Dear Shubham,

I have been thinking about this one today. And although I am now at the end of my day and too tired to think or write coherently, I had a few things I wanted to say and a few comments I wanted to make…

‘Creativity’ is enabled by a series of ’steps’, each one giving rise to the next phase of development. Your example is ‘creativity’ in a microcosm.

New things are created on the foundations of older things: a great literary work could be said to have its foundation way back in the early formation (creation) of language; a great painter must acknowledge the role played by the ‘creations’ of earlier masters; a musical masterpiece owes elements of its ‘creation’ to music that has gone before.

Your story also highlights the role of destruction in ‘creation’. Your example basically began as a small act of ‘vandalism’ that became a launching pad for a series of ‘creative’ acts, yet creation is impermanent and the destructive nature of humans took over to destroy what had been ‘created’ in your elevator!

‘Creation’ can be looked at as a series of building up and tearing down; replacing old with new, yet at the same time retaining, building upon and learning from certain elements of the old.

Yet at the same time I am compelled to ask a couple of questions…

Are humans naturally ‘creative’ or is ‘creativity’ thrust on us by environment and circumstances?

Do we need to differentiate between the traditional ‘creations’ in the world of art and the type of ‘creation’/adaptations to our environment you talk about in your piece - is it all ‘creation’?

And finally; what is it in mankind that drives us to destroy the creations of others?

Sarah.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Zain Zambia

Sarah,

Well said…
1. Are humans naturally ‘creative’ or is ‘creativity’ thrust on us by environment and circumstances?
Both I shall say. Without creativity life shall be too stale. If you had to take life as it is without any chance of contributing, the zeal for curiosity will disappear. It will be like a television show where you are not allowed to modify the environment in any way. Participating assures that we are alive and also lets us contribute towards another possibility. So I shall say not only all humans, but all living beings are naturally creative. Instance, Earthworms recycling earth, is very creative indeed. Though it might not be voluntary in our time frame, but the earthworm facilitated the process by being a part of the chain.
When times are sanguine, we are creative by choice. India now is coming up with brilliant shades in creativity with Entrepreneurs, Social Workers, modicums that might not have been possible a few years back. Prosperity has made it possible. However, that doesn’t mean Iraq doesn’t have such examples. Kids selling cigarettes and porn to troops is a need identified. Creativity could be anything that where I can ‘pull up a few unrelated resources together give it a new face. A painting, a business opportunity…anything.’ Life is fair to almost every living thing, except ofcourse those who say that life has been unfair.

2. Do we need to differentiate between the traditional ‘creations’ in the world of art and the type of ‘creation’/adaptations to our environment you talk about in your piece - is it all ‘creation’?
There are two versions in creativity. The former one is more evolved, carved to our senses. The latter one might be crass or raw, more for utility. Some people have evolved in observing and understanding what appeals him the most and therefore undertakes a course to modify the subject. Over the years his practice brings results that are appealing not only to him, but others as well. We can say his journey is like the ‘journey of language’, becoming more expressive everyday.
In contrast, people who are not in traditional stream of arts are equally creative, but th effort is erratic. They consider their contribution a piece of art, while the rest of the world doesn’t take notice. The effort in itself might not have the intentions to appeal to the rest of the world, it might be a very personal gratification. It is like a person surviving on this planet alone…what kind of an artist will he make if his work of art didn’t require any approval?

3. And finally; what is it in mankind that drives us to destroy the creations of others?
A short term gratification, a possibility.
a. For instance a trader might see an opportunity in revealing to the Nazis where some of the Jews are hiding and therefore facilitate in the destruction of life.
b. Religious pagans see an opportunity in defaming and defiling M.F. Hussain’s (a very famous painter’s) works. The opportunity is itself some creative/destructive efforts arising out of another creative/destructive work. So I can’t agree more when you say,
‘New things are created on the foundations of older things: a great literary work could be said to have its foundation way back in the early formation (creation) of language; a great painter must acknowledge the role played by the ‘creations’ of earlier masters; a musical masterpiece owes elements of its ‘creation’ to music that has gone before.’
c. Iraq was a possibility seen by some people in power in United States. The key unrelated resources were: Oil, Control, Alien Territory. Every time a few distant parameters are coming together, it’s a new possibility.
d. Every lion in Africa and tiger in India reeks with the possibility of being poached. This time the poachers are being destructive for the world, but creative for themselves when they dodge the police, security and successfully poach the species.

CONCLUDING, EFFORTS THAT FOLLOW A POSSIBILITY IS LABELED ‘CREATIVE’ WHEN IT’S IN SYNC WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, IT’S DESTRUCTIVE WHEN IT ISN’T. IN BOTH THE CASES HOWEVER A CREATIVE MIND IS AT WORK.