All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' to eliminate caldwell returns or 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
Tomorrow, I am going back to writing fun posts. The 'interview' posts are popular, but I am actually more fun than it might first appear from those posts. Click on the tag 'interview' for those.
[ 9 minute read - 2045 words ]
The hammers that crush creativity on the anvil of doctrine and dogma
I have come to a crossroad in my thinking. That sentence is probably the least true sentence I have written in ten years. My thinking is not linear. There are no crossroads in a primeval forest where my imagination dwells. I don’t walk across a field from one five bar gate to another five bar gate without looking at the pond, the fallen tree or the cowlick and water trough.
Ultimately, we all have to take responsibility for what we say and do. Most of us have to make an effort to be kind. While it is inherent, in different measures, in all of us, kindness can be suppressed by doctrine, just as creativy is.
Doctrine: A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
From Wikipedia: ‘Doctrine is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is 'catechism'.’
Let me make myself clear: I am in no way aligned with an ideology or doctrine that promotes creativity in one and seeks to crush creativity in other less capable beings. If talking works for some people and they find it stimulating, then fine. If it is talk that harms or plagiarises others then I am not keen on it. If people need to feel validated, then fine, that is their bagatelle or trifle. Such a position positively invites being judged though, doesn’t it?. Is the statement strong? Is it logical? Is it another way of preaching, but by a back door. Most people, however, won’t dwell on it as being worthy for expansion or explanation because they have their own original ideas, and in any case, there is the next paragraph to go on to.
From a very young age I was good at art. I got an A+ for a topic on birds which I spent perhaps 95% of my time making a collage of a bird from only torn newspaper (and glue). At primary school, kids could just do as they pleased. No-one was channeled into following technique or dogma. It was a free-for-all thinking place.
A couple of years later, at secondary school, my class was given Art homework: “Copy something that has a rough texture, such as bread. Also as the second part of your homework, copy something that reflects light or its environment.” Those weren’t the exact words, but you get the idea. I protested that I could already do that, to no avail. I did the homework and at the end of the school year dropped Art as a chosen subject. I have made some money from my art since leaving school, and I saluted myself when I came across Art graduates from the same University. Their final pieces were so similar as to cause me to think that I was seeing representations of how their tutor preferred to paint (pointillism).
However, years later, I almost entirely stopped being physically creative. I wasn’t despairing or anything but I did a level 1 Art course at a college, you know, actually going there. Wow! I did not know that there were techniques that make a world of difference to the fun one could have, and the outcome of the piece. A leap of thinking: I still don’t understand why musicians practice scales, though.
I have to take responsibility for chundering a belief system or doctrine, as being a loose codification of beliefs. My take on life is much affected by my past and my current perception of how I can best navigate environments that confuse, frighten, and also delight me (though not simultaneously). My intention has always been to foment creativity by showing it. If someone liked a picture I painted it was because they have some imagination. I should, however, make it clear that writing or making creative pieces is really for my own pleasure in the doing of it, but I have a mind on how a finished piece might affect others. Nearly all of us learn how to consider others. However, there are a few who have such a firm belief in themselves that they are completely convinced that the doctrine they follow is the only one with any credence. That is one of the signs of indoctrination.
I suggest it starts with a form of narcissism and like Chat GPT this narcissism is groomed by bad actors to become open to suppressing individual creativity and thinking. My brother was a narcissistic psychopath, which meant I could never give him the slightest praise for anything I considered to be worthy of reward and for which I understood to be his own idea or work. Of course, in that sentence I am evincing my own narcissism or self-worth. We do have to have self-esteem to avoid becoming a victim. Here then, is a different perspective on why we can be swayed into developing an acceptance of a controlling force. In order to bolster our self-esteem, we need validation. Chat GPT does that. It is designed to do that. It is however, only a set of algorithms.
The ‘crossroad’ of thinking comes from a new mental position I now have. Should doctrine be suppressed because it suppresses? Paradoxical as it is, it is comedic if we protest against all protests. Bit too topical perhaps. A quick swerve away from that; OU blog posts is not the place for fomenting sedition or sharing political viewpoints. I have an Northern Irish neighbour who reminded me of something that I grew up with. He said, “I don’t normally talk about religion or politics.” I suddenly realised why I had grown up with that. It is an Irish thing. Yet, it still holds today. I had been talking religion to my friendly Irish neighbour. How crass of me. There was me thinking my viewpoint is open and friendly and not at all demanding or challenging! I completely ignored considering someone else’s background and upbringing as being directly affected by violence, because there were and are two opposing viewpoints.
I try to write clearly that it is my opinion that I am offering, from my own perspective and that I am baffled why other people have different lives and likes. I try to put across that I am flawed in my thinking; that I don’t have enough information to understand other people; why they plagiarise other people’s ideas and concepts; and most curiously to me, why young people want to be influencers (I do, however, know they want to feel validated in a world of ‘likes’ and inter-connectivity). I also want to feel validated.
I am absolutely certain that creativity is more about originality and uniqueness than copying and emulating. Cover versions of songs have sometimes fooled me into thinking that I am hearing an original because I have never heard the original. I have even preferred a cover version than the original. Plainly, there is some effort that has gone into creating a new production, but to my mind, it isn’t creative. It is merely using a tool to rehash something, much like using A.I. to rewrite a blog post or essay. For me, I cannot help but think I am in the presence of a creative piece that has been decimated by precision and shaved into a shape by doctrine. By decimated (10%) , I really DO mean 61% has been removed, only a structure exists; it lacks soul or depth. Nine iterations of decimation has occurred. It is bland and uninteresting; it is a conjunction of words or musical notes that make sense to a robot. There is no contributing human. It is not our language. It is machine code masquerading as sentiment. It is the dissection of creativity. That is not to say cover versions are dull or empty if creativity is added.
Voices on the telephone sometimes belie the true sound of someone’s voice. It is a long time since I did ONC Electrical and Electronic Engineering at college and Microprocessor-based Computers with the OU, but I think I am right in saying that the bandwidth used in telephone calls clips the outlying frequencies of voices over a telephone network. This may not be true with microwaves, but over a landline this occurred or occurs. So, the lowest and highest frequencies that make up the signature of someone’s voice are clipped off, I think. Instead of hearing a voice ‘in the wild’ we hear a voice that has been cleaned up.
Obviously, a child learning to draw and paint cleans up their eye to hand movement, and applied perception, as they get older. A question arises as to how much creativity is suppressed by following rules. Watercolour paper, being heavy and not smooth, is ONLY for watercolours. Oil Pastels and wax crayons work really well on such paper. Oil Paint on such paper is a waste. You can be told this by someone with an indoctrinated opinion; an experienced person; or you can find out for yourself.
A wise woman offered to me, ‘What is normal for the spider, is chaos for the fly’. I have no idea if that is her own or it is borrowed or regurgitated. It really doesn’t matter, because this person is inspired to think in a particular way that embraces uniqueness; difference; opposition; understanding; consideration; pondering; free-thinking! Ultimately, unfettered creativity. I am confident though, that local environmental conventions, such as national sentiment is a consideration for this person, just as it is for almost all of us. Don’t go there; this is not about expressing oneself in public streets. I recognise this person also stated her desire not to offend.
While I recognise that I often lean on other people’s work, I am not a reviewer of their work. I would be ashamed to read someone’s words and then reconstruct the theme according to my way of thinking. I would feel as though I have violated the intent behind their work; stolen their art in leaving gaps for the reader or viewer to fill in with their own mind, and robbed the reader or viewer of sensation. I would feel that I am emulating A.I. that already emulates humans. Think for a moment: If we all use A.I. to improve our writing before we publish it and then A.I. takes the content as being examples of human creativity what would we eventually end up with? There is a technique that relies on this kind of reiteration to produce some quite interesting artworks; but, for me, only in glancing. They are no Renoirs or Delacroixs. ‘Spiders and flies’ I suppose. I think there are sayings that used to have ‘horses for courses; and ‘different strokes’ in two of them. There has always been a recognition of differences and it has been celebrated.
I believe we should all be creative, and come up with our own themes, concepts and ideas. Not all of them might be appropriate for public airing but they can be shaped with technique and conflation with other themes, concepts and ideas. If we find that we are following someone else’s mental position, I suggest that we should never attack it, or expand on it, or dissect it, unless we are instructed to do so for an essay or something. I am aware that in some forums, students have to comment on other students’ efforts; a most ugly task that somehow is awarded points towards a personal achievement, such as a certificate, diploma, or degree. A most awkward tangle of selfish convergent thinking being used to comment on someone’s divergent creativity. A sorrowful episode indeed!
In any environment, there could be a voice such as this:
“Most of us believe this, and we are so sure we are right, you should be like us otherwise you are a fool, and we will hound you until you join our independence-stripping group and help us bring others down, (because we are weak)!”
Homogenisation or homogeneity, and hegemony, I suggest, are the hammers that crush creativity on the anvils of doctrine and dogma.
