There’s the seemingly conflicting concept that limitations boost creativity. Plenty of sources recommend this. To give a few:
When taken in that context, creativity can be seen
as the ability to explore all the possibilities of I situation. I think this definition
is a better example of my own type of creativity. If something it too
open-ended, I have the tendency to be indecisive. Think of it this way: if
people are allowed to, they will go with what it familiar. Imposing
restrictions pushed them out of their comfort zone and forces then to do
something unfamiliar.
Possibly
creativity is instead the ability to actively seek out inspiration, and to
implement self-limitations. After all, inspiration works much better as an
active process than a passive one. This might explain why creative people can seemingly
be better at coming up with ideas from nothing; they’re actually just better at
looking for them, and seeing potential is things that others wouldn’t.
Talent
generally refers to an innate ability or aptitude for something. It is often
used interchangeably with skill, but talent really doesn’t say anything about
someone’s ability to do something, only their potential. In terms of visual
art, someone who is talented my find it easier to learn certain things, or they
may automatically be able to do something that others have to learn.
Talent
only goes so far, though. For instance, someone who has an eye for composition
may be able to arrange elements in a scene without having to know why they look
best where they do, but unless they learn the technical aspects behind what
they’re doing they might never get any better. At the same time, someone without
a natural eye for composition may have to learn what looks best, but through
actively trying to understand composition, gain a much deeper understanding of
the subject, one that isn’t just based on whether something feels right.
Given
how broad the definition of creativity is, it’s difficult to say what isn’t
creative. Programming might not typically be thought of as something artistic,
but it shares many of the same creative properties, such as thinking of new
ways to achieve tasks.
Who is more creative
– the person coming up with an idea, or the people who expand on it? Within video
game art, in very simplified terms, you could see the art directors as the one
who sets limitations, and the artists who defer to them as the ones exploring the
possibilities. They are all creative roles, even if they show different types
of creativity. Similarly, the initial concept of a game may seem like the big
creative factor, with artists just churning out content that fit within a set
parameter with no input it what it looks like, but unless what they are
producing has been rigorously predefined, then any input they have on the final
product could be considered creative.
Games tend to be
defined by large ideas, but more often than not it is the entire scope of them
that defines the experience.
For an example of
creativity, take Portal. The idea was one that had not really been explored, at
least not as a large game, and was created within the restrictions of a
first-person shooter engine. In turn, the levels and puzzles in the game were
created within the abilities of the in-game world.
No comments:
Post a Comment