found a way to solve the mathematical probability of winning the lottery, do you think people would be reveling in that as a form of genius?

on to art...
>Artistic creativity is something that has only subjective value, and even further, unlike, for example, pure mathematics, does not even require intellectual effort to create.

>Why were cave paintings done?
Cave paintings were done with an OBJECTIVE PURPOSE in mind. Does that make a cave artist a genius because they could do what other cavemen couldn't? Art from about the Prehistoric Period to the Ancient World, to the Dark Ages to the High Italian Renaissance were done with an OBJECTIVE PURPOSE in mind. Cave paintings were done with the objective purpose of assuring that their next hunting season is ripe with game for food. On a sociological context, cave paintings were also done with the purpose of assuring the immediate clan stays strong and work together for the goal of survival.

>Art in the Age of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Age. Why were they done?
Again, for the sole OBJECTIVE purpose of goodwill or good fortune for the individual or community as a whole. The "Venus of Willendorf" was a sculpted figurine with the idea of assuring a good and healthy pregnancy. Why? People of that age needed a large community to hunt and gather food and to look out for one another.

Art of the Ancient World. Why were the Pyramids created? It is an accepted notion that it was created as a burial site for the fallen Pharaohs. While others claim it's not built by fellow humans of that era. But to stay on topic, the near perfect symmetry of each of the pyramids suggest INTELLECTUAL EFFORT was put in DESIGNING and CRAFTING them as artistic structures. Something which cannot be replicated today by ordinary people of our times.

Art of the High Renaissance. As a minor in art history, we found out that the Renaissance Artists' main purpose for creating what they did was NOT out of a subjective purpose. There were artists of that time who competed with one another for glory and fame among other artists. But what they did artistically was not subjective. They were actually studying art done from the Ancient Greeks in the hope of returning life into the Western World after the Dark Ages. One can say copying what the Greeks did does not make them a genius. Fair argument. But one does not understand that the Renaissance artists did one thing that was never done before. Capturing three dimensional form onto a two dimensional surface. "Big deal" you might say. It was in those times. I haven't even yet touched on the architecture. Research the Pantheon of Rome and you'll find out for yourself it took a lot of intellectual effort in DESIGNING that structure.

to argue about art being subjective. Art BECAME subjective about the time the Impressionists came along. It would be here that centuries old way of painting in the "traditional" standard no longer applied. And Impressionist artists all the way down to the modern era would be purposely excluding some of the elements (balance, tone, symmetry, rhythm, pattern) that go into a painting where they allow the viewer to perceive what it is they are looking at.

BUT, it is around the 1960s when art then and now became MOSTLY subjective. In short, art became subjective when money became involved.

It's easier to see for yourself than debate it with words. Take some LSD, go for a hike, listen to music, and admire a painting.

>Take LSD
Found the /x/ retard

>darwinian universe
>Evolutionary purpose
Found your problem. Maybe learn about evolution beyond the nonsense they taught you in AP bio.

>can't think outside of the capitalist economic box
They make kids like this on purpose you know.

LSD is not an /x/ thing it's a cool thing.
If you don't want to be hip then don't make that a problem

>Thinks inside the commie box instead of obvious reality of competitive existence.
Congrats.