"A few thoughts on creating-
I would be interested to hear your views
on this subject David-
I think that we can`t realy create anything-Because-every conceavable material is already available in nature we just rearange it -also every design comes from nature--take a look at the work of german photographer--Karl Blossfeldt.-In the first instance Man must have seen these designs-Where else would they have come from-I don`t think you can have imagination wihout some form of example--
Or am I just talking rubbish.
Gordon-- UK. PS. your the Philosopher"
David, What do you think?
Gordon - thank you for that question. It is the first time I've ever heard it. I think it depends on the definition of creation. The above idea, is defining creation as a form of manufacturing in which the none of the parts, designs, ideas etc. did not exist before, hence even when you create some synthesis that is new - it is still based on existing parts. In other words, this is a circular argument. The question is whether by combining two existing ideas a creating a third idea that didn't exist before - this is creation. Or is it really just synthesis.
To put it in more everyday words - you can't get something from nothing. But can you make something new from existing parts? Yes. This is what is commonly known as creation.
The shape of the wheel exists in nature. One day some caveman comes along and begins to manufacture wheels - he got the idea from something he saw in nature - but now he sticks them on a piece of wood and makes a rock-age skate board.
It's not that the shapes didn't exist before - but this fellow saw a new way of utilizing them. I would define that as a form of creation because I'm stressing the point that the skateboard did not exist before in nature. But if you stress the point that all of the elements of the skateboard existed already, and define creation as being composed of parts that did not exist before - then you might not call it creation.
It is something that cannot be answered by the human mind at this point. It goes back to the fact that we can't understand the beginning of the universe. Oh - it was the big bang. But the big bang didn't come from nowhere. There was matter compressed into a very small ball. But where did that matter come from? Well, there was a previous universe that contracted into that very dense ball. But where did that previous universe come from? Third base.
We are finite beings trying to understand the infinite. I don't think it can be done. If we can't understand the nature of the infinite, then we can't understand creation - we can only be puzzled by it. We can't even define it.
As far as photography goes - it is not as free (unless you are in the digital world perhaps) an art as say painting or musical composition - because it is based on capturing actual things that reflect light. Yes, you can alter in many ways where things are in the frame, and what is in focus, and what the tones are - but a painter can make up a painting from things floating around in his head as can the musical composer. The photographer is generally stuck with what is physically around him or her. I don't want to say that this makes it less of an art form than painting - but it is more wedded to arranging what is around in the physical world than is painting or music. However, the catch is that the painter and the musician also is influenced by what they hear and see in the physical world. But they have a greater chance to create something that you've never seen before - because the parts themselves can already be small creations in the painters head.