{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_4/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_4","id":"wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_4","license":"Public Domain / CC-BY-SA (see source)","rights_basis":"wikisource_site_inclusion_policy","source":"wikisource","source_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Culture_vs._Copyright/Chapter_4","summary":null,"tags":["Subpages"],"text":"CHAPTER 4\n\nCulture Beyond Art\n\nMy deliberations on the nature of art as a branch of culture were\nboth difficult and easy. They were difficult because the subject is\nquite mysterious, and they were easy because the arts are the most\ntypical representative of culture. Moreover, the peculiarities of the\narts reveal a lot. Now the question is: What about other areas of\nhuman life and activities? Can culture reside in any of these?\n\nThe first answer I can offer is that because culture is defined\nas creativity and dialogue, we come face to face with culture\nwhenever we encounter these. Let us see how this really works.\n\nThinking about the subject, I once surprised myself when I found\nthat creativity may emerge even in the least creative case, such as\nproduction of some simple, well-known goods. When you produce\nsomething, you use materials, spend time, and implement ideas.\nEven in a case where you produce, or participate in the production\nof, an article created by others, your own ideas are still utilized.\nWhy? Because creativity is a necessary element of any human\nactivity unless this activity is totally automated. Even in less creative\nprocesses, you can and normally do use your own ideas. Lots of ideas\nfrom different people have been collected over the course of history\nand implemented in even the simplest of contemporary products.\n\nThis sounds reasonable. . . . But can creativity be part of a non-creative process? . . . This sounds weird. Although I did not get too\nfar in my analysis of the subject, I did not need to worry. My fellow\nresearchers had developed considerable muscle in the course of our\nprevious conversations. Hence, I decided it was possible to start with\n\na direct generic question. When Do People Create?\n\nTeacher: When do people create?\n\nBeta: What do you mean \u201cwhen\u201d?\n\nKappa: Well, sometimes we do, don\u2019t we?\n\nDelta: And the question is \u201cwhen?\u201d\n\nBeta: I\u2019m thinking we need to clarify the question.\n\nTeacher: That never hurts.\n\nGamma: We are not talking about time, are we? We\u2019re talking about\nsituations, right?\n\nTeacher: Of course.\n\nAlpha: I know! It\u2019s like when someone hasn\u2019t prepared for a test. One\nshould be ve-e-e-ry creative!\n\nTeacher: Could be. Can you elaborate?\n\nGamma: Could it be that one has to reinvent some scientific data in\nthat case? Is that what you mean?\n\nAlpha: If people are not prepared, they guess. Nothing else.\n\nKappa: But some people guess better than others.\n\nAlpha: \u201cCreative guessing!\u201d Ha ha ha!\n\nKappa: Why don\u2019t we turn to the arts?\n\nDelta: It\u2019s too obvious. Of course people create while making art. That\u2019s\ngot to be true by definition!\n\nTeacher: Not necessarily.\n\nDelta: I got it. If a painter is just copying the unique work of another\nartist, he is not creating, is he?\n\nTeacher: Not necessarily.\n\nGamma: I watched a movie, The Moderns. A very talented painter got a\ncommission to make copies of some of Matisse\u2019s paintings\nbecause a woman wanted to steal the originals away from\nher husband. Then she robbed the painter because she didn\u2019t\nwant to pay him. But she mistook the copies for the originals.\nAnd the painter was really proud afterwards that he was\nable to make such perfect copies!\n\nAlpha: OK, he was proud. What does that tell us?\n\nBeta: Well, he was talented, and he was proud he could do it. It does tell\nus something.\n\nAlpha: What? Delta: I believe that not every painter can make a precise copy of a great\nwork. He has to be talented to be up to the job.\n\nAlpha: If someone is a talented copier, does this mean he is creating\nwhile copying?\n\nTeacher: Good question!\n\nBeta: I wish I had a good answer.\n\nKappa: Is it maybe like understanding other people? Don\u2019t you think?\n\nDelta: You mean, seeing all of the details of one\u2019s painting and\nreproducing them?\n\nBeta: Look, what are we talking about here? If exact reproduction\nrequires creativity, then inexact reproduction, when you substitute\nan author\u2019s details with yours, is not creativity!\n\nGamma: Wow! How can that be?\n\nAlpha: Wait, wait, who says it can? Who says that reproduction requires\ncreativity?\n\nBeta: No one does, so far. I said \u201cif.\u201d\n\nGamma: So, is it possible for brilliant work, even copying, to not be\ncreative? What is talent for?\n\nAlpha: How about photography?\n\nBeta: I got something. Look, a photograph depicts something real,\nexactly how it is, right?\n\nGamma: So? There are riveting and telling pictures out there, and there\nare many that are good for the trash can only. How is this possible?\n\nBeta: That\u2019s where I was heading. When you take a picture and get what\nyou wanted, how you wanted it . . .\n\nDelta: You mean, when you intend to capture something, or what?\n\nAlpha: My uncle is a photographer\u2014a very good one; everyone says\nthat. He says you have to be ready for a quick shot. It is not as if you\nhave to have some goal.\n\nBeta: I understand, you have to be prepared . . . but that is also a goal,\nisn\u2019t it?\n\nAlpha: It\u2019s different.\n\nKappa: Alpha is right. . . . And Beta is right . . . Summarizing Questions\n\nTeacher: Don\u2019t we have something for the first summary?\n\nDelta: A bunch of questions.\n\nKappa: It is something. We wanted to clarify our problem, remember?\n\nTeacher: I remember. Would you like to try, Kappa?\n\nKappa: OK, but you all help me.\n\nDelta: Count me in!\n\nBeta: I\u2019ll join in.\n\nGamma: I\u2019ll do my best.\n\nTeacher: Alpha, are we in?\n\nAlpha: I\u2019m not sure we\u2019ve got enough material for all helpers. . . . I\u2019ll let you know if you miss something.\n\nTeacher: It\u2019s a deal. Go ahead, Kappa.\n\nKappa: OK. We have got, so far . . . first, could someone be creative\nin taking a test one is not prepared for? Does this question stand?\n\nAlpha: Baloney.\n\nDelta: Continue, Kappa. You got one.\n\nBeta: Generally, if you don\u2019t know an answer, then a simple question\nbecomes a complex problem to resolve . . .\n\nKappa: OK. The second question is: could it be creative guessing?\n\nAlpha: But that\u2019s the same question!\n\nDelta: I believe guessing is part of any creation.\n\nAlpha: But this doesn\u2019t make any sense!\n\nTeacher: Alpha, we shall discuss this, but let us do the summary first.\n\nAlpha: We were going to sum up questions, but the first one is\nobviously not a question at all, and the second one is the same as\nthe first one.\n\nBeta: I wouldn\u2019t be so sure about both. You can never predict what\npops up in a discussion.\n\nAlpha: All right, I\u2019ll keep silent regardless of what you say.\n\nDelta: You can\u2019t, Alpha. You promised to let us know if we miss\nsomething.\n\nAlpha: That\u2019s enough! Do you want to discuss me or our topic?\n\nTeacher: Our topic. And I assume everyone is ready to continue.\n\nKappa: If someone does not like a question, we can reformulate it,\nright?\nTeacher: Acceptable.\n\nKappa: OK. Do we have the correct question about test taking, or is it\nbetter to leave the general question about guessing only?\n\nGamma: Why can\u2019t we discuss both?\n\nDelta: I agree. We don\u2019t know what to do, anyway.\n\nAlpha: Exactly.\n\nDelta: OK. We don\u2019t know what to do anyway, so we need as many\nquestions as possible.\n\nAlpha: And to stay here overnight.\n\nGamma: That\u2019s destructive!\n\nAlpha: What?\n\nGamma: What you are doing now is destructive.\n\nAlpha: And collecting a thousand questions to solve a single problem\nis constructive?\n\nGamma: Do you really hope to solve it today?\n\nAlpha: Why did we even start if we didn\u2019t want to solve it?\n\nBeta: Who said we didn\u2019t?\n\nKappa: We\u2019ve counted two questions so far. The third one would be\nwhether making art is always a creative process.\n\nAlpha: Who questions that?\n\nTeacher: I do.\n\nAlpha: Why?\n\nTeacher: Why don\u2019t we finish with the summary first?\n\nKappa: The fourth one will be: . . . \u201cCould copying be creative?\u201d The\nfifth one: \u201cIf a copied work is brilliant, was creativity involved in\ncopying it?\u201d\n\nTeacher: An excellent formulation.\n\nKappa: The sixth question: \u201cIs the copying of a painting similar to the\nunderstanding of an idea?\u201d\n\nBeta: I have another one. Is the copying of a creative work the same as\nunderstanding its author\u2019s way of thinking?\n\nDelta: Why the same? How could it be the same?\n\nGamma: Kappa said \u201csimilar to.\u201d\n\nKappa: Aha. Can we put it like this: Is copying generally like\nunderstanding?\n\nDelta: Of course! You can never repeat something if you don\u2019t\nunderstand it!\nBeta: Yeah, I agree. This doesn\u2019t mean that repeating and understanding\nare the same.\n\nGamma: What does that mean?\n\nBeta: Now I think they are related.\n\nAlpha: Come back, guys. You are disrupting the accounting process.\n\nKappa: All right. So the seventh question could be: How does copying\nand understanding relate to each other in general terms?\n\nTeacher: Perfect!\n\nDelta: I got the eighth one. Is seeing a creative process?\n\nGamma: Where did that come from?\n\nDelta: I asked earlier whether a person who makes copies is creative\nbecause he is seeing all of the details.\n\nGamma: I have an example of when seeing all the details relates to\ncreativity: investigation.\n\nBeta: Hey, a good example. Sherlock Holmes is a creative guy.\n\nAlpha: What does he create?\n\nDelta: A picture of a crime.\n\nAlpha: That one was created by a criminal.\n\nTeacher: The crime, not the picture.\n\nGamma: Sherlock Holmes doesn\u2019t know the criminal\u2019s plan and\nactions, thus, he has to invent them from scratch and check them\nagainst the evidence, right? It is a creative process.\n\nKappa: Ha, look, we got it again. A bad investigator cannot recreate\nthe picture\u2014how it was in reality\u2014and amends it with invented\ndetails. So he happens to be less creative at the same time. Wow!\n\nTeacher: Have we recalled all of our questions?\n\nKappa: There were a few more, I think . . . one about photography. . . .\nDoes creation relate to some goal?\n\nBeta: I want to ask another one. Does seeing something unusual mean\nbeing creative?\n\nKappa: Seeing again?\n\nTeacher: All right, we\u2019ve got a pretty decent list. I would add one last\nquestion. Do all creative features of human activity apply equally\nto arts and non-arts? Or better yet: Do all of our questions apply\n\nequally to arts and non-arts? Creativity and Goals\n\nBeta: We\u2019ve touched upon this problem many times.\n\nKappa: Actually, we were on track many times, but were interrupted.\n\nAlpha: Don\u2019t blame me.\n\nKappa: It was not you . . . well . . . not only you. We interrupted our\ndiscussion to proceed with the list.\n\nAlpha: Aha! Thus a goal can be disruptive!\n\nDelta: Maybe there could be different goals?\n\nAlpha: Look, like I said, suppose you go out to take a picture of your\nfriend, OK? Then you see a beautiful flower, OK? But you pass it\nby because you have another goal and you miss . . .\n\nBeta: I believe that picture you are going to take can be as beautiful . . .\n\nGamma: And so that flower can be forgotten, right?\n\nKappa: Alpha is right. A creator has to be ready . . .\n\nBeta: Actually, yes, you don\u2019t know for sure what happens in the end;\nit wouldn\u2019t be creation otherwise.\n\nGamma: But this equally applies to both pictures! You don\u2019t just \u201ctake\na picture\u201d if you want it to turn out well.\n\nDelta: Thus, there has to be some sort of goal.\n\nKappa: OK, suppose you know what you want, I mean a picture. . . .\nOK, you have a goal. . . . You may even have two goals.\n\nDelta: I know. Goal number one\u2014to get something special on film.\nGoal number two\u2014to make it beautiful.\n\nAlpha: Here we go! Goal number three\u2014to make it quick!\n\nBeta: Of course\u2014to catch the moment when one and two meet.\n\nKappa: Let me finish, guys. . . . Actually you helped a lot. But let me\nfinish now.\n\nDelta: Go ahead.\n\nKappa: What if you think about all three goals but still fall short? You\nclick, click, click and nothing good comes out. What then?\n\nAlpha: What then? You are a lousy photographer then. That\u2019s it.\n\nBeta: I got it. . . . You can know what you want, you can know how you\nwant it, and you try to be quick, yet you fail because you do not\nhave the skills. . . . Is that where you were heading, Kappa?\n\nKappa: Maybe, . . . I\u2019m not sure. . . . Just asked because it\u2019s kind of an\nobvious question.\nDelta: I remember it was Beta\u2019s assumption in the very beginning that\na talented author can achieve what he wants, right?\n\nAlpha: What if he wants something stupid?\n\nGamma: \u201cStupid\u201d is not an issue here. Stupid can be beautiful.\n\nAlpha: Do you have an example?\n\nGamma: All right, have you watched Chicago?\n\nAlpha: I have. So?\n\nKappa: Ha, Roxie is stupid and beautiful! That\u2019s right!\n\nAlpha: She is not that stupid.\n\nBeta: Hey, let\u2019s go back one step. That was interesting. Alpha said it\ncould happen. I mean, a picture can get spoiled if the photographer\nhas a trivial aesthetic goal, right?\n\nTeacher: Correct.\n\nAlpha: I didn\u2019t know I was that smart!\n\nGamma: Remember that movie The Majestic, where the producer\nsuggested changes to the movie scenario at the beginning and at\nthe end?\n\nKappa: Yeah, yeah! He said such stupid things!\n\nDelta: And he could have done them all!\n\nCreativity and New Form\n\nTeacher: It looks as we are approaching another summary.\n\nBeta: May I?\n\nTeacher: Sure.\n\nBeta: In order to create, an author needs, first, to have a subject, like\nhe wants to take a picture of someone. Second, he needs to have\nan aesthetic idea of how to make it beautiful. Third, the aesthetic\nidea has to be unique. Fourth, he needs to be skillful enough to\nimplement these three. Fifth, he needs to grasp the moment when\nall four converge.\n\nDelta: Isn\u2019t the fifth point included in the fourth one?\n\nBeta: Why?\n\nDelta: You said to grasp the moment, right? Isn\u2019t that about a skill?\n\nBeta: No, I actually meant a moment of time. It should happen. It is\nnot enough to be ready. You are ready to grasp the moment, but the moment must occur, right? Delta: Got it.\n\nAlpha: I can imagine a photographer saying to himself, \u201cI\u2019ll do it\nbeautiful such and such, blah, blah, blah . . .\u201d\n\nGamma: Maybe yes, maybe no.\n\nAlpha: You take a quick shot when you see it is worthy. That\u2019s it.\n\nKappa: And what happens if you don\u2019t like the picture?\n\nAlpha: Then you do it again. That\u2019s it. You do not theorize.\n\nBeta: Of course you do. You ask yourself what went wrong and do it\nagain.\n\nDelta: Ha, you guess! That\u2019s what you do!\n\nAlpha: Ah, long time.\n\nGamma: Why not? You guess and think it over, and guess again and\nthink it over again . . . until you get what you like, . . . until you\u2019re\nsatisfied. On the other hand, they say Mozart never did drafts; he\njust wrote his music.\n\nKappa: But others do drafts, and their art can be no less perfect, I\nthink. Like I know that Degas made countless sculpture models\nfor his paintings and was never satisfied with them. He even\ndestroyed them, driving his agent crazy. And other people have\nalways considered these sculptures to be the work of a genius.\n\nAlpha: Mozart was a genius.\n\nDelta: You can guess, think it over, and nobody will ever know how\nmany drafts you actually did.\n\nGamma: And you can do it fast.\n\nAlpha: Yeah, a thousand strokes per second. Strike, strike, strike,\nstrike, strike ...\n\nTeacher: Is this truly so crucial?\n\nAlpha: What?\n\nTeacher: All these technicalities . . . how it finally comes to perfection.\n\nAlpha: I didn\u2019t start this.\n\nBeta: It is interesting although it is not relevant to the initial question; I agree.\n\nTeacher: What, in your opinion, is the most salient point in your\nsummary, Beta?\n\nBeta: I cannot skip any of them.\n\nKappa: Yes, you can. Just ask how necessary each of them is. Beta: They all are necessary. You skip any single point and you will not\nget a work of art.\n\nKappa: But you certainly don\u2019t know how to take a beautiful\nphotograph in the beginning, do you? How does your aesthetic\ngoal work then?\n\nBeta: And if one doesn\u2019t have this goal, how then can a beautiful\npicture happen?\n\nKappa: What if you wanted to take one picture but happened to spot\nanother interesting subject?\n\nBeta: That means I changed the subject, but I could not just skip it,\nright? You cannot make a picture of nothing.\n\nAlpha: Why don\u2019t you make \u201cnothing\u201d your subject then?\n\nBeta: You still have to have a subject.\n\nDelta: OK, what if we ask another question. Do these points of yours\napply only to art?\n\nAlpha: The initial question was about creativity in general, not about\narts.\n\nGamma: Yes, and we even have questions, whether art is always\ncreative and whether all we asked about art could be applied to\nnon-arts and vice versa.\n\nTeacher: That is right.\n\nKappa: Listen, Beta. One can be really, really non-creative even with\na subject, right?\n\nBeta: . . . Yes, . . . obviously.\n\nGamma: Can one be non-creative and still have a creative goal?\n\nBeta: You mean one can want to create something? Just want?\n\nKappa: Yes, and this will be number two, agree?\n\nTeacher: I am recalling that Beta said the idea must be about how to\nmake something beautiful.\n\nGamma: If we are talking about arts!\n\nDelta: Yeah, we can drop this requirement about beauty.\n\nBeta: I feel like you are going to leave me bone dry.\n\nAlpha: You will survive, don\u2019t worry.\n\nKappa: Hold it. Number three\u2014one can have excellent skills . . .\n\nBeta: And accomplish nothing. I give up.\n\nDelta: Wait, wait. You cannot have the third point in place and yet be\nnon-creative! Gamma: That the idea should be unique? That\u2019s a given, isn\u2019t it?\n\nAlpha: How will we know that our ideas are unique?\n\nKappa: What do you mean?\n\nAlpha: Someone might have had the same idea earlier.\n\nKappa: What difference does that make?\n\nDelta: If you come up with something new for yourself, it does not\nmake you less creative if some other guy did the same before you.\n\nBeta: Definitely. . . . You see something new and you know it is new.\n\nKappa: See?!\n\nAlpha: If you see something, then everyone can see it.\n\nKappa: How about a photograph?\n\nAlpha: No, that\u2019s different. . . . I told you many times, you have to be\nquick.\n\nBeta: Or else? It disappears?\n\nAlpha: Not necessarily . . . but other people won\u2019t see it the way you do.\n\nDelta: You said if you see it, everyone can . . .\n\nKappa: No one will! . . . Until you point it out! That is how it works,\nfor one. For two, I think we were talking about some kind of inner\nseeing . . . like we were discussing earlier. You guess, you try,\nsay don\u2019t like it, and you do it again until you like it. It\u2019s like\nyou\u2019re seeing something in your mind and trying to match it . . .\n\nTeacher: What is it? . . . Assuming the subject is here . . . and the\nsubject can be seen by every passerby. Remember that flower\nAlpha suggested? But you, creator, have to see something\ninvisible to others, right? . . . What is it?\n\nBeta: It is \u201chow!\u201d I said it in my summary! It is how you want it.\n\nGamma: And what is this \u201chow\u201d anyway?\n\nKappa: Can we hypothesize that it is how you organize your subject? . . .\n\nDelta: OK, let\u2019s take that flower. What do I have to do? Organize\nsurrounding things in my mind?\n\nAlpha: You do nothing around that flower! You shoot! Quickly! This\nis it! You don\u2019t have time for long discussions, calculations, plans,\nchecks, whatever! You just shoot! End of story.\n\nBeta: Listen, Alpha. Why are you skipping over everything we\ndiscussed and repeating the same thing like a parrot over and over\nagain?\n\nKappa: Beta!\nBeta: OK, OK, sorry.\n\nTeacher: I think we have gotten to a particularly interesting point. At\nthe very moment of creation, you arrange things in your mind in a\nway unique to yourself. I think that is the essence of any creative\nprocess.\n\nKappa: Uh, you did a summary this time.\n\nTeacher: It was too tempting . . . and exciting.\n\nBeta: I believe this formula can be applied to activities other than art\nas well.\n\nAlpha: Like passing a test.\n\nGamma: Why not? If you try to recreate a piece of knowledge . . .\nBy the way, Alpha, it was you who offered the example of a test.\nMaybe you have something to say about that?\n\nTeacher: Actually, I don\u2019t see what the specific situation of a test adds\nto our analysis. Maybe we can talk about recalling things in\ngeneral . . . What do you think?\n\nDelta: We already have a question about seeing. Recalling seems to be\nin line.\n\nKappa: If we add the \u201carrangement\u201d thing to Beta\u2019s summary, we will\nhave a pretty decent tool for researching different examples.\n\nTeacher: That is perfect! Who can implement the idea?\n\nGamma: I can do it. Creation occurs when a creator catches a form so\nthat he can arrange his subject in a new way. He has to be skillful\nenough to implement the new arrangement.\n\nTeacher: A form? This is new!\n\nBeta: This is the word! A new arrangement of a subject and the new\nform that things get organized into. Form sounds better.\n\nAlpha: Better than what?\n\nBeta: Arrangement.\n\nDelta: Arrangement sounds more like the process and form sounds\nlike the result. Both are suitable in a way.\n\nAlpha: Saying \u201carrange things in a new way\u201d is just a longer way of\nsaying \u201ccreate.\u201d\n\nKappa: For me these are not simply \u201clong\u201d and \u201cshort\u201d because the\nlong one shows how it really works while the term \u201ccreate\u201d just\n\nnames the process. Going after Examples\n\nGamma: By the way, sometimes they coincide literally.\n\nDelta: What do you mean?\n\nGamma: Invention. . . . Say, an inventor tries to create a new engine. He\nhas to assemble some known things in a new form.\n\nKappa: Don\u2019t you think that the idea of a new engine has to come to\nhis mind first?\n\nGamma: For example?\n\nKappa: Well, . . . I don\u2019t think I have any specific knowledge . . .\n\nDelta: Jets! My dad says it was a revolutionary change in aviation!\n\nAlpha: Ah. The Chinese invented gun powder rockets lo-o-ong ago.\nAnd aircraft were invented too. All it took was just to join the two\nideas.\n\nKappa: Just to join? That easy?\n\nGamma: \u201cJoin\u201d! See?\n\nAlpha: What?\n\nGamma: What \u201cwhat\u201d? You take two different things: aircraft and\nrocket, and arrange them into one idea\u2014a jet! See?\n\nAlpha: What I\u2019m trying to say is that it was not so horribly new.\n\nKappa: What is \u201chorribly new\u201d for you? Something born out of\nnothing?\n\nHow New Content Emerges\n\nBeta: Wait, wait. I\u2019ve got an interesting assumption! A new idea\nequals the new form! The one you arrange known things in!\n\nAlpha: Is that not what we\u2019ve been discussing for the last half an\nhour?\n\nDelta: Five minutes at most . . . after Gamma gave her last definition.\n\nAlpha: All right, let it be five minutes! What\u2019s Beta\u2019s discovery,\nanyway?\n\nDelta: It isn\u2019t clear for me either, to be frank. . . . Beta, can you\nelaborate?\n\nBeta: I realized that a new idea is totally equal to a new form . . .\n\nGamma: Totally?\n\nBeta: Yes. Kappa: OK. This jet. . . . This new idea. It is a new form, but it is not\njust a \u201cnew form.\u201d It is the new form in which to arrange old\nthings, . . . a rocket and an aircraft. Can we separate them from\neach other? . . . I mean the form and those things?\n\nTeacher: I\u2019m starting to understand Beta\u2019s insight. I would have\nthought that a new idea relates to some new content rather than\na new form . . . I would have before, but not now.\n\nGamma: It is difficult to keep in mind all these nuances, but in\nany case, it becomes clearer. That new form is the essence of\ncreativity.\n\nBeta: A new form as a result and as a goal. . . . Yes, it is the essence,\nI agree.\n\nKappa: Aha! When you arrange old things in a new form, you get\nnew content!\n\nBeta: Wow, that resonates! Can we put it this way: You get new\ncontent by arranging old content in a new form?\n\nTeacher: I say wow too! You guys surprise me!\n\nAlpha: OK, how does this apply to our third question?\n\nKappa: Is it . . .\n\nAlpha: That doing arts can be non-creative.\n\nDelta: It applies very well. If you are not arranging old things in\nsome new form while painting, or singing, or writing . . .\n\nAlpha: New to whom?\n\nGamma: We talked about this already. If it is new to you, then you\nare creating.\n\nAlpha: But if it is not new for others?\n\nBeta: Bad luck. Bad for your business. So what? Our subject is\ncreativity, not business.\n\nCan Copying Be Creative?\n\nAlpha: All right, how can copying be creative?\n\nBeta: Well, let\u2019s see . . .\n\nDelta: If you see everything in a painting, you can copy it.\n\nAlpha: All right, you see everything! How is that creative? Do you\narrange old content in a new form there?\n\nTeacher: I think it is possible. Alpha: How?\n\nGamma: It is probably like investigation. You have to correctly\nreconstruct all the elements.\n\nAlpha: But it is different with a painting! You already see all the details\non it!\n\nDelta: You look at them. It does not mean you see them.\n\nAlpha: What does it mean to us mere humans?\n\nGamma: Look, Alpha, when it comes to investigation, different people\nsee different things although they are all looking at the same\ncrime scene.\n\nKappa: Yeah, they all look at the same scene but they see different\nthings. . . . Yeah . . . what does this give us? They arrange things\nin different ways in their own minds!\n\nBeta: Hey! It\u2019s a major point!\n\nGamma: Wait, wait. What is it? It does not matter what you are looking\nat! I mean, whatever you are looking at must be arranged in some\nform in your mind . . .\n\nDelta: And if it\u2019s new for you, then you are creating. Wow!\n\nAlpha: Someone got lost here.\n\nDelta: Who might it be?\n\nKappa: Come on, guys.\n\nTeacher: So copying can be creative.\n\nDelta: It looks as if it can be even more creative than the original work.\n\nAlpha: Ooops!\n\nGamma: How is that?\n\nBeta: May I?\n\nDelta: Go ahead.\n\nBeta: Say you arrange things in a new form. That means you have\ninvented a new idea, right? Now, say you try to understand another\nperson\u2019s idea, OK? You have to do the same, right? Plus, you have\nto make sure that the idea you are creating matches that one you\nare trying to grasp. So, it\u2019s like you are making two arrangements\nat once.\n\nKappa: Ha! This is why people don\u2019t understand each other!\n\nGamma: . . . So, we\u2019ve gotten the first answer to the last question.\n\nTeacher: Really?\nGamma: It can be said now that creativity in arts is of the same nature\nas creativity in human communication.\n\nDelta: I cannot believe it. It was so fuzzy in the beginning!\n\nAlpha: Aha. I would say it has been.\n\nDelta: Actually, we saw that the same creativity found in invention is\nalso found in the arts, like with jets. That example Gamma gave us\nwas very helpful.\n\nGamma: I see no difference with investigation either, by the way.\n\nDelta: Yeah, it is all the same.\n\nBeta: So, creativity is all the same wherever we come across it\u2014in\narts, technology, investigation, pure human communication . . .\neverywhere! The only things which change are the subject and the\nrole of the outcome.\n\nTeacher: So is creativity always the arrangement of known things in a\nnew form?\n\nKappa: I also cannot believe how clear it is now!\n\nAlpha: OK, you guys have come to the conclusion that copying is even\nmore creative than producing the original work. Isn\u2019t that weird?\n\nKappa: Hmm. It sounds really weird.\n\nDelta: Why don\u2019t we think this over?\n\nGamma: Alpha, what do you think?\n\nTeacher: Gamma, what about you?\n\nAlpha: This new form . . . you all are talking about, . . . it doesn\u2019t exist when it is first created, but it does when it is grasped by someone\nelse, not the creator.\n\nDelta: It is obvious, but what does \u201cis grasped\u201d mean? We saw it as a\ncreative action too.\n\nAlpha: As creative as the original creation itself?\n\nBeta: I don\u2019t see how we can measure this.\n\nKappa: My dad says it sometimes takes centuries for humankind to\nunderstand new ideas, inventions, or art that some individuals\ncame up with. Understanding is creative!\n\nDelta: And understanding among people in everyday life is the same.\n\nIt was your example, Kappa, right?\nJournalist and Writer\n\nTeacher: What if we leave this \u201cmeasurement problem\u201d for a while? I\nam eager to hear what you think about one of Beta\u2019s assumptions.\n\nGamma: Which one?\n\nTeacher: That creativity is always the same. The only things that change\nare the subject and the real meaning of the outcome.\n\nAlpha: That is more than one question.\n\nTeacher: True.\n\nAlpha: Which one do you want to discuss then?\n\nTeacher: I am curious about examples of outcome.\n\nBeta: What do you mean?\n\nTeacher: How it works in different areas of human activity.\n\nGamma: Like we discussed already, investigation, invention, and\nphotography?\n\nTeacher: Yes, like those.\n\nDelta: Do you have something specific in mind?\n\nTeacher: I am not sure yet. Can\u2019t we come up with some examples\ntogether?\n\nBeta: What are we looking for? I\u2019m not sure either.\n\nTeacher: All right, what about journalism?\n\nGamma: What about it?\n\nBeta: Actually, the first thing that comes to mind is that a journalist\ndoes not create facts, does he?\n\nKappa: So?\n\nAlpha: It is like photography.\n\nDelta: Quick shot, eh?\n\nKappa: Oh, God! Won\u2019t you ever stop?\n\nAlpha: That\u2019s all right. I don\u2019t care and I don\u2019t mind.\n\nBeta: You don\u2019t mind what?\n\nAlpha: The quick shot is still more important.\n\nDelta: But seriously, Alpha, I fail to see it there. A journalist gets a\njob to go somewhere and bring back a story. Say there was a car\naccident. The editor of the paper sends some guy to cover the story.\n\nBeta: Well, the question stands as it was. One journalist makes up a\nstory that nobody wants to read, and another one writes so well\nthat people rip the paper out of each others\u2019 hands! Delta: I am not talking about \u201cmade up stories\u201d!\n\nBeta: Actually, I\u2019m not either. But whatever the facts are, you have\nto arrange them in a story! Different journalists would do this\ndifferently, right? One story could be terribly boring, and another\ncould be incredibly exciting, right? And the facts on the ground\nwould still be the same, right?\n\nDelta: Yeah.\n\nKappa: What about the \u201cquick shot\u201d?\n\nBeta: What about it?\n\nKappa: I agree with Alpha that journalism does resemble photography.\nYou have to reflect real things, but you can do it in different ways.\n\nGamma: Would that be only in those cases when a journalist does not\nhave specific tasks and encounters something extraordinary?\n\nBeta: But this changes nothing!\n\nAlpha: What do you mean \u201cnothing\u201d?\n\nBeta: I don\u2019t see how this specific case would change what we have\nlearned about creativity itself. If it is always the arrangement of\nknown things into new forms, then circumstances mean nothing.\n\nKappa: But we are exploring how it works in different circumstances\nnow. That, in fact, was the question . . .\n\nBeta: Agreed. So, what about the journalist and his story?\n\nAlpha: And his news?\n\nGamma: I see no difference between that and fiction writing.\n\nAlpha: Fiction is the same as news?\n\nGamma: Wait, let me finish. I just want to compare the two.\n\nKappa: It is interesting.\n\nTeacher: It is. I am dying to hear.\n\nGamma: All right. Obviously, creativity itself is the same in both\ninstances. Both the fiction writer and the journalist have to\narrange things in an attractive form . . .\n\nAlpha: Except the writer makes facts up.\n\nDelta: Not necessarily.\n\nGamma: Yes, you are right, both of you. . . . Let me finish. They both\nhave to create stories to engage their readers and make them feel\ninvolved . . .\n\nKappa: That is right! That is exactly right!\nGamma: Yeah, I know. OK, they make up stories; they try to engage\nreaders. There is no difference so far. But the real value of their\nstories\u2014the real job is different.\n\nAlpha: I didn\u2019t get it. How come it is all the same, it is all the same, it is all the same, it is different?\n\nGamma: Look, when the journalist engages readers, he leads them\nto the facts. The fiction writer engages people with some general\nfeelings or trends or ideas . . .\n\nTeacher: I believe both things can be involved in both genres. The\nfiction writer can use real events and names while the journalist\ncan talk about some general ideas.\n\nBeta: But they use those differently, I think.\n\nAlpha: How?\n\nBeta: I think the writer uses real facts to put forth his general ideas,\nand the journalist uses general ideas to put forth facts!\n\nGamma: Maybe. . . . It is necessary for the journalist to introduce the\npublic to the events happening right away, and he can use whatever\nhe wants to in order to achieve that.\n\nBeta: Hmm. Actually the same thing can happen to the fiction writer\ntoo. He can write about the past or the future but imply present\nproblems.\n\nKappa: Can we say that the journalist is bound to the present in\nterms of content and the writer is not? People just know that the\njournalist\u2019s job is to draw them into immediate events. This is like\na rule of the game. I think Gamma and Beta said the same.\n\nGamma: Yes, the writer and the journalist just have different goals.\n\nTeacher: So despite the fact that they both do essentially the same job,\ntheir work is judged and valued by readers on different bases?\n\nBeta: This is what readers would think.\n\nTeacher: What do you mean?\n\nBeta: It is simple. If they both do the same work in terms of art\u2014\nnamely, engage their readers in the events they portray\u2014then the\npublic gets involved in the same manner. The public fools itself\nabout the real value of a fictitious story and the real value of a\nnewspaper story. Kappa: They all are fools, ha ha ha. But listen, Beta, you contradict\nyourself. You said a few minutes ago that the two stories have\ndifferent relations to reality, didn\u2019t you?\n\nAlpha: The fiction writer can write about his dreams, what the world\ncould be like. The journalist writes about reality.\n\nBeta: Yeah, Kappa, you are right. It is clear that the goals are different,\nbut the real jobs are so similar. . . . I am going back and forth and\nin circles.\n\nGamma: We are all going in circles, but I\u2019ve got a funny idea about\njournalism. It is impossible to write about the present. It is always\nabout the past, a near past, but still the past.\n\nBeta: Physically. But people do perceive it like it is happening now.\nLike it can all be fixed right away.\n\nAlpha: Come on! Fixed? Somebody got killed\u2014go fix that!\n\nGamma: It is always a kind of illusion. However, like Kappa said, it is\na rule of the game, the journalism game. A reader should get the\nfeeling that action should be taken, that something can be fixed,\nthat justice must be restored.\n\nTeacher: All right, so let there be another circle. Isn\u2019t it the same with\nfiction?\n\nAlpha: Like in Stargate, ha ha ha.\n\nGamma: Like in Stargate. The difference is that those fictitious events\nare substitutes for real ones, and thus, they stand for general ideas\nwhile events reported in a newspaper are what they are in reality.\nAh! All of this was already said today!\n\nKappa: Yes, but it is amazing how differently things look in the\nbeginning of a discussion from how they look after a while. My\nfirst impression was that fiction and newspaper articles have\nnothing in common. Then we started to analyze them. The\njournalist writes about current events, but the fiction writer can\nvery well write about these too. The journalist wants an action to\nbe taken, and the writer can desire this too. The writer organizes\nhis reality so as to engage the public, the journalist does the\nsame. The writer can turn to the past or future, the journalist\ncan do the same to make his point. The only real difference we\nsaw is in how the public perceives their writings. If it is fiction,\nthe public becomes concerned with fictitious events but feels easy about them. If it is news, the public becomes concerned\nwith the immediate situation. Well, I am asking myself if this is\nreally so . . .\n\nTeacher: All right. I think this is enough for today. Thank you all.","title":"Culture vs. Copyright/Chapter 4","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6362}