Tuttle wrote:
Yeah, I appreciate the difference too. I think its a really important distinction to make. I'm in a really weird spot with a lot of these because I am weak at being creative, but not nearly as weak as imaginative. And I don't know how to explain the difference in my mind :-/, but its more than directed/spontaneous.
Your explanation makes sense although I am unclear on the distinction you're making between creative and imaginative - but you already said it's hard to explain.
RazorEddie wrote:
I used to know an artist and he used both in different situations. Sometimes he would have an idea planned out in his head and create it. That was using mainly directed imagination. Sometimes he would pick up a piece of wood and carve it into some fantastic creature. When I asked him how he got the idea for the creature he would say it was in there all the time, he just let it out. The flow of the grain and particular characteristics of the wood triggered his spontaneous imagination.
So wait, when people make comments like that (I think Michelangelo made a similar comment about David*), they actually literally mean it? I always thought they were just being clever about their own talent.
* Michelangelo said something like this: "I just chipped away the parts that weren't David."
Googling for that actual quote actually brought this up:
Quote:
The trippy thing is that when I let go and started painting, at some point it's as if the painting became alive and beckoned me to paint it a certain way. I know it sounds crazy, but it's as if the painting already exists and I just need to keep applying paint onto it to bring the painting out. I remember reading a quote from Michelangelo about how he created David. He said something like, I just chipped away the parts that weren't David. And that's how it felt for me, but instead of chipping away parts I was painting on parts. It's a different kind of creation and it was fascinating stumbling onto it.
My mind is blown.