Am I Creative.. Rather, Who is?

I have always had a problem with creativity. Especially when I have tried.

Wiki's definition for creativity goes like this :

"Creativity is the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality"

Fair enough!! But everyone has ideas. Some big, some small and mostly uninspiring. But there are a select few, which make the small guy in the back of your head go "Now, why couldn't you think of that. :( " . Well, not the emoticon, but anyway. Simple and brilliant, some of these ideas leave me wagging my tongue for more. Of course, that is pretty rare :) .

Also who is the creative guy? The guy who presents this idea to you? Or the guy from whom he copied this. And an idea, refers to any sort of work of art, some smart lines, anything innovative.

I have always noticed double standards when it comes to judging if somebody is creative. People are mostly opinionated and biased when it comes to such choices; A popular example being that of musicians like Harris Jayaraj or Pritam. Few websites even list the songs which have been lift-offs. Well, have to agree that lots of these tunes do sound similar. But they also do sound good. The chances of me hearing the original tune was very minimal anyway. So why should I or anyone apart from the original composer cringe. Both make (or copy/derive inspiration) from good music and that is to be appreciated. What goes to say that Rahman hasn't heard something similar to what he composes before (My ears are shut tight, don't bother booing :P. No one shall doubt the Mozart of Madras, for he is the pride of the country. It doesn't matter whether he won the Oscars for one of his worst albums.) So despite making good music which most of us hum, Pritam and Harris Jayaraj will forever be bundled with the tag of plagiarism and will never be able to reach the levels of Rahman. Just because they had good ears for music, just because they thought they could bring such music to the masses "without people noticing". Like always, there are two sides to the story. While I want such musicians to be appreciated, the "without people noticing" does irk me. An attempt to take credit for something thats not entirely your own is downright cheap. As long as you don't get caught, even entire copies aren't going to matter. One mistake and people will doubt you for the rest of you life. I am all for "inspired" stuff, be it movies, music and the rest. Just, Disguise it better.

An alternative is to accept that it has been "inspired". Of course, it will then be subject to either copyright litigations or criticism ,depending on whether it is a copy and not an inspiration. An upcoming hindi movie "We are Family" is being promoted as a remake of the original Hollywood movie.

Another thought about creativity which keeps brewing in my head is regarding skill. Especially when it comes to painting. You can see the two "Mona Lisa" above. Can you tell which one is the original. Obviously, both have been painted beautifully and by painters with great skill. But the fake painting is of no value. If the original is valued highly just for the signature of Da Vinci, it is fair. But as a work of art, I don't notice any difference between the two. So the skill that goes behind the fake Mona Lisa is worthless? In case of digital art, It is just a case of Ctrl+X,Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.Hardly any skill needed. But otherwise, some credit should be given to the imposter.

Search Konrad Kujau for some interesting info on one such imposter :) ..

Movies and advertisements!! Yet another creative stream. Yet another hive for "inspired work". Especially Indian cinema. The record breaking blockbuster, 3 Idiots, a movie I didn't appreciate though most people did. Firstly, it is openly inspired from an awesome book by Chetan Bhagat. The film producers bought the rights from the author to adapt the book into a movie. However the story isn't credited to him. When Bhagat came out and mentioned this, the film producers ticked him of as publicity hungry. There must have been some sort of settlement later as no noise was heard later. Secondly, the movie is nowhere as good as the book. Aamir Khan as a college student just doesn't cut it. IMHO the film is decent, but not worthy of the hype and mass adulation. And those film guys aren't as creative as you think. Remember a scene like this. Unlike the poor musicians above, no website seems to list such aberrations in the movies, especially the popular ones. So all those people who criticize Harris Jayaraj/Pritam ( I know lots of them).. What have you to say about 3 idiots??

Photography is another stream I have recently taken some interest in. I am in a dilemma regarding Photoshop. If I am to be a good photographer, am I allowed to use Photoshop. After all it is a method to manipulate images. A good user of Photoshop should be easily able to manipulate his ordinary images into something spectacular. Both a good photographer and the image manipulator (not to be read in a negative tone) are being creative because both are bringing their vision onto the picture. So whats the difference. Well, it all boils down to whether someone's small guy in the back of their head goes "Why didn't you think of that first" :) . When I achieve something like that, I shall consider myself to be creative.

PS: Despite trying and trying and trying a lot, I have come to realize that I ain't creative, at least in the conventional sense. I rather modify stuff rather than create my own (which i agree is the tough part). I intend to appreciate things which I like whether they are original or copies. I hope everyone does too.