This image is interesting to me because it reminds me that no idea is purely original. Not only is a purely original idea probably impossible, but something that is close to being purely original would not be useful for anybody. A near-purely original idea would be something really bonkers, like a giant cherry in a top hat dancing around in a five dimensional space. When I say original, I mean an idea that is not connected in any way to any other idea. Ideas that we call original are mostly re-combinations of elements that we are all already familiar with, or two or more ideas joined that we knew separately but had not yet connected. It seems like part of the misperception here comes from the word “creative”. I consider this a misnomer that probably was coined by on observer of this process rather than a participant in it, since as I said new ideas are rarely created in any creative process. They are mostly the same ideas moved around, and connected to each other in new ways. I don’t find this depressing either, as if it diminishes the beauty of the creative process at all. For me it puts it more in line with the law of conservation, that energy is neither created nor destroyed but rather that it changes form. There’s something natural and balanced about that and I like it. So rather than talking about an idea or a writer being especially creative, we might call them especially connective. And it might help to clarify and specify our thought and speech if we talked about not the creative process, but the connective process.

This image is interesting to me because it reminds me that no idea is purely original. Not only is a purely original idea probably impossible, but something that is close to being purely original would not be useful for anybody. A near-purely original idea would be something really bonkers, like a giant cherry in a top hat dancing around in a five dimensional space. When I say original, I mean an idea that is not connected in any way to any other idea. Ideas that we call original are mostly re-combinations of elements that we are all already familiar with, or two or more ideas joined that we knew separately but had not yet connected. It seems like part of the misperception here comes from the word “creative”. I consider this a misnomer that probably was coined by on observer of this process rather than a participant in it, since as I said new ideas are rarely created in any creative process. They are mostly the same ideas moved around, and connected to each other in new ways. I don’t find this depressing either, as if it diminishes the beauty of the creative process at all. For me it puts it more in line with the law of conservation, that energy is neither created nor destroyed but rather that it changes form. There’s something natural and balanced about that and I like it. So rather than talking about an idea or a writer being especially creative, we might call them especially connective. And it might help to clarify and specify our thought and speech if we talked about not the creative process, but the connective process.

(via livinjustasfreeasmyhairxo)