Every artist has a process that they use to make art. Some have developed their process meticulously; others are unaware that they have a process at all. Most artists, I believe, have developed their processes by trial and error and have come up with a certain way that they do things to create; in many cases, this process was developed and exists almost out of consciousness. The results are processes that vary greatly from artist to artist and are likely very inefficient.

Since creative processes work more or less out of consciousness, they are difficult to modify. First we must pay attention to how we go about things; then we need to discover if that methodology is used for all of our creative projects. Odd are that our process is much the same from project to project. Once we have begun to identify our methodology, we can begin to refine it.

One of the things that we might consider is other artists’ processes. Since, however, such processes are mostly unconscious, this will be accomplished only with some difficulty. We will need to talk with other artists about how they do things, being fully prepared from them to tell us that they do not know how they actually go about creating things. The next best way to find out what others are doing to create art is to observe how they proceed. This is easier if one happens to be working in a collaborative art, where one is exposed to the creativity of others on a regular basis. Even if we are working in a single-artist situation, we can still observe the work of other artists and through conversation and reading and research. Through that observation and research, we can construct a picture of another artist’s process.

It has been pretty well established that an artist’s process is a very personal and unique thing. Although there may be similarities, each artist will proceed in their own way. So even if we discover all the details of any given artist’s process, it is unlikely that we could adopt it fully for ourselves—simply because we are different people with different wants and needs to express. We all have a different aesthetic, so adopting the whole of someone else’s process is really not practical. However, we can find things in another artist’s process that we could adapt and adopt for our own. We might find that the way another artist approaches a project initially varies from the way we do it and discover that using their methodology makes our creative efforts easier. So we can adopt just that part of their process and make it our own.

Likewise, we can study the work of other artists to see if they have any methodological techniques that we could adopt to make our own work more efficient. Again, we are not looking for a process to replace our own, but looking for specific elements that could change our own methodology for the better.

Most of us think little about the process that we use to create what we create. Perhaps it’s time that we step back and consider possible changes that will help us become even more creative, and make the creativity that we have more accessible.

We all get blocked, and there seems to be no common cause. What we do when this happens varies from individual to individual. Some artists take a break and just let ideas come when they will. Others double down on what they are doing and hope to force a new idea to appear. (This seldom works.) Others do creativity exercises or use various other methods to stimulate creativity. But there is one source of new ideas that a number of us fail to consider, and that is looking in the basement.

All of us have a metaphorical basement where we put the ideas that we did not use for projects. This is done because the idea wasn’t this enough or that enough or was too this or too that. It is telling that we actually keep those ideas: writers keep notebooks full of failed, incomplete, or undeveloped ideas; painters and sculptors keep sketch books full of drawings that never became completed art works; photographers have thousands of photographs that did not make the “final cut” to become published images. The suggestion here is that we go through those files of unrealized artifacts, not looking for anything special, but just scanning for ideas.

We might find that there are things there that did not resonate when we consigned them to the basement, but do now. After all, we are not the same people who made those editing decisions so long ago. We have matured and changed because of all of the things that have happened to us. The idea just sat there in the basement, much in the same form as when we put it there. It may mean something completely different to us now. More importantly, it may contain an idea that the now-us feels is worthy of development. We didn’t remember it, of course, because once we threw it into the basement, we went forward with new ideas and concepts which we developed. Now that idea begs to be developed; so we take it out of the basement, examine it, and discover that it does indeed deserve development.

There is no way to guess how many such ideas or images we may have in the basement, but it is likely that there are many. Of course, we will rediscover some that really belong in the basement because all this time later they still no longer have merit. Thats okay, because many others can be manipulated and massaged into artifacts of which we could be proud.

It is just a matter of sorting through those items we have thrown into the basement over the years. It may well be that we find nothing that can be salvaged for a workable artifact, but we might get an idea from some of the things we encounter and so can move forward and using those ideas to create something completely new.

Regardless, the goal has been achieved: we are no longer blocked, and are back on track developing an idea into art. And we have become reacquainted with the contents of our basement. Some of those contents may well lead to our best work. At the very least, a trip to the basement will remind of who we used to be as an artist, and that is worth the time spent. So next time you get stuck, take a look in the basement; there’s no telling what you may discover.

Sometimes, things get so bad that we feel like we need to hide—or, at the very least find a way to tune out the chaos surrounding our lives. For many of us, that time is now. Unfortunately, social media has become not only ubiquitous, but political, so the place that we used to go when things got a little too much to bear to see a cute cat or two now has the latest political outrage mixed in with the cute cats, of which there seem to be fewer. I would suggest that one of the places we might consider as an alternative for our time is making art.

When we make art, it has a tendency to absorb all our concentration, leaving little to spend on the current political or economic situation. No, it doesn’t help the situation to turn to art, but it does help the individual in that we can spend an hour or two (or more) making art and have some mental relief tor that hour or two. If we are sufficiently involved in making our art, we may even go into flow, which will remove us from the world of reality even further. The result is that we will be more refreshed than if we had had a nap. And it doesn’t matter which art it is; they all work in much the same way in terms of what our brains are doing. It makes a great escape.

“But what if I don’t make art?” you ask. In that case, you might consider making some. Always wanted to learn to play the saxophone? Now is an excellent time to learn. And the teacher will be appreciative because in the time it takes to teach you, they won’t have to worry about the world either. And, of course, the same logic applies to any of the other arts: now is a great time to take one up. “But I don’t have any talent,” you say. Perhaps not, but perhaps you have talent that you have never recognized. The best way to find out whether or not you are talented is to give it a try. You may discover that you have talent that you didn’t realize. Even if you don’t, the time spent involving yourself with an art is never wasted. You may find that it fits you perfectly, even though you never expect to sell a painting.

And what if you don’t make art and you try an art, but do not find it satisfying. In that case, you can spend some time enjoying art. You can read a book; it doesn’t matter whether it’s a book of poetry or a detective novel. It will take you out of yourself, and give you some time away from the world situation. You can also spend time looking at paintings and sculptures or attending plays, or simply watching movies. All of those things can take you away from yourself and provide you with much-needed relief from the worries that we are all facing.

Regardless of how we have interacted with the arts previously, we can, if we will, find relief from the constant pressure of today’s world one way or another in the arts. For our own sanity, it’s time we turned to the arts.

There is no question that AI can produce some very interesting imagery. But then there are all sorts of questions to reckon with: who really owns the image? Can it be copyrighted? Is it art? Can it ever be art?

One of those questions used to be easy to answer: AI-produced art could not be copyrighted in the United States because AI-produced work lacked “human authorship. This rule was relaxed, however, with the Copyright Office’s decision on the comic book Zarya of the Dawn by Kris Kashtanova. In this case, the Copyright Office granted a copyright for the whole book, but not for the individual images, “claiming that these images were not sufficiently produced by the artist.” So what was originally a black and white decision now has some wiggle room, the determinant being “the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and ‘actually formed’ the traditional elements of authorship.” So the answer to this question is not so easy any more. Right now the answer is subjective—and determined by the copyright office.

This line of thinking also impacts ownership. Most of the people I have encountered who work in the world of AI visuals are very forthcoming about their prompts, sharing them freely with virtually anyone who comes along. This is not as unselfish as it seems, since two persons submitting the same prompt to the same AI engine will likely produce two different images, although those images are likely to have distinct similarities. So while one can own the prompt, having created it from nothing, the resultant image was, in fact, created by machine intelligence, not a human.

However, what we are learning as we explore AI-generated imagery is that as the AI engine is improved, the likelihood of getting exactly the image that one wants is also improved. We are standing at the edge of a world where we will be able to describe exactly what we want the AI to create, and the AI will do it—the same way every time. We already know that changing one word of a prompt can change an entire image, so it is just a matter of time until the AI learns a sufficient vocabulary that will allow it to produce exactly what the petitioner asked for—every time, and changing one word will produce the same different image every time. When that happens, ownership and authorship will belong to the person who created the prompt.

And once that happens, AI-produced images will be copyrightable, and the skill and artistry will be in the ability of the prompt-writer, who will then become the author of the work.

And the last questions, is it art, or can it be art will then be able to be answered. When a human can actually control what the output of the AI engine is, the result can, of course, be art just artifacts produced by other technologies are considered art. Until then, AI will be able to produce some amazing imagery, as it already does, but it is unlikely that we will be able to call it art until we can establish “human authorship.” We’re not there yet, but as the technology improves and our skill in communicating with AI engines also improves, our chances of getting there are equally improved.

Creativity is defined as “the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others,” and everybody has some of that. What everybody does not have is the need to create. If we have the need to create, the question becomes a different on altogether: how do we express this need?

Having the need to create does not mean that we must find ourselves a career in fine art, although that is one choice. It does not mean that we find a career in the arts at all; again that is a choice. And it turns out that if one works in the arts, creativity often comes into play, so it is easier to express our need in that way. But it is not necessary. Creativity may be expressed in nearly any human endeavor; it’s just easier in some than in others.

The difficulty in saying anything intelligent about the need to create is that it expresses itself differently in each individual. Some people need to create virtually all the time; they seem to be driven to create rather than simply have a need. At the other end of the spectrum are those individuals who need to create, but only sporadically. And then, of course, there are individuals who fall everywhere on that spectrum. There are even individuals who experience the need to create differently at different times in their lives: during certain periods, they have a great need and must be creating all the time; then at other times they seem to have hardly any need at all.

About the only thing we can say that is reliably true is that the need is a real thing and that it impacts each individual differently. The other thing that can be said is that sooner or later those of us who have the need to create will feel the urge to make something that has not been before. It might be a full-length play, a poem, a novel, a photograph, a painting, a simple sketch, a music composition, or just a doodle in the margin of a manuscript we are working on. Something. And it may not feel important, but it will feel necessary. The point is that that which is created can be as different as the level of need for each individual. It may demand constant performance and public acclaim for one person and only be the need to write an AI prompt for another.

And it may happen that that which satisfies the need at one stage of a person’s life will not suffice at another stage, so that person may have to alter the way they express the need to achieve satisfaction. We also may discover that satisfaction of the need to create may be helped along by creating the proper environment, which may include the right background music or the correct physical environment. We may find that working at a certain time of day or certain days in the week matter so far as our creative need is concerned. We may find that something as removed as the weather has an impact.

It’s easy to see that each of us has a lot to learn about our individual needs to create. The best that we can do is experiment to discover the best way to satisfy this need. That said, the best advice I can offer is that if you have the need, do whatever you have to do to indulge it.

Let’s face it: some of us are addicted to social media; whenever nothing else is demanding our attention, we scroll one of the many social media available on our phones. While addiction to is anything is less than desirable, we would do well to consider whether we are addicted to actually scrolling social media, or the way that what we encounter makes us feel. The latter causes us to shape our social media bubble; many of us have learned how to tell the algorithm exactly what we want to see, what sorts of material we want to interact with, and what we don’t want to see or interact with.

We begin out of curiosity, trying to discover what this or that platform has to offer, but too soon we find that we keep going back to certain platforms because they feed us exactly what we need. And our time online increases until it is consuming a significant part of our days and nights. We tell ourselves that we are scrolling because we want to gather some sort of information, but the fact is that it has become a habit. So we continue or increase our social media time. The reasons we provide are many, and perhaps are worth looking at.

Some of us are scrolling for news, or at least that’s what we tell ourselves. Those who scroll for news usually do so for one of two reasons: the first is information. We have come to believe that legacy media is censoring news, so we believe that we will get better news from various pundits on social platforms. If we choose wisely, we will have a good news feed; if we choose poorly, all we will receive is propaganda from whatever side of the political spectrum we favor.

The second reason for scrolling for news is the infamous “doom scrolling.” If we fall into this category, we are not looking for information, but rather we are scrolling to find items that do one of four things, none of which is information-seeking. We doom scroll to stoke our rage, to support our paranoia, to support a mood—which is usually associated with depression or lack of agency, or to support a particular, usually political, belief system. And there is plenty on a variety of platforms that will support nearly any sort of feeling we care to feed.

Some of us scroll the internet for religious reasons. Either we are trying to reinforce a belief system or reinforce a doubt system. Either way, we will find support on the internet. If we are trying to find positive reinforcement, we can be comforted by wise words and positive strokes that are posted every day. If we are looking for negative reinforcement, there is plenty of that as well. All we have to do is tweak the algorithm, and we have all the evidence we need to believe whatever we want to believe.

We may be scrolling to see whats going on in the arts. This sort of scrolling seems to take two forms: one is to see what our peers are dong and the other is to surround ourselves with the art of others—to make an oasis in the midst of an unfriendly world

A number of us develop a social media presence, usually spread over several platforms, to sell. We sell out art, or our ideas, or any number of other things that allow us to monetize our time online, and thus justify what we are doing. Some of us are not selling for money, but for clicks—trying to develop our following so that we are in a position to monetize our online presence when the time comes. Social media sales not only allows us to get the product out to whoever is reading our posts and thus improve our market share, but also allows us to see what the competition is doing.

Some of us, particularly those of us who feel increasingly isolated, are using social media to make purely social contacts. It gives us a way to find someone to talk to.

And still others of us are simply looking for entertainment. Although we soon find that the looking becomes the obsession rather than the finding. And then there are kittens. They’re cute and safe and generate warm feelings that we may need from time to time, so some of us are looking for the next cute kitten.

Whatever we are looking for, we need to be aware of is that whatever we’re getting out of social media is feeding some sort of need—which is usually for more of the same. So by going back again and again, we can kick up the feeling that we get from our addiction. The real question is whether this is healthy or not. Most psychologists would tell us that no addiction is healthy, and that maybe we should consider breaking our social media habit and considering other activities. It’s not easy, but it’s doable, and there are a number of other things, both productive and not, on which we could better spend our time.

This post was supposed to have been on a entirely different topic. Then, two evenings ago, I attended the talk-back for a play that I had just watched. The topic of the talk-back was the technical aspects of the show, with panelists including the designers for the set, lights, costumes, makeup, and sound as well as the director. Much of the discussion was what was expected: meetings, getting everyone on the same page, discussions of the show’s content and meaning, discovering how this or that will look or work and if that choice is adopted, how it will it impact the other areas. Even though theatre is a collaboration of all the artists and technicians involved, it is planned. Designers make drawings and spreadsheets and all sorts of other ancillary documents of their work to concretize what they are expecting to produce, so that other artists can make choices accordingly. This does leave a little room for flexibility, but generally after the point of drawings, only minor changes are made.

Theatre is not the only planned art. Also thoroughly planned are choreography and music. Again, during development of the piece, experiments are made, but then the results of those experiments are set down in hard documentation. And again, that leaves a little room for interpretation, but very little. Other arts may involve a little planning or a lot, depending on the artist and the approach they have to the work.

In any case, it was surprising to hear that the set designer and the director, once the basic shape and concept of the set has been agreed to, again started experimenting with the “look” of the set, and continued experimenting until the week of the show, when they finally tried something that they both liked. Other designers followed this experimentation closely, lest one of the changes they made alter the look of their own work. The lighting designer was particularly concerned, since what they were dealing with was primarily texture, which certainly impacts the look of the show because different textures react differently to lights. So the final touches on the light design were the last changes to be made before opening night. The result was exactly what the set needed; it fully supported the show.

So was the design team at fault because they did not plan out everything beforehand, or was the late experimentation justified? I dont know that there is an absolute answer to that question. Both the director and designer in this case knew what effect they wanted in abstract terms, but it took the experimentation for them to discover exactly what that was. Should they have started earlier so there was not the last-minute frenzy surrounding their decisions? While I appreciate their dedication to create a more complete theatre experience, the answer has to be “yes.” But they know that.

All artists try to work in a state of flow if they possibly can. Sometimes this state can become so deep that the artists do not have conscious memory of what they are doing when they are working. It turns out that in theatre (as well as in music and dance) there are guardrails set up for the performers, whether they be the actual performers or support technicians, to aid them in keeping their work all aimed at the same goal. Having the work planned supports those guardrails. However, having the work too planned can also work against the success of the project. If the planning is too rigid, then what might have been a “happy accident,” (a phrase often attributed to the painter Bob Ross) becomes a hindrance. But—many artists, performing and otherwise, can attest to the contribution happy accidents make to a project, so it is probably best to minimize surprises rather than try to eliminate them. So if all the pre-planning is done, it frees performers and technicians from guessing where the guardrails are. If they know, they can feel safe exploring their own flow of creativity within the outlined framework.

This post is an example of the happy accident. As noted early on, this post was supposed to be about a completely different topic (to be explored in a later post), but this incident caused me to think about the connection between planning and the creation of art, and how much planning impacts the final project. Even with a great deal of planning, there has to be some allowance for the discoveries artists make when in flow, allowing them to create that final artistic experience. My feeling is that this topic is considerably larger than this post, so other examination of the issue may be forthcoming.

Many people regard artists as “special” and forget that we are also people. That is to say that artists, like everybody else, get bored, get lazy, produce repetitive work, have blocks, lose interest, get the doldrums, and find themselves subject to all of the same negative influences that afflict everybody else. In the artist’s case, however, this can interfere not only with productivity, but with creativity as well.

What are we to do in such a situation? The answer—or at least one answer—may not initially seem intuitive: do something new. And it doesn’t have to relate to what we normally do. Doing something new causes the brain, intuition, talent, and creativity to look in different directions and has the effect of rejuvenating all of those things that made us artists in the first place. Sometimes, it can even affect existing skills and aspirations.

For example, a friend of mine, a retired photographer, just recently started playing with AI imagery. He did it on a whim, but soon discovered a whole new world that was akin to the photography that he was familiar with but had the additional benefit of being something entirely new and different. Soon he had joined a Facebook users’ group dedicated to the software he was using. “Some of what AI has to offer is very satisfying, but some of it is very frustrating,” he said. “It can also be very frustrating trying to create images using words. You have to figure which words in which order will get the response from the AI engine, and sometimes that can be daunting. It’s particularly tough, for example, to get it to compose images the way you want them.” But still he keeps trying. “I’ve had just enough success to keep me interested, and even the frustration is intriguing. I learn something new every day, some on some days, two things, and that keeps me interested as well. And there’s always an element of surprise, which keeps things interesting.”

Does it impact interest in photography at all? “Well, I have found that if I use a photograph I made as a seed, I can get a far more predictable result, which makes me want to look back through my library and see what images might be improved on. And I find that my overall creativity seems to have increased; I find myself thinking more about imagery and doing other creative things.”

The last statement is the important one. Not only has this person engaged in learning something new, which has value in and of itself, but his overall creativity has been given a boost, and that has all sorts of implications for his other artistic ventures, and perhaps for his life in general. Doing something new was a really good thing for this person.

Even though this is only one example, if you or someone, creative or not, is in the doldrums either artistically or personally, you or they may consider doing something new. It doesn’t have to be a creative something, although that is an extra benefit; and it doesn’t have to be big. It just has to be new. See if that doesn’t improve both your artistic and your personal outlook.

It’s worth a try.

Last month there were a couple of posts about discipline and creativity. Out of those rose an inevitable question: how do we stay focused when our minds are assaulted by a myriad of thoughts as soon as we try to clear them. This is a common problem for those who beginning to learn how to stay here and now and be mindful as they focus on their work. It is a condition known as “monkey mind,” which is “a Buddhist concept that describes a state of restlessness, capriciousness, and lack of control in one’s thoughts. It is a condition that plagues all who try to focus their minds or clear them of thought.

Rule 4 says that we should focus on achieving the goals for the session. That is not so difficult. What is difficult is maintaining that focus. As soon as we try to clear our minds to be here and now, we find that we are assaulted by monkey mind: idea after idea, many of which are not related to our goals for the session. The procedure for handling this situation sounds counter-intuitive at first, but it works. The procedure is to just keep our mind open—to “let it float”as it were. This will allow all ideas to try to intrude on our concentration. The trick is in how we handle the ideas that present themselves.

Since we never know what the universe has to offer, we never dismiss an idea outright. The more productive procedure is to examine each idea as it comes to us. If it has nothing in it that can contribute to our goals for the session, we let it go. On the other hand, if it has something that will, in fact, contribute to our goals, then we entertain that idea briefly, perhaps making a note about it. Then let it go and see what else comes, for there are certain to be other ideas vying for attention. For each, we handle it the same way. Eventually, the flow of ideas will slow, and we will be left with a mind that is focused on our goals without the competition of extraneous ideas. We can then consider the ideas that we noted earlier those ideas which contain something that will contribute to our goals.

Some of those ideas will require immediate action, in which case we should take whatever steps we need to, to implement that idea. Others are simply things that need to be considered before the project is completed. These we would do well to store so that we can consider them and act when the time comes.

What we find in applying this approach is a very focused, very controlled state of mind that, just like in a state of meditation, allows ideas to come and go and without disturbing our mind and focus. We remain in a relaxed, focused state of mind in the here and now, which is exactly the state we need to be in to achieve creative flow, which, of course, increases our capacity for creativity. All this by simply letting our mind float.

Artists are notoriously apolitical. For many that is a choice; for others it is just the result of living their art, which does not include politics. This is all well and good until the input of artists into a national election is really necessary. Now is such a time.

The excuses that artists give for avoiding politics are many: “Both parties are exactly the same, so it doesn’t make any difference.” “My vote is only one in millions, so it doesn’t matter whether I vote or not.” “I’m busy making art.” “I don’t have the time.” “I’m just not interested.” There are probably other excuses, but these are the main ones.

Unfortunately, this year is different. Unfortunately, this year the choice is not between two like parties. This year, according to John Harwood, longtime political journalist, writing for Zeteo, the stakes are much higher than usual. In fact, he says that “the stakes couldn’t be higher;” Harwood goes on to say that the choice this year is an existential one. That is not an exaggeration. This year, the excuse that both parties are the same, which has been valid at times in the past, is completely invalid. A brief visit to nearly any news outlet will confirm the differences between the parties’ approach to governing. This year, it matters. So we would do well to educate ourselves and decide which approach to governing we would like. One side has a history of supporting the arts, and has said it would continue to push for arts funding, through increases to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and by fostering small businesses, such as arts entrepreneurs and small gallery owners. The other party takes a diametrically opposing view. So this year voting might well affect our pocketbooks.

In addition to that being the case, the excuse that a single vote doesn’t matter no longer has merit. A number of elections have been won and lost by just a single vote, although, admittedly these were local elections. According to The Atlantic, each individual’s vote in a national election is not one in millions; rather it’s one in 7,928, and sometimes more significant than that. For example, the 2000 presidential was decided in Florida, with the successful candidate beating the loser by only 537 votes. When we see numbers like this, we come to realize that our vote is far more important than we originally thought.

We are all busy making our art; however, which political party is in power can have a direct bearing on how successful we might be or not be due to economic policies, tax structure, attitude toward free expression as well as approach to the climate crisis, social justice, and health policy. Even if the art we make is completely apolitical, we can discover that these things matter, all we have to do is read a little history and become aware of what is going on in other countries; we find that all these things matter a great deal and in a number of ways we haven’t considered. And voting takes so little time; many states make it even easier with universal voting by mail and/or same-day registration. Admittedly, it does take a little longer to properly educate ourselves, but not that much longer. We need to see whose policies will benefit us and vote for that party. If we want to protect ourselves in our chosen profession, we will make time to both educate ourselves and vote accordingly.

It is time to become interested—if for no other reason than to protect ourselves. We don’t have to become news junkies or spend a great deal of time on this, but it is in our own self-interest that we spend a minimal amount of time educating ourselves and then exercising our right. It’s for our own good. On Election Day, we need to go vote.