This is a concept which so many on the left & the modern day right struggle with. The idea that if some attributes or biological composition are innate to the human being or given, then this somehow impedes on the human's autonomy or creativity.
Chomsky's office or rather that table of books is quite honestly a thing a great beauty. Whatever aesthetic framework that came out of I'd love to know. It somehow speaks brilliant mind. Thank you as always for these great videos CP.
(0:42) The complete disorder shown in the background is hard to ignore. It brings up questions about structure, in that there is a baseline from which we operate in daily life. There are basic "rules" for living that facilitate clear thinking and creativity (which rely on some level of discipline). Francis Bacon's trashy art studio comes to mind.
I'm glad Kerouac got brought up. When he started talking about poetry I was personally thinking "Well, what about Ginsberg?". They would have definitely had somewhat opposing points of view, at least on the surface level.
what about dada and surrealist, but they were fighting rules, the only fact to do something in reality is condition you have to face in order to produce something. But I do feel for once he's limiting it a bit, lots dada and surrealists works were trying to work with hazard and subconscious states of mind, but I guess you can understand these as sets of rules those artists decided to take.
I think the buried point here is that even dissonance is not interesting as such unless there is something for it to be dissonant /against/. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, in a vacuum.
The conservative attitude is that art is impossible without structure. However, the avant-garde attitude is "fuck structure." So you either accept structure as a necessity for creativity, or you see structure as an impediment to creativity. The truth is that real structure is unconscious. Once you make it conscious, it impedes further creativity. All truly creative endeavors say, "screw structure." Chomsky is incredibly conservative here. Foucault, who Chomsky hated, had a much better understanding of the constraints imposed by the particular discursive structures which history imposes upon us. Ancient Romans, or the Vikings, for example, would have no hope to understand the way we see the world, and to some extent, we have no ability to understand them, other than as savages and monsters. Nevertheless, we have progressed in terms of morality. At least I believe we have, and you probably do to. Unless you're a psycho.
He is partly wrong. Creativity doesn't need structure. But consistency hence communication between at least two creative beings needs a structure. So he is partly correct. By the way, please learn about Resource Based Economy.
Resource for creativity structure: the city is laid out as a square. Its length is as great as its breadth: let say ..12 thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth and height are equal ? (( How much are you willing to spend on babble gum :))
![Supernova - aespa エスパ 에스파 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240517](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bepqfR-pxY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant perspective on the human condition and how freedom and creativity obey inherent boundaries. We are programmed but we're not robots.
This is a concept which so many on the left & the modern day right struggle with. The idea that if some attributes or biological composition are innate to the human being or given, then this somehow impedes on the human's autonomy or creativity.
Chomsky's office or rather that table of books is quite honestly a thing a great beauty. Whatever aesthetic framework that came out of I'd love to know. It somehow speaks brilliant mind. Thank you as always for these great videos CP.
My gratitude 🙏🏼.
(0:42) The complete disorder shown in the background is hard to ignore. It brings up questions about structure, in that there is a baseline from which we operate in daily life. There are basic "rules" for living that facilitate clear thinking and creativity (which rely on some level of discipline). Francis Bacon's trashy art studio comes to mind.
"It's like tossing paint at the wall"
Also shows Jackson Pollock.
2:53 Noam “Growth and Development”Chomsky 🔱 who knew Chomp was with folks nem
Eames (one of the other people I think of as a genius) also said that there is no good design without constraints.
: constraints as gaps or blanks ?
I'm glad Kerouac got brought up. When he started talking about poetry I was personally thinking "Well, what about Ginsberg?". They would have definitely had somewhat opposing points of view, at least on the surface level.
what about dada and surrealist, but they were fighting rules, the only fact to do something in reality is condition you have to face in order to produce something. But I do feel for once he's limiting it a bit, lots dada and surrealists works were trying to work with hazard and subconscious states of mind, but I guess you can understand these as sets of rules those artists decided to take.
I think the buried point here is that even dissonance is not interesting as such unless there is something for it to be dissonant /against/. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, in a vacuum.
:)
Did he ever change an opinion?
The conservative attitude is that art is impossible without structure. However, the avant-garde attitude is "fuck structure." So you either accept structure as a necessity for creativity, or you see structure as an impediment to creativity. The truth is that real structure is unconscious. Once you make it conscious, it impedes further creativity. All truly creative endeavors say, "screw structure." Chomsky is incredibly conservative here. Foucault, who Chomsky hated, had a much better understanding of the constraints imposed by the particular discursive structures which history imposes upon us. Ancient Romans, or the Vikings, for example, would have no hope to understand the way we see the world, and to some extent, we have no ability to understand them, other than as savages and monsters. Nevertheless, we have progressed in terms of morality. At least I believe we have, and you probably do to. Unless you're a psycho.
He is partly wrong. Creativity doesn't need structure. But consistency hence communication between at least two creative beings needs a structure. So he is partly correct. By the way, please learn about Resource Based Economy.
Resource for creativity structure: the city is laid out as a square. Its length is as great as its breadth: let say ..12 thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth and height are equal ?
(( How much are you willing to spend on babble gum :))
What is an example of creativity that "doesn't need structure?" That is, no structure whatsoever.
I think you don't understand the (premise of the) discussion (explanation) :)
that went right over your head! hahaha