The part of the reading that I found to be the most interesting was the creative process steps. As I was reading through these steps, I was having some trouble relating to them. Although some steps made sense to me, I realized that this was my first time seeing the creative process put into a step by step basis. Before reading these steps, I had never thought about the method that took place for me to reach my creative solution. Then as I started to think more, I realized that putting the creative process into a list of steps seems counterintuitive. When I think of creativity, I think of a free flowing process that everyone does differently. There is no right or wrong way to be creative and therefore you cannot categorize creativity into steps. Although these steps do have some valid points, overall I do not think you can categorize creativity into steps.
Another part of the article that I enjoyed reading was the inspiration section. During this section, the author writes, “Inspiration is the most mysterious step in the creative process. The artist is possessed by a creative force, overtaken by a vision and driven to create” (Grey 81-2). I find this quote very interesting because although I have a set of goals that I get inspired by, I often times get random bursts of inspiration that I am unable to explain. In addition, when the author discusses how he and his wife differ in styles of inspiration, I found myself relating to the author much more. The author describes how he gets inspired when he says, “For me, pressure is my greatest catalyst. Important ideas can come at the last minute under a deadline. Often as a painting is coming to completion, I will have to change an entire section because an essential insight suddenly arises” (80). I personally found these sentences to relate to me perfectly. When I am on a time crunch trying to complete something, I usually have a moment of clarity where I find great insight for a better way to complete my topic at hand.
References
Grey, A. (2001). Art as Spiritual Practice. The Mission of Art (1st ed., pp. 205-233). Boston & London: Shambhala.
I agree with your arguments that you discussed about the creative process step and the inspiration section. I cannot find something to challenge you. However, I want to talk with you that how people see the objects in the life. I pay much attention on this topic when I read the article. For this topic, Grey introduces the theory of three eyes to us, the three eyes are “the eye of flesh sees the “outer” realm of material objects: the eye of reason sees symbolically, drawing distinctions and making conceptual relationships; and the mystic eye of contemplation sees the luminous transcendental realm” (73). He later argues that the third is very important to artists to explore the objects deeper so that they can create unique artwork. I am interested to know your experience of the three kinds of eyes. Have you ever use the mystic eye of contemplation to see objects?
George, touching on your post on my blog, I do admire as well that we share the same thought in the creative process. It was new to me as well and had not heard of it before. It’s puzzling that artists follow a process as such rather than, what I had thought, them putting a pen to paper and having their creativity explore. For example, the last step “Integration-sharing the creative answer with the world and getting feedback” (grey 75) seems the most futile to me. My belief in art is that artist or aspiring artist create an art piece that has a meaning that should be interpreted by its viewers. If this integration step was implemented more, wouldn’t more museums post the meaning of the art?