How to Be Creative

[Anthony Flack]

I, like many people who claim they cannot draw, are not lazy. We are suffering from a mental condition. We can picture the image we want to draw, we can see what's on the paper, we just can't make the mental connections to get from A to B...

Well, look at it another way. I can imagine the sound I want to make, I can see the guitar in my hands... but I can't make the mental connections to get from A to B. What's going wrong? Well, I need to study and practice playing the guitar before it will work.

Figure out what needs to be done, start doing it, make course corrections along the way. You don't have to be perfect to start doing it.

This is something I keep drumming into my students. For example, at the moment we are involved in a major theatre production. We have actors, scriptwriters, musicians, graphic designers, animators, set designers and costume designers all trying to put something together. But they will all just sit there; nobody knows what to do. Everyone is waiting for someone else to give them a starting point; they can't picture the finished production, so they're frozen. And I have to keep saying, "dammit, just start something! Anything! We'll change it as we go."

[papillon]

Yes, but I can point you at a piano and tell you to push this key, and no matter how clumsy or unskilled you are, you can push that key and it will make a noise. There are mechanical elements that almost never fail that you can learn to put together. Visual art doesn't really have the same sort of building blocks.

Pixel art is something I feel almost anyone can learn if they study and copy technique. Unless you have visual failings to prevent you from seeing how things work, you can learn it. You *can* give step-by-step instructions.

Hand-drawing? Some of it seems to be inborn. I've had to work a lot to get as bad as I am, and I still totally suck. :) My sister can't even draw a stick figure. She's never had very good manual dexterity - her handwriting is quite large, she was a total failure at Breakout on normal mouse sensitivity. She will never be a (drawing type of) artist. No amount of step-by-step instruction will help.

(edited, because OBVIOUSLY there are many other kinds of art. Her total inability to DRAW doesn't mean she couldn't be visually creative if she felt like it.)

[Christian]

well, from my experience... i never learned how to draw, but i allways liked it. Anyway... i could have stoped there, but i didnt, since i know how important graphics are for games. I knew i didnt know how to draw so i had to do something about it. I went to drawing lessons, i went to 2 classes and then my teacher dissapeared. So i started reading those excellent loomis books here http://www.saveloomis.org/ (strange, i just checked it and i cant see his books anymore...), well, i readed some of its books, just the parts it explains things i think i had to learn to draw well, like perspective and use of light and shadow to show depth, and, magic! i finally got the concept on how to draw shapes! i couldnt even draw a ball correctly, and now i can make a nice shaded ball (although not perfectly but at least it looks very nice, and absolutelly different form before). Check a sample http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...illustdino.png

It isnt the second marvel of the world, but at least is decent, and its also a huge change from my past way of drawing.

So, my message to you all that say "i cant draw because i dont have talent" or "my brain has this terrible illness that impedes me to draw", is that you cant draw because you dont wish to learn to draw. When your will to draw comes, when the time comes when you say "i want to draw well" then you will learn, but until then, you will not be able to draw, so, stop saying that you cant, and start learning, make the effort because there is no other way to learn (learning allways hurts, at least for me), if you want to draw well (or do any other thing well).

Edit: i forgot to say this, this is very recent, i learned it a couple of weeks ago, and im 23, very old having in mind that most artist learn from theyr childhood. And im also learning to compose music, and to play the guitar, i could be like all those other kids, like my friends also, who dont have the will to learn... BUT YOU CAN DO IT if you want to, its just a decition, not a matter of what you cant or can do right now. Learn what you dont know, and guess what, you will know what you didnt know! :D

[Anthony Flack]

Well, some people are physically unable to do certain things, but I think if you're able to trace the outline of a picture then you could learn to draw realistically if you really wanted to - just like learning to play an instrument, or drive a car.

Some people will take longer than others to learn - but remember, most people who make it look easy have been doing it every day since they were old enough to hold a pencil. Most people don't want to draw that much.

This has nothing to do with creativity or art as far as I'm concerned - although they're obviously good skills to have if you want to be creative.

[edit] - response to Papillon. Christian's comments basically reinforce what I was trying to say here.

[soniCron]

Most people are determined they can't draw. And so what happens? They don't draw. When you don't draw, over and over again, then you never develop the skills needed to draw well. So you always draw poorly. However, with proper training and practice, anyone (barring the physically and mentally handicapped) can learn to draw well.

Yes. You heard that right. You can learn to draw well. And I mean, really well. Think about it. Were you a good driver the first time behind the wheel? What about gaming? You probably think it's rediculous that someone might not be able to pick up a controller and speed through the menus in an RPG or snipe an alien sitting in a corner. I'd guess most of you guys recognize this lack of skill from your girlfriends and wives.

But it's easy, right? You can do it while you brush your teeth. Why can't they get it?

Because they don't try.

They try one time, decide it's too hard, and give up. That thing they taught you in elementary school, "Never say can't." It's true. The nature of existence puts enough restrictions on what you can and cannot do. There's no reason to artificially extend that list by some uneducated, lazy whim that strikes you the first or second time you fail at something.

If you really want to learn to draw well -- or do anything else, for that matter -- you can. I promise.

[Sysiphus]

Well, drawing *really well* realistically indeed take those years.A full life. I know close to no one able to do that to an specific level. Yup, a lot able to draw something, and a huge lot -even art directors- able to draw manga.

I think specially realistic art is underrated, and creativity , highly overrated(found this so many times in fine arts college). As one of the points says, everyone can be creative(doing enough brain and heart effort...the rest of the "magic" is more an invent, a big lie,(do you know the emperor's new clothes tale?(I think is the denmark version, but have not read it there to check..)) need of some people to keep certain benefits, those having the rol of tribal chamans and not wanting to loose the social privileges...An important portion of the abstract art(and other "modern" art) feed loads of non creative, non skilled at anything guys and women today). And to me, that is easier to be creative that aquire certain level in art technique. I mean the good old one. I have done stuff were certain persons have shouted about the amount of creativity, and do again whenever need it or feel it, and well, I am of the opinion that getting certain level in art methods is way harder. And not referring to basic drawing skills (those which I'd agree most (not *all*.I've known people with not enough patience, concentration or even enough space perception to learn to draw averagely well) people can get. )

Besides, I have known specially at arts college, but also later one in many years of pursuing their art, business, or whatever, how much of them were actually a fake thing. Many find that of unique ability to be creative a way to feel over the rest of humanity or a kind of a place to hide. In the meantime, I have known people really creative, which did not need to say realism is the opposite to creativity or something. I am sure is not your case, but many developed a kind of agressivity towards realism drawing and painting 'cause they were plently unable to learn those techniques, or found their solution to the fact they would not want to use a huge amount of years to learn the skills saying that , "huh, that can be done by anyone" with practice.While art is magic. Well, believe me, I yet to know that "Mr. Anyone".I have known a pair of persons having good control of the traditional arts, and being also inmensely creative. Speaking with them, they can't put appart skills out of their art, for them is essential part. Art is expression, the best "weapons" you get to express your self can only empower your art and your expression.

I am a bit tired of seing people use creativity as a throwing weapon towards those having worried to get the skills. It's stablished by some people that automatically one person having really hard to get skills, must be non creative. Because is also admited without discussion that he must have been a kind of non thinking plant moving his pencil up down since beguining, not thinking or feeling anything. It is quite harder to admit for certain egos to think that the guy or woman did got the skills AND was creative through all his/her live.

And that of comercial man against artist. Come on...What makes anyone thing caravaggio (having the problematic (but full of passion...read about his live...he made realism but with a very special strength in every aspect of his life and art) life he had, he had many moments to care about the money to live) and other artist weren't also about business a real lot... Velazquez, absolute genius, was more worried about getting a good place in the court and other social/economic status...yet though, with his realistic art (though some see him as precursor of certain other styles for his fast and almost impressionist strokes) there's a lot of interesting things to discover other than his realistic painting abilities. Rubens was clearly a business man...The artist in Florenzia were all about business and worked very close to the business people (think of the Medici, Leonardo...) .All art history has been built so. There would not be the art as we know it today, no modern styles, no abstract, without all that. Trashing it all is...well.

I'd agree if one makes art thinking of business, and money, is not trying to express a feeling but get an audience. True, that I'd admit is...doing some sort of product where you can lay over some of your artistic voice. Nothing wrong with that. Is surely not your personal master piece. But ..How many portraits, totally forced by the client in the XVII, XVIII centuries (for example) were demanded to be done in every aspect to the customer wishes? Well, a huge load. And what is funny, MANY of those are considered real master pieces today. the artist had loads of constraints, but was able to shout his or her voice loud enough in certain very subtle details, were personal expression takes unlimited strenght. Velazquez made a portrait to certain ambitious pope, that was told by the pope himself something like... "crudely realistic" .Not because it was technically perfect in realism, but because, the hardest and most great thing in realism was achieved: the portrait in a perfect realism was able to achieve the ambitious and somewhat cruel personality under the face anatomy. That IS art, imho, among many other things, as gets you feel in a very special way when you are in front of a Velazquez picture.

Many of the great artists in history were not so much about this discussion about realism. Cezanne asked Pizarro (impressionist, mostly landscapes) to give to him drawing lessons for Cezanne had some problem with drawing. And loads of modern art styles in XXth century based in Cezanne's art and line, like if it were an absolute idol. I don't doubt about his creative strenghts, but see how the tale about realism as an art's enemy is mainly a later invent.

Romantic painters, like Delacroix, had an extreme ability to do realism, and used it allways in his pictures...Neoclassics were oppositing them as more academic, or more loyal to the academic "rules"..such as triangle composition and stuff like that...For that moment, was considered a kind of aberration to not use em, but the fact is dellacroix had a realism and anatomy control that close to none have today... When impressionism came, Manet was the "infant terrible" for the academics of their moment.. While he made perfct realism, only he used large simplified color areas to represent colors, but drawing and color (as an impression) was perfectly realistic. The impressionism name was given for a critic that wanted to insult him. Like the fauvism, was put by a critic to call them "beasts" (fauvists used colors as a decorative purpose with no relation to real color at all)

There's an ugly need in all history to trash previous art as invalid, just to make ur own art or tendency stand out of all humanity history and universe. Fake point. All expression was is and will be an expression to respect. Analizing case per case may be a good idea, but saying abstract or realism at his whole is not artistic enough is...at least simplistic.

Excuse my english, is not my native language.

[papillon]

(getting terribly off topic)

It doesn't help that, at least in my educational background, art teachers never give you the impression you could learn to do better. They don't tell you anything about technique. They'll show some vague examples... they'll show body and head proportions once or twice... but for the most part they will simply say that whatever you've done is fine, and then praise the best students in the class for being great artists.

This kills a lot of people's interest. They're better than you and you don't see any way you can become like them.

The things I *have* learned about drawing have been entirely from practicing on my own. About the only useful piece of advice an art teacher ever gave me was that my pencil lines are thin and shaky because I lack confidence and draw too slowly. :) Not that I've exactly mastered the art of drawing with confidence, but she actually said something and then demonstrated to explain what she was talking about - a very rare occurrence in art class.

If art teachers aren't going to be helpful, school art classes should really stick to crafts. kids prefer it anyway. :)

[Anthony Flack]

Oh, you're going to draw a line between arts and crafts? Trickier than you might think! I wouldn't know where to make that distinction.

Incidentally, as an art teacher myself, it's a fine line we walk. I try to encourage everyone to do their own thing, but to do it wholeheartedly; and also to give everyone examples and guidance that I think is relevant to their own emerging style. I don't want to prescribe things too much... as far as I'm concerned the best artists in the class are the ones that are most willing to throw themselves into it.

You might want to try drawing lines with your whole arm rather than from the wrist, though. It feels a bit weird at first, but it means that you can make long, flowing lines. The wrist is only good for short lines.

[papillon]

Oh, I *know* it's not completely easy to distinguish. :) Still, there are some projects that it's more likely that everyone following directions will be happy with their output than others. In a big low-level class, the kind of art class that everyone has to take whether they're interested in art or not, and where you really don't have time to devote tons of helpful energy to everyone, I'd think it makes more sense to focus on projects that are likely to leave everyone feeling accomplished, and less on more 'arty' things - drawing, painting, sculpting - where those whose skills don't match up to their vision are going to end up extremely unhappy.

[Sysiphus]

I was an art teacher for a time. For gov...I may repeat in a future. Fun and good experience. I realized I was one of the close to students kind. They wanted me to stay, lol. Heck, had better comunication with them than with other teachers...I did tend to try to teach the skills and leave freedom for all the rest. Sounds not professional, but all depends on what you have in front of you...

[Anthony Flack]

I have the luxury of working in small classes (usually 10 or less; it's a private school), so the projects I give them are generally tailored to each student. That is, together we find a way forward that gives each student a result they can be proud of, regardless of their skill level. It could be anything, really.

A few of my students are a bit handicapped (or whatever the word you're supposed to used these days) and their drawings are crazy scribbles. But there is beauty to be found in a crazy scribble, and ways to use it that come out looking cool...

As I have pointed out to some of the other students, "You couldn't have drawn a picture that looks that crazy, if you tried".

[Sysiphus]

Well, I respect that point of view.

Is an ideal situation what you have: small groups. I've been saying for long, public -where I worked- schools with 40 students, often no way interested in ...well, in mostly anything...need a different treatment. I often found myself just trying them to have some kind of interest for something, and slowly start from there...Or spending some bits of time teaching them some very basic writting skills (comic unit I made for classes, revelead (once put in practice) me certain incredible facts.)

[Christian]

You might want to try drawing lines with your whole arm rather than from the wrist, though. It feels a bit weird at first, but it means that you can make long, flowing lines. The wrist is only good for short lines.

So THATs how you make fluid lines, im gonna start practicing that, thanks! (i too have an "unconfident" way of making lines).

[JoshuaSmyth]

I can't draw. But yes, everyone is correct in saying that its because I haven't bothered to put the time and effort into it. I stoped really doodling when I was about 12ish. While I'd like to learn to draw (A least better, we're not looking at masterworks level.) Its just that in this world there is only a finite amount of time that we can practice our vocation, and for me my creativity is going to be focused through the medium of computer programming and mathematics. It might not sound like such a creative pursuit, but its analogous to the art argument thats being discussed here, theres a period of basic skills learning, theres a period of copying others, theres many years of refinement, practise and learning, which never ends. And then, once technical ineptitude is no longer a barrier, then your creative side is far, far more free to explore.

But yes, I enjoyed the article and it made me realise that in order to be successful (in any creative area) is to just do it. And put in the work.

[Anthony Flack]

Hey, I don't think anyone here would argue that programming isn't a creative pursuit...

I often found myself just trying them to have some kind of interest for something, and slowly start from there...

Yup, exactly. For the most part, I'm not really trying to teach skills or anything. I'm just trying to get them to find something they give a damn about; and to experience the sensation of working hard and being proud of the result. High school kids are so lazy, but as soon as they start to care about something they work really hard at it.

[Sysiphus]

I agree so much in that last thing.

[dmikesell]

Anyone else stop reading after this?

"1. Ignore everybody."

[Jeroen Stout]

Anyone else stop reading after this?

"1. Ignore everybody."

If you'd listen to that you wouldn't be ignoring everybody, so whether you read on or not, you're listening to him there.

[dmikesell]

If you'd listen to that you wouldn't be ignoring everybody, so whether you read on or not, you're listening to him there.

Damn. Good point. What should I do next? Anyone?

*paralyzed*