I don't yet have a real "stance" to it yet but accepting recently that I am most happy when copying/cloning another work (e.g. implementing a website design from a spec or making a clone of NES Metroid in JavaScript) now has me thinking real hard whenever I see posts on creativity.
Most of these posts carry an implication that the ultimate goal of creativity is to express something unique, something that is so specifically and unapologetically you. I don't think that's a bad goal at all, but I think I'm trying to figure out what it is I am trying to express when I'm mimicking something. In the context of game clones:
- I like that a JS reimplementation is much more modifiable than making ROM hacks. I do sometimes have things I think would be interesting to change (e.g. adding save rooms a map to Metroid) but the capability is more exciting to me than any specific change.
- The process of cloning something is one of the most intense forms of observation and study of something I'm capable of. Every game I've tried to copy thusfar has had features or quirks that I never even knew about until I looked at it with an eye to clone it.
- I don't prefer to look at source code vs watching and figuring out visually how a game works. For some reason even a disassembly would feel too close to a port for me to be interested. Yet you can still infer implementation details from close observation, which is a little delightful puzzle in its own way.
- I also am very interested in mashups, which can be a form of originality. Something about seeing the connections between otherwise unconnected things is super motivating for me.
I think the common thread here for me is "seeing". Copying things or making mashups requires an ability to see exactly what someone else's work is on a technical, physical level. I cannot exactly know another person's experience or thoughts or feelings, only what they communicate, which is an approximation. But the works that they make to try and communicate, those are things separate from their mind and something I can see as truly as my senses will allow me to. That is one of the most important ways that I interact with the world, I think.
it actually throws me for a loop sometimes when I see something as a repreduction or clone of something and it misses details I notice or otherwise alters it in ways I don't expect; there truly is art in the keen observation of what is there! This also couples with constraints of a medium in fun ways too--I love to convert game models to 3D prints by remodeling the object in a CAD software instead of ripping the model; this is because FDM 3D printing has some very specific rules on what can be done and what can't. Balancing the facets of the model with the limitations and figuring out orientations and how pieces printed separately will be joined into the final shape is such a fun challenge and absolutely a creative endeavor.
"What 'counts' as 'creativity'" is a question I, too, struggle with on a semi-regular basis. While a lot of my hobbies are in media considered creative by definition (assorted fiber work on a non-production, non-paid basis), I often feel like I'm not personally contributing all that much to the process.
knitting
- I fairly exclusively knit from patterns. I generally choose different colors from the pattern, and sometimes different yarns (in terms of fiber content, I don't distinguish between brands of 100% merino superwash yarn here). Obviously there's some creativity in color design, and there may be some consideration of how a different fiber content will affect the final product, but largely I don't have to make decisions here.
spinning
- I'm really not at a point with my spinning where I'm creating new techniques, or even deliberately spinning in certain ways to get a desired end result. I'm still focused on getting a relatively consistent yarn out the other end that has characteristics I like to use to knit with.
- While I have to maintain awareness and adaptability while I'm spinning, because I'm not working with factory-scale consistency in either fiber or tools, I don't feel like I'm so much making decisions as "paying attention to the physics behind making coherent yarn and adapting to create those conditions on a moment-to-moment basis".
dyeing:
- Again I am working against some physical constraints here. There's only so far you can push things before 1. the dye doesn't extract into solution or 2. the dye doesn't bond to the fiber or 3. Bad Things happen to the fiber and it gets brittle and unusable. I'm following recipes because, well, they tell me the approximate conditions I need in order to get decent results.
And yet at the end of the day, I think these are all works of creativity and adaptation. What result do I get when I perform this process? Even following instructions as exactly as I can, there are going to be differences between what I make and what anyone else makes. Just look at the variety of sample photos for the Dovetail Shawl!
And really, there's a lot of joy in reverse-engineering someone else's creativity. After Knives Out came out, there was a burst of people trying to recreate the sweater Chris Evans wears. Here's a link to the pattern and a sort of liveblogging of one person's progress. Five hundred people on Ravelry have knitted this pattern. It's incredible! (And on a more personal note, I have pondered trying to reverse-engineer this sweater that Marie Schrader wears on Breaking Bad. I've never seen the show, but I see that picture a lot... and the stitches look simple enough...)
I guess I don't really have a punchy conclusion to this other than "it's fun to experiment with recreating other people's work", whether it's in a fully new medium (Javascript for @Osmose or 3D printing for @esoterictriangle) or recreating something you've only read or seen (me). It's all creative!
