Between what is and what could be

So here's another of those images shot in Anacortes on Saturday -- played with, of course, but still: the basic composition of it is exactly as it first presented itself, and, in fact, I think it would stand on its own as a work of art even without my modifications.

And now, having said that, I realize that the least I can do is share that original with you, so here it is:

I'm still reading The Path of Least Resistance (hey, I have to get through SIXTEEN CHAPTERS by Saturday, so it's obviously going to be absorbing me for a bit) and pondering the mystery of the creative process.

Today's chapters had to do with the importance of structural tension to creativity, and points out that a successful creator needs to be comfortable with the discrepancy -- or is it disparity -- between how things are now and their vision. In addition, the point is made that the tension between is and could be is a very important part of the work itself; part of the creation's charm and appeal.

So I am weighing those thoughts in with all of your interesting comments from yesterday; still not at all certain that there isn't something more serendipitous at work here. Fritz, the book's author, keeps claiming we need to be able to visualize what we're working toward. But I seriously believe that to do that would limit the outcome to "something we are capable of visualizing."

I think that outcomes are more magnificent if we start, not with a vision of an end product, but rather with an assurance that there can be a magnificent end product, but that it will be bigger or different in some way from anything that has gone before, and that we are not necessarily in sole control of the creative process; that it is a cooperative venture between ourselves and the universal creativity to which we choose to open ourselves.

Is that too woo-woo? Too mystical? The fact is, this book was written in the 80's, and I think in those days we had more of an illusion of control than we do now. I don't mean that in the sense that he decries, that of being at the mercy of circumstances; I mean it in the sense that... well, email and the internet were just beginning in those days, and there was unprecedented economic prosperity, and it was easy to delude yourself that you could make your life into whatever you wanted it to be.

Now, I think, we have a broader picture of the world, a better understanding of our connectedness to it and to individuals around the globe, and a more awakened awareness of the extraordinary mystery of life. But maybe that's just me. At any rate I have to say his notions of control seem a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded to me. Yes, it's true; I am fascinated with faces and would love to do a series of art that somehow includes faces in it. It's true I am interested in broken and pockmarked textures, and in certain colors on the spectrum.

But the fact remains that when I see this original wall with its wire, I don't think, "Wow, I could turn that into a face, and couldn't those marks become a hat, and hair, and eyes, and doesn't that look like a finger?" I think, "Cool: wonder what that could become; let's play with it and see what emerges!"

And if something DOESN'T emerge, or if I don't like what emerges, that's okay, too. I don't feel the tension here that he deems necessary to create; I only feel the differential between what is and the potential for what could be. But he's right; I'm happy to play in that field between is and could be; willing to accept that the game might have no appreciable outcome and yet delighted to allow for the possibility that some new truth might emerge and to serve as a tool for the expression of that truth, whatever it might be. Maybe that place would be tense for someone else, but for me -- well, it's just... home! It's a place where I'm delighted to roam, and where I rarely if ever feel alone.

Mystical? Woo-woo? Maybe. And your problem with that is... ?