Posted by joseph nechvatal on January 06, 1996 at 09:11:20:
In Reply to: Re: deep shit posted by Stephen Pusey on January 04, 1996 at 18:52:48:
Artists often think art is entirely intuitive, but intuition comes from
the mind and operates only on the information fed into that mind.
Furthermore, the mind, like a computer, obeys the well-known rule of
computers: "Garbage in; garbage out." I would add to this: "Nothing in;
nothing out." Intuition might be fruitfully understood at a simple level
as the unconscious mind's ability to manipulate large numbers of ideas or
facts at one time. In this ability the unconscious differs from the
simplistic focussed conscious mind, which can handle only three to five
variables at any one time.
Confucius said: "Learning without thinking is useless; thinking without
learning is dangerous." In order for the intuition to manipulate many
facts or ideas simultaneously, these facts and ideas must first be
consciously learned--usually one at a time. Consider a beginning tennis
player. At first the player is slow. She has to think about each move, and
she is likely to execute these moves badly or entirely wrong. A good coach
will teach her to execute them correctly. The coach will show her perhaps
six important steps that must be mastered to hit a consistently good
forehand, five things that must be done to hit a good backhand, and seven
things (all of which feel totally unnatural) that must be done to develop
a good serve. At first, beginners consciously think about each of these
things as they do them. But after two or three years of practice (some
tennis coaches do not allow their students to play actual games for the
first two years) they will execute each stroke entirely without thinking.
What was laboriously learned has become instinct and intuition.
Professors in art and science encounter opposite problems. Science
instructors must convince young scientists that creativity (the
scientific method) is not all logic. And, conversely, art instructors
must convince young artists that creativity is not all intuition; both
logic and intuition are necessary to any creative process. Hence the
creative process involved in the two areas is surprisingly similar.
Hans Selye explains that young scientists too often believe that
"scientific research is based on the planned application of logic." But
they come to think of this as the only possible avenue to success only
because those who write for scientific journals tend to leave out all the
blind alleys and "intuitively directed probings into the unknown" that
led to their discoveries; they describe only the simplest logical path.
Peter Medawar tells us in Advice to a Young Scientist that "science
involves the exercise of common sense supported by a strong understanding
. . . combined with a resolute determination not to be deceived either by
the evidence of experiments poorly done or by the attractiveness--even
lovableness--of a favorite hypothesis" šknown as 'preciosity' in art.
Heroic feats of the intellect are seldom needed. He reasons that the
scientific method simply demonstrates the potential of common sense.
As Medawar warns that young scientists must "never be tempted into
mistaking the necessity of reason for the sufficiency of reason," Would
the obverse warning work for artists? Never mistake the necessity of
intuition for the sufficiency of intuition. Too many young scientists
believe the road to success in science is logic alone, while too many
young artists believe the road to success in art is intuition alone. Both
may be wrong. It is important to maintain the right balance between the
two. Remember, Leonardo was exceptional in both science and art; he was
ambidextrous--indicating a working balance between the left (the
analytical) and the right (the intuitive) hemispheres in the brain.
But the right kind of learning may not be in seeking answers, but choices
and questions. In the words of the German lyric poet, Rainer Rilke, who
wrote letters of advice to a young poet friend: "Be patient toward all
that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves .
. . . Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you." And Roger
Gilmore notes that visual artists have a particular kind of intelligence
that lends itself to "identifying and posing important and difficult
questions." He notes further that studies of the relationship between
creativity and asking questions show conclusively that "the higher the
level of fine arts interest, the higher the level of creative
problem-FINDING ability."
Post a Followup
|