ARCHIVE | EST 2010



Does creativity exist, or is it a process of consciousness? And, does originality infer the process of a conscious mind of influence?



Creativity indicates perception. Perception is a process of intentionality. Intentionality indicates a conscious mind in relation to some objective phenomena. If the mind of intentional relation processes some objective phenomena, creativity is inferred of conscious relation.  

Influence is the collaboration of sense perception. Intentionality is a first person ontology, which suggests that influence is an intuitive relation of consciousness. 

Walking down the street I see a building. Its associate composite materials allow my conscious mind to infer the buildings physical existence. Consciously, I perceive the building in accordance of intentional relation, but also, that I act from my conscious perception indicates a consciousness of something. My mind perceives the building of sense perception and accordingly the building holds some qualia (intrinsic quality) that my conscious mind perceives. The act is ontological because my sense perceives the building. 

In that building is Picasso’s Ma Jolie. I stand opposite observing and processing the physical canvas. A literal observation of pigments makes and represents a woman with an instrument. I picture this representation because physical aspects of the painting make a picture that infer an instrument, fingers and curvatures like an elbow, that suggest a woman and an instrument. If this is my literal, that it appears in reality, understanding of the painting what do the infinite lines, spatial temporal ambiguity, and illusions have to say of the painting’s literal representation?

The triangle at the bottom of the painting literally infers a triangle at the bottom center of the painting. But because there are certain implications of fingers, feet, and guitar strings, denoted by the shapes I see, a triangle then seems more representative of an instrument than may otherwise have appeared. Picasso analytically associates materials to represent a common theme such as a woman playing an instrument. 

Viewing Ma Jolie I see cylinders, cones, and triangles, all of which are shapes of some physical existence. These shapes extend from the physicality of the two-dimensional canvas that holds this three-dimensional representation. Analytically, when I consciously perceive some aspect of reality, a triangle, my conscious perception deceives my intentional relation to that physical phenomenon, which represents a woman with an instrument, not my perception of a triangle. My conscious mind perceives shapes that reduce to bodily representations. I infer a triangle, but my inferential relation to triangle represents some other objective phenomena.   

If the subject of the painting is analytical representation, intentional relation evidences the reduction of that same principle; that I am conscious of some objective phenomenon says I don’t have relation to that same phenomenon. I see a triangle, that triangle represents an instrument, and that representation suffices a picture of a woman and an instrument. At one point there is objective reality, with objects I perceive. Then there is the painting, showing aspects of an objective physical reality. Of the painting are instances of objective phenomena that together with pigments infer a picture of a woman with an instrument. Opposite these points of inference I have some conscious intentional relation to each point of perspective.

Is the present state of affairs a creation of Picasso, or is it some innate observation due of intentionality and experience of objective phenomena? If creativity is a process of phenomenology, acts of consciousness are relations to other instances of consciousness, a process of first person intentionality. Ma Jolie does not propose an answer to this state of affairs, it portrays what it is to have intentional relation, whether of influence or creativity, it does not matter, what matters is that it exists of an objective phenomenological order.