Are performances and other "reproductive arts" truly creative?

What does it mean to be "creative?" These kinds of questions often lead us into a philosophical labyrinth. Some say that creativity is creating something from nothing; others say that creativity is combining existing elements in a unique way. But if the latter is true, then performers are also a type of creator. For, while they use the notes written down by the composer, they reconstruct the music with their own unique interpretation and expression.

But here I hear the devil whispering, "Is it really creation? Is it really creation?" The art of reproduction is an act that is solely intended to "reproduce. Of course, when a pianist plays Chopin, there are choices to be made, such as what rubato to use, how to step on the pedal, and how to devise the touch of the note. But those choices are made only within the framework of the composer's intentions and score. There seems to be freedom, but it can never go beyond the framework. In this light, the creativity of the performer is merely "playing within the framework.

Does repetitive practice kill creativity?

One of the most important elements in the art of reproduction is repetitive practice. However, repetition is often regarded as the opposite of creativity. Playing the same passage over and over again seems to be an act that has nothing to do with free thinking. If you play Bach's fugue hundreds of times and let it seep into your fingers, is that "creation"? No, it is merely "learning.

Nevertheless, it is said that first-rate performers arrive at truly free performances at the end of this monotonous repetitive practice. In other words, behind the seemingly free performance is a deathly crippling training. Creativity is often thought to be based on "free ideas," but in fact, it may be born from a "solid foundation" and "application within constraints.

Does creativity require cultural capital?

So what does it take to be creative? Picasso said, "Good artists imitate, great artists steal," but in order to "steal" in the first place, one must have the appropriate knowledge and experience. In other words, creativity is not possible without the accumulation of knowledge.

The same is true in music. In jazz improvisation, simply arranging sounds by feel is not "creative. In order for this to be possible, a vast amount of cultural capital is necessary, such as chord progressions, rhythms, and historical background. Whether it is the art of reproduction or improvisation, behind every creative act is an overwhelming accumulation of knowledge. After all, creation is not "a sudden revelation from God that falls out of nothing," but is "the result of exhaustive learning.

How creative is creative art in the first place?

After all this talk, a fundamental question arises. Is the supposedly creative art really that creative?"

For example, much of what is considered avant-garde music is said to be "innovative," but in the end, it consists of "deliberately subverting" previous musical theories and existing musical forms. In other words, it is not creation completely from scratch, but merely "an act of being aware of the existing framework and destroying it.

Also, consider the term "creative" in the advertising industry. They say that their job is to create "new ideas," but in reality, most of their work is to rehash past advertising methods and rearrange them to fit the times. There is almost no such thing as "creating something from scratch" in the true sense of the word.

Who are the creators who direct the creative process?

Today, there are professionals who "make it look like they are creative. For example, movie trailer editors have the skill to make a mundane movie look like "an unprecedented shocker," while social network marketers produce "ordinary daily life" as "a unique lifestyle.

This is also true in the music industry. Concert directors, music producers, stage lighting specialists, PR people at record companies - their work is more focused on "how to make music look attractive" than on the music itself. In other words, "creative creators" and "creative directors" are two different entities.

What is a creator?

Having come this far, we come to a conclusion. A creator is not simply "someone who makes something. It is a person who understands the framework, creates new value within the constraints, and even thinks through how to make it look creative.

So, are performers of reproduction art creators? In a sense, yes. They take the composer's intentions, add their own interpretation, and breathe new life into the work. But they are decidedly different from composers in that they are not creating music from scratch at all.

And the most ironic fact is that "the more creative one is, the more one is actually bound by cultural capital and rules. The more freedom we seek, the more we are actually crippled - perhaps this mysterious paradox is the essence of the concept of creativity.

Now that you have read this far, do you really feel like you have "created" something?