I won’t be around much today — we got about a foot of snow in the past 24 hours, so I’ll be spending several of my next hours digging out.
But as I was thinking about the snow, I was thinking about the billions of different combinations of snowflakes there are out there on my driveway. As many of you know, snowflakes are fractals, which Wikipedia defines as: “a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole.”
When you look at a snowflake, you see a definite design to it. Except that there is no “designer”. So can this be called creative?
I don’t think so, since I agree with the definition I gave in my first post on creativity. It is the act of turning ideas into reality. But since there is no “thinking” involved, there can be no creativity.
But take that one step further. Nature created humans, just as it (she, He) created snowflakes. So although we can think, and admittedly we are a few steps advanced from a snowflake, we were still spontaneously (and unthinkingly) created by nature.
We developed creativity through nature, or as a result of nature, or because it was instilled by nature.
So is our creativity just a fractal of some other aspect of nature?
That might be heavy for a Monday morning, but it will give me something to think about while I spend the next six hours snowblowing the 1.7 quadrillion individuals out there lying about on my driveway…
~Graham
Like this post? Tell the world!
Tags: factal, nature, snow, snowflake, wikipedia
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 15th, 2008 at 9:33 am and is filed under Why Creativity?.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Kelly (31 comments.) says:
Graham,
(I wonder why some feeds don’t show up in my email inbox until so late?)
Ahem. To go very heavy on the subject as well—yes, IMO it’s an aspect of nature. Biology, to be exact. It’s a very crude thought that lots of folks don’t care for, but we’re here for only one reason, the same as an apple or a rabbit or a baboon—to find a way to be selected to reproduce. Like everything else about us, creativity has evolved as something that might attract the attention of a reproductive partner.
I don’t look at life every day in that light (that would be kind of odd), but when you really come down to it… hip hugger pants, sports cars, PhDs, and creativity are all here for the same reason as the shiny red, beautiful perfume, and sweet taste of an apple. So someone will select us… so there will be another generation to wander around inventing things so they can look cool to the opposite sex.
Luckily, unlike fractals, we do have thought involved, and we do get to have fun and choice, and we get to buck nature if we want, etc. But yeah, creativity is just an aspect of nature. 
Regards,
Kelly
Kelly’s last blog post..Happy Holidays?
Graham says:
And may I add to your list of attractors purple boots?! lol
I agree the main reason we are here is to simply reproduce. But there are other important milestones to that goal. We need to find food, water, and shelter in order to survive long enough to reproduce. And we also need to protect our children so that they can reproduce in the future (hopefully not before they are 20…)
[An aside: I remember a Cheers episode where Diane (?) made Sam realize that there was more to his life than chasing girls. The proof was The Three Stooges — as Sam put it, women thought they were “kinda stupid”. Watching them on TV was something he did that had nothing to do with impressing women. I think humans do have needs beyond the basic — at least we do when the basic needs are met…]
I think what really blows my mind is the fact that creativity — the ability to think and make decisions — comes from a non-logical source. Which is why I wonder if perhaps “creativity” isn’t really a phenomenon at all, but a fractal of some other aspect of nature. We may believe that we are thinking and acting on those ideas, but in truth we are simply reproducing some natural occurrence.
Look at a termite hill or a beehive. They are “created” by animals, but I’m pretty certain there was no real blueprint before they started building it. Not in the conscious mind. They follow instinct and natural patterns to come up with something beautiful (some would say) but it certainly did not out of creativity.
Perhaps we have the same innate subconscious blueprint within us. So “creating” isn’t so much artistic exploration as realizing our imprinted potential.
Now let me epilogue this by saying I don’t necessarily believe this idea. But it is interesting to consider…
~Graham
Kelly (31 comments.) says:
Graham,
“hopefully not before they are 20…”
28? Or when I’m dead would work. So I don’t have to think about my little person being a grownup. I will neverever be ready for that. Nevereverever!
I like your idea, in a fatalist-scientific sort of a way. As if we could get way up high, like where the dude that Christmas is all about hangs out, and we’d see that we’re all just performing instinctive rituals of faux-creativity?
Wait, that’s kinda what I said. With some incredibly complex geometry instead of s-e-x as the point of the whole thing.
Neat thought-provoker, Graham.
Until later,
Kelly
Kelly’s last blog post..Happy Holidays?
Todd Smith (2 comments.) says:
I think creativity could be fractal. Fractal to me means that you take a simple formula plug something in and keep plugging the results back into the same equation. Not all equations turn out to be fractals, and not all ideas turn out to be creative. But the self-referral nature of both fractals and creativity, and the fact that unexpected and amazing result often occur, makes the comparison worthwhile to me.
Todd Smith’s last blog post..What frame would you choose?
Graham says:
Hey Todd,
Yes, it gets back to that whole discussion I often have about beauty in Nature vs. man-made items. I argue that we are Nature, so anything we make is still ultimately from Nature.
If not a fractal, then perhaps a mirror image of some other natural facet? Or perhaps we truly are greater than the sum of our parts?
Love this topic!
~Graham
Todd Smith (2 comments.) says:
I agree… we are Nature, and what we produce is Nature too. I think what appears as beautiful in art design is that which reminds us of Nature. Specifically, the orderly way in which Nature grows. When an artist’s mind is functioning like that he/she produces art that is universally recognized as beautiful.
Todd Smith’s last blog post..Do you have a role-model for Social Media?
Leave a Reply
