The other day, I was watching the Charlie Rose Show online. It was an interview between Richard Serra, Eric Kandel, Oliver Sacks, Chuck Close and Ann Temkin .They were talking about creativity and where it comes from. As I was watching the interview, I hear Chuck Close say how he has always said that "inspiration is for amateurs," and that "the rest of us just get up and get to work." He proceeds to say that you can't just sit around and wait for an idea light bulb to light up because it may never happen. The point he was trying to get across was that one has to constantly work in order to excel in their craft.
While Chuck made a good point about the importance of working, I think he's only looking at a part of the picture- in terms of his views on inspiration. For to levy off inspiration as a "bolt of lightning" that randomly strikes you in the head, traps us in thinking about inspiration as being an unreliable source of creativity. Similarly to Chuck Close, I too have something that I have been saying for some time now: That there is a reason why trap and part are spelled with the same letters; that when you only see part of what something is, without a) seeing what it's connected to and b) how and why it's fits into the larger model of what it's connected to, your left unable to ever assess it for what it is; stifling you from seeing the whole picture.
This is what has happened with the word inspiration. In our society inspiration has been singled out as being a mere spark, a moment, used for firing up the creative process. This may be one of the reasons why quotes are so popular in our culture. They represent "moments" of honestly, in which a thought or insight lightning bolts out of a persons' mouth; shedding light on a situation. These "moments" are accredited as being hallmarks in the creation of new products, philosophies, and practices as well as future ideas and innovations. Yet the problem about the use of quotes lies in their tendency to be used either out of the context of their original meaning, or used in a way that fails to convey the full story. So when a reporter takes down a quote and puts it in an article- as I toke down the quote I heard from that Charlie Rose interview- it can lose it's true meaning if the person seeing the quote, and/or the person taking the quote down, does not understand the process that lead to the quote being said.
The same idea applies to inspiration. For I have come to understand inspiration as a "quote" from a larger, ongoing, inner conversation. Within this conversation lies a continuous stream of wisdom, resourcefulness, and brilliance, which rests upon the essence of who we are, and what we are collectively connected to as human beings. However, due to the many indulged upon distractions, chosen obligations, and inner conflicts that play out in our lives, this inner conversation becomes too low in volume to be heard consistently(if it's even heard at all). It's only when we really listen closely, that we catch quotes or glimpses of this constant conversation happening; which we misguidedly label as only being an "inspiration"- sectioned off from the inner conversation that houses it.
My point in mentioning all this is to offer an alternative as to what we perceive to be inspiration; to illuminate another option for creating great works; to point out an accessible power within us ,to create great works, if we only take the time to stop and listen to the ongoing conversation that is happening within us. For I believe, that allowing inspiration to be to both seen and present in the whole inner conversation, is a key to the creativity, spirituality, and the all-around vitally of our existence here on earth. For to truly live out our hearts' visions of life, we must begin living it within first.
The Movement Continues...
No comments:
Post a Comment