Migrating!

Dear Followers (that's you mum)

I am packing up and migrating to tumblr! No offense to blogspot - but tumblr seems to suit my needs just a wee bit better.
So! Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night.
http://seekthecreative.tumblr.com/

The Neurology of Creativity

William Utermohlen (1933-2007) was a prolific, American artist who was based in London for the majority of his career, he primarily had a romantic figurative focus that was often at odds with the burgeoning of Pop Art, hard edged Abstraction and the recession of Abstract Expressionism of the 1960's.

His oeuvre is characterised by rich symbolic narratives working with his love of (and amazing abilities with) the human figure. Along with this - as seems typical with all the 'great' artists - was a fascination with self portraits. Think Rembrandt and his 90+ self portraits and more contemporary to Utermohlen, the Pop Art guru himself Andy Warhol who used himself often as a subject. (This is obviously just a couple of well known examples and self-portraiture is a VAST topic).

It is within Utermohlen's self portraits that neurologists have found evidence of the degeneration associated with his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, specifically its effects on his artistic abilities (he was diagnosed at 60 years old). Alzheimer's disease can be referred to as a 'global dementia', it is a brain disorder that is progressive, aggressive and eventually fatal. The disease does effect mostly people over 65 but sadly it does occur under this age. The progress of the disease results in anatomical atrophy and death of neurons and white matter, the brain becomes riddle with what are termed 'plaques and tangles' which are basically malfunctioning proteins that we all have - but in these individuals they begin to destroy the neurons and consequently their function. Apart from this anatomical atrophy and death there are distinct  and marked cognitive and behavioural changes that affect the individual and consequently all they do and those aroudn them.

The disease is notable for its distinct memory impairments, attention and executive impairments (crudely explained as the 'control' and coordinating functions of the brain) and most relevant here, visuospatial and constructional abilities.  Patients with AD start to develop difficulty with tasks with any constructional components (so things like trying to copy a shape/object and even worse trying to draw from memory) and with visual perceptual abilities. So object recognition (and understanding their function) can fail - there are cases of individuals who can know what they are looking for e.g. their keys and not only can they not remember where they put them but even if they see them cannot recognise them for what they are - their keys - and they can lose touch with what they do too - open the door.  The constructional deficits result in drawings that lack spatial awareness or accurate relationships within themselves and with other objects, 3 dimensional space becomes harder to understand and represent for these patients. 

These degenerations  (and many others - this is just touching the murky and sad surface) in visuospatial and constructions have been measured in the progress of Utermohlen's disorder within his art practice. The interesting and brilliant thing, maybe the glimmer of something beautiful within something so devastating - is that his drive to create and to express himself artistically did not fade away - even towards the latter stages of his disease, when his technical abilities had declined to almost nil - his drive to be creative seemed to be intact. 

His self portraits seem to show the steady decline in his artistic abilities and skills that were such measures of his work prior to his diagnosis - his realist figurative depictions demanded a finely tuned awareness of intricate details and their relations to each other as well as to the 'whole'.

And although it would be easy to say that these changes could have been artistically motivated and could be a change in style (keeping in mind this period did see forms of abstraction become key and a decline in attempts to represent objects and subjects in the 'real world') - sadly the artist himself and his wife were well aware that these changes were not within his control. He was trying as hard as he always had - but just could not depict his world in the same way.

Keeping this in mind there did become a time where the artist consciously moved into these abstractions of form - a move that is claimed to be him realising the restrictions of his abilities (but this can also fit within concepts and changes of this art period. A period that saw the decline and (allegedly) the 'death' of painting - especially figurative and representative works.) The focus becomes reduced colour and shape and its ability to evoke and express concepts, . Think Rothko - who interestingly suffered from depression and has had his works and style interpreted as an expression and maybe even a symptom of this and Mondrian. Utermohlen's later works become noticably disjointed and took several attempts to 'get right', with him rubbing out and trying to erase his earlier 'incorrect' attempts - until eventually he gave up in a sense; realising that he would not be able to correct what was necessary to improve it - because sadly he wasn't able to know what was wrong anymore.

Amongst his declining technical abilities was also of course the emotional experience he endured throughout this time (an artistic period of around 5 years). Depression and other mood disorders are commonly found within individuals diagnosed with AD - as a result of changes caused by the disorder as well as because of it. And Utermohlen still strove to (and clearly managed) to use his symbolism and expressiveness within his art to convey his emotive states and experience with AD. According to his Art Historian wife this was a consequence of his degeneration and his struggle with losing something of such value to him - something that defined him as a person.

The neural changes that were found within his disease and decline were common degenerations and correlate with his specific symptoms and their declines - atrophy in the hippocampal regions and reduced matter in the higher cortical functions through into the temporal and frontal regions. 

What is interesting and paramount here is that his artistic drive and spontaneous attempts to create art was (for the most part)spared - despite the decline in his technical ability to create like he had - his drive and motivation to express his creativity and his experiences and emotions did not fail him. (In a 'sciencey' sense this is interesting because it seems to show some 'cognitive reserve' within these regions, some flexibility and individual variation within the disorder). This seems to imply that their is a region or network or collaboration of both that drives ones drive and motivation to be creative that is quite separate from ones ability to techinically do so (see my last blog as to why I'm looking in to this.)
This is something I find incredibly interesting and beautiful - the idea that there is a part of our brain that drives us and motivates us to draw and paint and photograph and craft and all the other million ways to express oneself. A part of us that is innately separate from and not defined by our technical virtuosity - may be we don't all have this part - but those of us that do can take heart. Not being great at the 'final product' of creativity does not have to define whether or not you are creative!

Some readings and further info!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11445128
http://www.williamutermohlen.org

Inner City Scapes (Part 2)

Inner City Scapes (Part 1)

Too Busy to Be Creative

I have no time. None. Between University, Work, the everyday survival necessities such as buying food, washing clothes, breathing and trying to have a semblance of a social life - I have no time left. The time I do have I want to shut my brain off and have it relax for a while.

So I find myself in a position that I don't enjoy - having very little time for my 'creative' activites. I try to make time to take my photos - this generally is squeezed in when inspiration and good weather hit between lectures and on my pedestrian journeys through Auckland to and from places. I have bugger all time to devote to my drawing or working on my illustrations.

Bugger. All.

I find that the time that I do spend isn't quality either - an hour here and there doesn't really seem to achieve much - its not cohesive, it doesn't have a cummulative effect on my work or how I feel about it. So it doens't seem to progress, and I get despondent and this leads me to making less and less time to these things.

Day to day life is draining my creative juju. The daily drudgery of commuting, of attending to life's appointments, of the 9 - 5.....it leaves me feeling uncreative. Not just less creative..... uncreative. I really have began to question myself. Is this just me? Am I just not creative enough? Maybe I am not cut of the right cloth to express myself in these ways....maybe I am doing it wrong or wasting my time etc etc...self doubt....etc. So in short my lifestyle of late and my inability to really devout myself to it has made me doubt my ability to do it at all.

Within my Neuropsych studies I have come across studies and research that seem to create a division between a 'creative' brain and an 'intellectual' - one that is imaginative, in touch with magical ideation (even though this can lead to extremes like hallucinations and schizoid behaviours!) The intellectual side is more adept at language and academic measures of achievement and IQ. (This is all to do with information regarding Cerebral asymmetry). This dichotomy is not black and white - in fact it in all likelihood it is not a dichotomy but like most things a spectrum. But does that mean that one cannot be academically intellectual and also be imaginative and creative? To have a freedom of expression and not be limited to concepts and ideas of those around us or before us?

Maybe I am trying to be creative but my brain is not geared up that way? I am trying to fly when I blatantly don't have wings. It is hard to know - and I probably will never know, even if there was a particualr biological marker for it, I probably will not ever get this 'test'. But it does make me question (for my own purposes and as well as a global sense) are there people out there who cannot be creative in an artistic and imaginative manner? (I limit the concept of creative here - as I have found creative is open to interpretation and is applied in a vast array of areas outside of art) I don't mean 'people who don't want to be' artistic either - I know that there are those who just don't - they find their expression in creative formats outside of the art world (my friend Maree is a 'Wood Scientist' - yes...that is a a real thing. And as discussed in previous blogs - the science realm is dependent on creative thought and inspiration). I also don't mean in a technical sense - personally I can draw and paint and take photos quite well, within the confines of using design models and artists I can imitate quite well and have the technical capacity to do so (god knows whether its good or not but I can do it). I mean are there people who can be imaginative, who can generate creative ideas, creative and artistic stories, embrace the magical ideation - and are there those who cannot. It seems possible (and this is what scares me) that someone can be technically able to perform the expression part (the pen to paper part) - something that is able to be learned, from observation and experience - but they are incapable of generating the ideas and the concept of that expression itself.

History is riddled with imitators, with infamous copycat artists, back in historical times such as with Medieval guilds and even into the renaissance - artists works were finished by his team but generated by his mind.(Hence works of art art 'attributed' to an artist's 'school' but sometimes cannot be confirmed if not signed by the artist) And this distinction was created - the idea was the art. The birth of concept art. This idea was furthered by Avante garde artists in more contemporary times. Found object art championed (and in my opinion) created by Marcel Duchamp and his "Fountain" (pictured) questioned even more 'what is art?' and the concept that art is what is conceptualised by an artist.

Mass production, such as that by Bauhaus artists maintained that their end product was still 'objets d′art' as it was the concept that carried the artists intention, and this was not reduced or compromised by mass mechanical production or repetition.

Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and many others utilised mechanical printing formats and this idea of mass consumption and production to further challenge the definition of art and create more distance between the hand of the artist and art product.

I could go on but I won't, except to mention that there is a NZ contemporary group that are working with contemporary, post-modern strains of this thought. Gambia Castle is a brilliant example.

My whole point out of this tangent was to draw attention to the fact that the importance is in the concept and the generation of this concept, in the imagination of the artist - not how the express it or how well. Technical virtuosity becomes irrelevant to a degree. So with this, I fear, I am petrified - what happens if I am not capable of this? What if I am unable of original imagination and creativity? What happens if I am neurological predisposed to being a 'non-creative'? Am I just wasting my time?

Answers to these questions don't come readily - and I guess I am going to have to figure it out as I go and keep trying until I realise either way. I thought that I would include you all in my neuroses and over-analysis of what artistic creativity is and how this relates to my current 'creative crisis'. Hopefully this is the 'writer's block' so commonly referred to and will pass.)

Inspiration Outside of the Art World - Do You Mind

So my explorations are taking me on a very interesting journey so far - not one I predicted but a great one. My last blog started to on a conversation of Science vs Art or in some cases Science AND Art. An exhibition has opened in the beautiful Iron Bank which is a collaboration project between The Busy Nice and the University of Auckland Centre for Brain Research. Have a look at both - they are fantastic! The collaboration resulted in new up-and-coming NZ artists being match made with researchers at the centre, all working within the field of brain research.

I'd like to mention at this stage how fricking amazing this is for me - not just for the purpose of this blog although it is particularly convenient timing - I have many passions in life but 2 of the really vital ones are Art (History) and Neuropsychology - to the point where I am still trying to figure out which one to do my post-grad studies in! So this exhibition rocks my socks!

The Do You Mind exhibition merged these two seemingly (stereotypically) seperate and divergent individuals and their fields together with some beautiful results. The artists spent some quality time with the researchers in their labs, lab coats and all (and a nice break for said researchers, whose ambitions to be 'mad scientists' has lead them to some what solitary jobs, bordering on the anti-social.....a fair amount of people within this field are what I like to call 'weirdies') to gain a more intricate understanding of what these researchers are trying to find and achieve with their research. Now this is where I found the most beauty in the process. The work that resulted and the relationships between these seemingly different people are great things for several reasons. It brings forward the research from this centre and its ambitions to understand the human condition and its degeneration (the reason I love Neuro so much), but conveys it into a language that is not so clinical and stringent. I think the artists (for the most part - some of the pieces captured a more analytical perspective e.g. Alexander Hoyles electronic work that allows the 'viewer' to experience the 'sound of autism', based on the research methods his partner Veema Lodhia) found and convey the researchers and the research's innate drive to further an understanding of humanity and their passion to create opportunities and pathways to improve and help those that deviate or degenerate from this.

The work not only conveys the purpose of the research but also captures the persona of the researcher, particularly in the case of Estella Castle and Sarina Iwabuchi (someone whose research I have read and studied!!). Castle takes a very different approach to that of her fellow artists, this showing quite distinctly how the artists used their own personal language (and style) to tell the stories. She provides a 3/4 portrait of Iwabuchi, a gorgeous watercolour image (to my recollection.....but I am now thinking I could be remembering wrong.....must start taking notes) of the researcher 'personale'. Her portrait seeks to capture the personality of the researcher within a 'pop-culture' context, addressing (and challenging) the constructs we are exposed to of 'scientist' in particular 'female scientist' (think CSI and all the movies you have seen with scientists....geeks, crazies, recluses etc). The image is a beautiful one that personalises the researcher (her research focus is cerebral asymmetries and laterality - meaning the fact that our left hemisphere does certain things and our right does other things, for the most part).

The diversity of the stories told (and the mediums used) within the exhibition are what make it so exciting as well as the obvious, a connection (and bridge) between creative (remember that creative isn't limited to art now!) fields that through history have been dichotomised and categorised as mutually exclusive from each other (the industries and the people in them). Also it draws attention to a wonderful science that has, does and will provide so much information about how we experience the world. Provide understandings of the vast variety and diversity of that which is 'normal' and provide more understanding, information and less judgement for those that have some 'dysfunction'. It does this with a new syntax, a artistic language that breaks down the archaic seperation between the scientist and the layman.

I believe that this collaboration is important for all of these reasons and creates a positive direction and example of how collaboration (in a local, personal sense with the artists/researchers and in global, larger world impacting sense) between apparently different realms of creativity and industry can foster a better understanding of each other for everyone.

So go! The exhibition is open from now till the 7th of August, Tuesday to Sunday, 10am to 4pm in a pop up style gallery (a brilliant and contemporary concept in gallery space making this even more exciting), Suite 106, Iron Bank, K-road, Auckland NZ. Or at least visit the sites above!

The False Divide is Bridged

An article written by Julianne Schultz for the Sydney Morning Herald poses the question "Is there an Australian Culture in a Facebook world?" - the title seems a bit strange for this blog - but the article itself is about the Australian creative sector (still thinking to a degree in economic terms) and its role, influence and development within Australian culture. She makes some interesting statements that really do adapt and challenge previous concepts of 'creative'.

Such as:

"It comes as a surprise to many to be told that [creative industries] represent the same proportion of the economy as agriculture. The symbolism of this should not be underestimated. Both agriculture and the creative industries nurture and sustain; they are both sources of innovation and entrepreneurism, shaped by individual passion, shrewd corporate decisions and strategic public-sector support." This is quite a 'wholesome' point of view to take, especially in the same sentence as 'shrewd corporate decisions'.

She goes on to define what she terms as 'industries' - which for her are "ranging from the arts to media, architecture, fashion, games, film, publishing, broadcasting and design" (more limited than Richard Florida's definition)- as an industrial sector like any other. One which contributes significantly to the economy (employment and services) and also as the "face of the nation" mentioning 'fine art' examples "indigenous art at the Musee du quai Branly in Paris" as well as pop culture and news exponents such as soap operas and news, sport and drama on TV.

"In a world dominated by popular culture, the arts are increasingly significant." This is the part I liked/found the most relevant. Popular culture is driven by the creative industrial sector - the motivation and intentions vary widely of course and may be defined by the medium e.g Dane Rumble's (I shudder to use him but I was looking for a tacky NZ pop example and equate him with the likes of Justin Bieber) intentions would be vastly different from Michael Parekowhai's. But they both contribute in a cultural and economical sense to New Zealand and become part of Popular culture in some form or another or in Schultz's words are "an essential component of a contemporary nation, with tangible economic and social benefits".

The article is a good one, it introduces interesting ways to conceptualise 'creative' within terms that are concrete and applicable to the real life experience of those of us who have more and more bills to pay (damn you ACC levies). So that "In times of rapid change, the arts and creative sector are crucial to making sense of social and economic transformation".

I think this beautifully articulates a pathway and point of view in our current economic climate, and creates an avenue for all to take in a large, global sense but also provides lessons and ideas that we can all bring in to out lives and decisions.

I leave you with a quote (of a quote) from the recently deposed Kevin Rudd:

"This false divide between the arts and science, between the arts and industry, between the arts and the economy: we've actually got to put that to bed … Our ambition should be to create and to foster a creative, imaginative Australia (*insert NZ here*), because so much of the economy of the 21st century is going to require that central faculty"

Manifest Thought into Reality

Wikipedia - the font of all knowledge and information (pure and accurate) has an amazingly thorough, or at least long article on Creativity.

It starts with an overall description of the term (as the wikipedia world sees it)...

"Creativity is the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality. The process involves original thinking and then producing. The process of creation was historically reserved for deities creating "from nothing" in Creationism and other creation myths. Over time, the term creativity came to include human innovation, especially in art and science and led to the emergence of the creative class."

This seems a succinct explanation for something that to me feels more ephemeral, or harder to grasp (I mean it is wikipedia not a philosophic treatise). But it makes a good starting point for making some clear cut ideas and concepts for myself (and hopefully others who will read this one day) about what it means. And to give me some ideas and theories to relate to myself and my 'creative produce'. As an Art Historian (just) that is something I am good at I suppose - researching and waffling on about concepts. An interesting segway here is the comment about an emergence of a 'creative class'. So we investigate further (while avoiding the pages and pages of neuroscience readings on my desk)....

The creative class is a socioeconomic class that economist and social scientist Richard Florida has identified as a driving force within post-industrial cities in the States. Now this seems to be a fair stretch from where I am going with the term creative and creativity. But I think its important to look at the complexity of the term, to look at 'other options' I suppose. Florida goes on to say that this is a "class of workers whose job is to create meaningful new forms", within the article it goes on (and on!) further to talk about these jobs, and it covers a vast range of industries that I hadn't really thought of as 'creative' (with no disrespect intended - just really didn't think about the term properly I suppose) such as science, engineering, education, computer programming, research. And these are just a few. This really rips open the idea of what it is to be creative, and how being creative is used. The article and idea does include design, arts and media - but for me I already knew this. But this seems to provide a different idea as to what creativity means, it seems that it is a concept or process that is not limited to specific areas or industries/jobs (namely art farty stuff). So creativity isn't about what you do but rather how you do it. Maybe then creativity and its products are about a process of any human thought becoming a reality, using intuition and knowledge; and an expression, any expression of these that are meaningful. I guess the next question then.....what is meaningful?

The why

I've always considered myself a 'creative', more in mind and spirit than in practice. I have dabbled in several areas of 'creativity', I play guitar (self taught and hopeless), I have painted and sold some works (derivative stuff and very bitsy piecey), I took art subjects at high school (a period of time that seems to be rapidly descending in to the realms of 'distant past'), I have studied History of Art and Theory at university, I have designed and sewn some of my own clothes, remodeled vintage pieces (again, bitsy piecey).

My current passion or creative outlet is in Photography. A subject taken at High school, it is something I have picked up again in the last 18 months or so, having rediscovered my old camera (Pentax K1000, 35mm) and therefore the inclination to take photos. It should be noted that I did miserably at high school photography - I desperately hated 'artist models' and the personality of my teacher (retrospectively I was just a sh*t of a kid with an attitude - so no wonder she didn't find the 'spark of a genius' or any potential within me). But I loved what I took from the subject, capturing my environment from my point of view, learning the mechanics (although I brushed over alot of 'grudge' work that probably would have helped me now) and the developing. But then life took over, graduating, moving to university, boys and 'the grog'. This need for some creative expression was put into a tiny box in the background somewhere hidden behind a pair of corduory bell bottom pants I, for some godforsaken reason, though were stylish and several cases of cheap wine.

But now I'm older, quarter of a century and in need of something 'more' in my life, something beyond my studies and my job and even my wonderful boyfriend and friends. Something for me, to feed some selfish need I have to be 'special' and a 'creative', an 'artist'. But this want and need has led me to questions:

How exactly do I do this?

Where do I start?

What exactly are the boundaries of what is 'creative' and 'artistic'?

And how do I know when I am one.

So it starts here, I'm going to explore and digest and find what it is that makes others 'creatives' and 'artists' and see how I can do this for myself. I don't know the how yet, but I intend to jump in feet first and hope that I land in the right place and in nothing to unpleasant.