I. Some introduction remarks
Any sane person continuously estimates as own acts, and everything that surrounds it. In each specific case received estimations always depend on uncountable number of factors. Therefore questions what to eat well and what to eat badly, it is possible to carry safely to a category eternal, that is such questions, which the person is compelled to solve for itself to resolve them once and for all basically it is impossible.
At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that communities of people (and each person separately) though somehow once having answered these questions, practically always aspire to impose subsequently the opinion to other communities and separate people. In itself it neither is good, nor it is bad: it is simply put in human nature. Moreover, such state of affairs underlies development. Here and the author of these lines wasn’t kept bringing the modest mite in case in point illumination.
As appears from a subtitle, the present micro-treatise contemplates a problem, first of all, from the philosophical point of view and mentions practical aspects in the extremely limited volume. If those aspects excite the reader first of all it should start at once section reading «What to do?».
Addressing to the micro-treatise form, the author perfectly realized that the statement will be superficial, and at times and superficial. However such form can be quite pertinent, if the problem of the author consists not in offering ready universal understanding of a problem, and in inducing the reader to independent reflections, and also to more detailed acquaintance with works of numerous predecessors. Besides, the micro-treatise form is good already that the potential reader with большей probability won’t throw reading somewhere in the middle and won’t fall asleep, having got tired to perceive and analyze long philosophical maxims.
II. What incentive motive of creativity?
Really, the question on motives and the purposes is primary. If the person didn’t have an internal requirement to create also the esthetics, in its modern kind, wouldn’t exist. The requirement to create as is internally inherent in the person, as well as other base requirements: in meal, a dream, the comfortable environment, etc. the Person simply should create the fine. Creativity such is the obligatory form of existence of the person. If it was not so than it would be possible to explain irrepressible draft of the person to create the esthetic objects deprived of any utilitarian appointment. However, there are very many theories that esthetic objects carry out communicative function, that is allow to transfer something non-material from the author to the spectator. This aspect will be discussed more in detail in other sections of this minitreatise.
Quite probably that the requirement to creativity has arisen at the person in the course of evolutionary development. We will tell, in the beginning the person has learned to receive esthetic pleasure from the world surrounding it, and then he has realized that can receive not smaller pleasure from is artificial the created esthetic objects. Having realized it, it began to be improved in their creation. And can, the requirement for creativity (including art) was initially inherent in the person created just like Misters, that is the Creator. Who knows? Anyway, such requirement objectively exists. The person creates not only under nature laws, but also under beauty laws.
Here it is necessary to notice that this requirement rather strange. All other base requirements are easily explainable: they promote a survival of the person as biological object. And what advantage of art creativity? I wouldn’t like to stop long on this aspect as this theme in itself is boundless. Easier not to leave the brought attention to the question absolutely without the answer I will describe two hypotheses:
1. The beauty indirectly helps the person to create better utilitarian objects, and also to solve life questions more effectively. Quite probably, as the concept of beauty was born at a utilitarian estimation of the surrounding validity. For example, comfortable inhabitancy began to be perceived also esthetically attractive, and not comfortable — ugly. In that case the aspiration to beauty speaks besides increase of biological stability. Creating art subjects, the person trains the brain which in this process is improved for the decision of purely utilitarian problems. Such state of affairs, as consequence, helps the person to solve more effectively also and existence problems in a society.
2. True sense of human life — in spiritual self-improvement. Such sight at things regards at once creativity as of paramount importance. All other purely biological requirements become secondary, that is subordinates to this main sense.
Anyway, the requirement for creativity objectively exists. The person as a biological kind can’t exist differently as continuously being engaged in creativity, and not only purely utilitarian, but also purely art, that is deprived, at first sight, any utility.
Having realized objective character of requirement for creativity, we should recognize as well that the person creates, first of all, for itself and for the sake of itself. It simply should aspire to satisfy this objectively existing requirement.
III. The Nonverbal message of the author of audience
As already it was mentioned above, very many believe that the sense (and, so, and the purpose) creativity consists in realization of communicative function. In the most interesting work «That such art?» Lev Tolstoi wrote: «… a word one person transfers another the thoughts, art people give each other the feelings». All mentioned work is constructed, in essence, on only one this thesis. In philosophical works of other authors also it is often underlined that any subject of art necessarily bears in itself a certain additional semantic loading, is free or involuntarily put in it the author.
Presence at the author of desire to transfer to other person in the nonverbal form certain inexpressible words the information (the feeling, the latent sense, and т the item) also leads to that for full self-realization the author needs to be understood and estimated by other people.
Presence in such approach of common sense is difficult for denying. But we will ask a question: what initially — satisfaction of requirement to create for the sake of itself or a transfer problem to other people of a certain implicit message? Here it is possible to argue long, resulting arguments in advantage both the first, and the second approach. It is represented to me that the requirement to create for itself nevertheless is primary. It is possible to result great variety of examples of that the person can be engaged in creativity at all to tell about something to other people, together with not to share with others any feeling. We will mention some such cases:
1. Happens and so that the person understands that its product, probably, anybody and never will estimate, and, perhaps, even anybody and never learns about it, but, nevertheless, the person creates, and creates simply because can do it — as if any unknown external force forces it to be engaged in creativity.
2. Often person at all doesn’t mean that someone will estimate other its creation by all means — it simply does something for itself(himself). The purpose of many (but, of course, not all) applied art subjects is that, for example.
3. In certain cases, by means of a work of art the person tries to fix the experience or the emotion not to inform on it to other people (though, probably, and for this purpose including), and first of all that most in the future to revive at itself in a shower bygone experience.
It would be possible and to continue further this list, but not in it the purpose and sense of this work.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that art can quite serve for dialogue, is important realize only that not only for them one, and that with a problem of this it consults not so ideally.
«The thought uttered is lie» (F.I.Tyutchev), that is imperfection of language and ways of creativity leads to that they can’t be ideally used for the purpose of transfer of thoughts and feelings from the person to the person. Moreover, the question on that, what for the person in general resorts to art for dialogue, is rather interesting in itself. It would Seem, what for to inform someone something by means of music?
1. If to admit that music transfers something, absolutely inexpressible by words how the author can be convinced what its message has reached the listener without distortions? How there can be it though is a little assured what is understood? How he learns what the listener has that feeling which he wanted to transfer? After all to rely on the reciprocal verbal response it is impossible! (If it was possible, from the very beginning it would be easier to author to put the idea into words, instead of music). 2. It would be not absolutely reasonable and assume that выразимая the idea in the form of music will fast find words a way to mind and heart of the listener at the expense of additional emotional coloring — after all, refusing words in favor of music, the author risks in general to appear not understood or misunderstood.Thus, art far not irreproachably carries out communicative function. We can be never assured that we managed to give by means of it to someone the certain feeling tested by ourselves. All it also testifies that the requirement for creativity for itself is primary, and the requirement for creativity as a way of dialogue is secondary.
It is necessary to remember also that according to some representations the person in general does all finally only for itself, including, and is engaged in dialogue with other people for itself. Basically, such approach at all doesn’t contradict all told. Stated above it would be easily possible to state and from such positions. However for economy of a place I won’t do it. I think, and without that