Simone De Beauvoir on the Creative process; blog2
If the author knows in advance the conclusion he intends, if he insists upon pressing a predetermined thesis upon the reader, if he refuses to permit even the illusion of fredom, then…the novel has no value and dignity, which must be there if both author and reader are to discover something alive. It is necessity that one speaks of…when one says that the novel must escape from its author, who must not dispose of his characters, but on the contrary must let them impose their will on him. A novel is not a manufactured object, and it is even pejorative to say that it is fabricated; without doubt it is absurd to say that heroes in the literal sense of the word are free, but in truth this freedom that one admires in the characters of Dostoevsky, for example, is that of the novelist himself who has respect for his creations, and the opacity of events which he evokes should manifest the resistance which he has met in the act of creation.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:41 am
[...] bookmarks tagged sculpture Simone De Beauvoir on the Creative process saved by 5 others noCore23 bookmarked on 02/01/08 | [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I’ve read over this a few times and I think if I had an example of a novel where the author did predetermine the conclusion and thesis entirely and left no room for question, versus one that doesn’t, I could better picture the point De Beauvoir is trying to get across. The only novels that come to mind that I could try to apply this to are those that I read such as R.A. Salvatore’s fantasy novels. I think about why I love the books so much, and I realize it’s because there is such a strong character development. Where would the story be without that? It would be far less entertaining. And I’ve even read in one book that the author on some level really found a friend in his main character, Drizzt. Whenever he was stuck or in a dour mood, he’d imagine what the character would do or say. So in that sense, the author may have begun the creation of a central character, but then that character took on a life of his own.
Then what is applied to writing could also be said of art. I suppose creating art is in a similar way like creating a character for a novel. I especially feel that in ceramics I may have an idea about what direction I wish to go in for a pot, but often I let the clay go in the direction it wants to go in. Often my pot (or sculpture or painting) does not look very close to my sketch. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing; often times you have to stray from the original idea and continuously edit when moving from the idea or sketch to the “alive” sculpture or other art form.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The character of Drizzt in a really great example! In the case of the Dark Elf trilogy (and Icewind Dale, etc.) there is a great need to balance character with plot if the reader is going to suspend disbelief and engage with a plot that one knows to be fantasy. But to move a little from esoteria, there is a great need for this in all fiction. An author, or any artist for that matter, can create whatever story or image they like, but if they allow no room for interpretive freedom, they are caged in by their own constuct and thus remove even their own freedom to create.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I an not going to refer to writing at all because as soon as I started reading this passage I began substituting “art” in for “novel” and “artist” for “writer.” Taking this from an art perspective was an eye-opener. I have brought this up in class a few times, but in sculpture I tend to sketch out my exact plan and stick through it no matter what. In some ways I only have my “creative juices” flowing for that initial sketch. Once the sketch is completed I become a construction worker if you will, meaning I take the plans and build it…numb. Carole always pushes me to take a step back and listen to what the piece is telling me and after reading this passage I completely know what she’s meant this whole time. If I really do just stick to the plan, my piece will have “no value and dignity.” From now on I am going to make a conscious effort to sketch basic ideas and let my piece develop on its own!
February 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I think that with both writing and with art it is important to start with an idea and have a basic idea of what you might write or create. From there it is important to let the work inform your decisions. If you spend too much time planning and sketching by the time you start working you won’t be creating something new, you will merely be reproducing what you created in your sketchbook. Somethings things have to change as you work, you will see what is working, and what is not, you may also discover a new way to use a material, or change the plan altogether. If the artist or writer keeps their mind open to change and new ideas the finished work can become something much more interesting and exciting than what the artist or writer had originally planned.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Sometimes when I sketch a piece and execute the piece as planned, at the end there is not much else to see. I agree that it is important to leave some of the process open for suggestions and editing. It is hard to let go sometimes of one’s plan but it is an effective way to become less predictable and produce more interesting work. After all books are like art art in that those works that I enjoy the most are the ones that surprise me and let me wondering about the story behind the work itself or the person who created it.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I do agree that the philosophy present in the passage from Beauvoir can apply to art as easily as it can apply to writing but I am hesitant to support her ideas all at once (in the case of art at least) I find interest in the innate challenge in sculpture to be get the ideas from the paper to full realization. My background is oriented to 2D works and I may be biased towards my sketches and plans but constructing them is an evolution because my plans are not scientific or fully accurate and there are modifications that must be made in discovering the limits or abilities of the medium used. This in a way is a type of evolution or change that Beauvoir hinted at, where the creation forces the decision, but it is dependent on the sketch as a starting point and being guided from it. The final destination may not be determined but I am not convinced that not having a goal or final destination at all is a good thing.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This refers back to the video Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control about passion. Creative writing and creating art are one in the same. Speaking as a person who has written a novel or two there is a passion to tell a story that consumes the writer. Whether we know where we want to start or end the novel doesn’t really matter. It’s this overall need to illustrate a story in the mind of your readers and evoke an emotion. It’s the same when creating art and the desire to have the viewer feel that WOW factor. It’s passion that drives the creator and its emotion that frees the final work from the artist.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I agree with the quote and what most people have written in response. I think it’s best if you don’t understand your piece while you’re making it. Sometimes I get ideas that weird myself out but I run with them because I feel like they come from some buried part of myself that I’m not usually willing to express, and in that way they are more honest than if I were to intellectually formulate an idea of what would make a “good piece.”
It’s scarier and way more exciting to surprise yourself as you’re working. Then when the piece is finished you can step back and figure out what your piece is about. When you plan ahead too much everything just looks contrived.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
One of the things I find interesting about this concept is the polarization of these two approaches to the creative process, which for the purposes of this post I’ll call “process-minded” and “product-minded.” De Beauvoir seems to be advocating the former: art exists primarily in the process of making it, the conclusions are drawn by the making of the art. This is one of the central elements of high modernism, and stands in opposition to the traditional product-minded history of art making. Taken to its natural extreme, this would be Abstract Expressionism, and taken to its natural opposite, this would yield conceptual art (such as the drawings of Sol LeWitt and the paintings of On Kawara) where the product is wholly understood at the beginning of construction, and the making of the piece is simply mechanical implementation.
That said, I am truthfully most interested in the areas in which these two concepts intersect, the synthesis of process and product. I expect documentation to maintain aesthetic value and aesthetic precision to employ conceptual reinforcement in the way it is produced or the reasons it is produced. I guess the murky middle is more interesting to me, in this and most things, than a polarized conclusion.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I would compare a novel that leaves the reader no freedom of imagination to an artwork that has been created with a specific idea in mind, and only attempts to address that sole issue. In this case nothing is left for the reader/viewer to dream up or think about. It is better to address things in a universal manner to allow for multiple interpretations to permit the participant to be as active as possible.