You've made a really pertinent point about Emily Dickinson's creative genius starkly contrasting to her breadth, or lack thereof, of experience, indeed I often ponder whether experience is a necessary precursor to creative endeavours. I'd like to add cognitive type into the mix here. I think, albeit this is a tentative hypothesis, that visceral experience is a necessary prerequisite for some but not necessarily so for other cognitive types; at least when we look at this on a spectrum. The likes of INFPs whose cognition is coloured by their FiSi gateway always perceive reality, irrespective of how mundane (ok so this is subjective) with a great level of depth and emotional nuance that lends itself well to creative endeavours. FiSi whilst it doesn't manifest solely as thinking in pictures, has a strong pictorial element thus capturing experience in its rawest most graphic form. Although I'm not an INFP I have adept usage of FiSi as a dip function leading, at times, to fantastical fictional landscapes with emotionally and psychologically complex characters. I think of GRR Martin here, an INFP, who by all accounts has led a relatively reclusive life but has still managed to produce literary master pieces. In contrast, I hypothesise that for many Se dominant types, breadth of experience is a necessary precursor to creative endeavours as they seek to condense & encapsulate all of that experiential wisdom into nuggets of Ni...their end goal. I wander if AI will be able to artificially utilise cognitive preferences to produce art, music and so forth that fully encapsulates our eclectic wiring. Coming back to Emily Dickinson, I don't know much about her childhood, but was it replete with trauma, sociopolitical upheaval and so forth in that she had at least something akin to enriched life experiences to inform her artistic endeavours? Of course epigenetic factors change both or genome & influence our experience...they are bidirectional...trauma for example can alter our neurochemistry and effect the expression of certain genes and subsequently affect the genes we pass on to our children...As you say, it's far from a dichotomous state of affairs. I work in an area that actually isn't replete with innovative ideas giving rise to stagnation however, in part owing to my cognitive type, this gives me the drive to synthesis abstract concepts and come up with something completely novel. Sometimes simply asking the right questions as opposed to covering old ground can lead to new innovative insights. I wander if AI will ever employ 'enough' divergent thinking to ask the right questions in the first place. Creativity, to some extent, lies in challenging deep seated premises that have went untested for generations, perhaps even hundreds of years. In todays consumerist laden society I fear that as it has in part given rise to a significant drop in our attention span, those who do still possess the aptitude for creativity will never stick to something long enough to see it actualised...TikTok etc do us no favours. Yes I'm all for indulgent experiences in all their sensual guises but do we really appreciate such experiences if we're bombarded with them in a diluted format day in, day out? I've lived on both sides of the tight rope...overly indulgent sensory seeking whilst conversely getting into flow states where I'm that hyper fixated on what I'm creating, it's like I'm in a trance. Maybe it does come down to cognitive type to a degree albeit isn't the whole story.
I think more and more "ordinary" people are realising their potential as artists everyday, in all kinds of ways so I don't think we need to worry too much about becoming a creation-less society. Humans are the masters of creation, robots are just slaves to it.
No actual art, in my opinion, can be replaced by something created in AI way. It’s fun, yes, but doesn’t require much of thought process and the process of creating itself, nor it really needs an actual skillset, except, perhaps, when it comes to the idea itself. I think, over the time people will get used to this, however, I think, that eventually pieces actually created by someone from the scratch might be valued higher than the AI ones since the latter ones are so easy to make and are so accessible to anyone. In a while we might even have people trying to recognize, what’s with the heart in it and what’s just a click. Everyone can click these days, not everyone can build from the scratch. And, at the end of the day… this all can go two ways: one where we’re diving deeper into the digital surroundings, and the one, where the digital stops to exist. Guess, who are the ones surviving both storms..?
You've made a really pertinent point about Emily Dickinson's creative genius starkly contrasting to her breadth, or lack thereof, of experience, indeed I often ponder whether experience is a necessary precursor to creative endeavours. I'd like to add cognitive type into the mix here. I think, albeit this is a tentative hypothesis, that visceral experience is a necessary prerequisite for some but not necessarily so for other cognitive types; at least when we look at this on a spectrum. The likes of INFPs whose cognition is coloured by their FiSi gateway always perceive reality, irrespective of how mundane (ok so this is subjective) with a great level of depth and emotional nuance that lends itself well to creative endeavours. FiSi whilst it doesn't manifest solely as thinking in pictures, has a strong pictorial element thus capturing experience in its rawest most graphic form. Although I'm not an INFP I have adept usage of FiSi as a dip function leading, at times, to fantastical fictional landscapes with emotionally and psychologically complex characters. I think of GRR Martin here, an INFP, who by all accounts has led a relatively reclusive life but has still managed to produce literary master pieces. In contrast, I hypothesise that for many Se dominant types, breadth of experience is a necessary precursor to creative endeavours as they seek to condense & encapsulate all of that experiential wisdom into nuggets of Ni...their end goal. I wander if AI will be able to artificially utilise cognitive preferences to produce art, music and so forth that fully encapsulates our eclectic wiring. Coming back to Emily Dickinson, I don't know much about her childhood, but was it replete with trauma, sociopolitical upheaval and so forth in that she had at least something akin to enriched life experiences to inform her artistic endeavours? Of course epigenetic factors change both or genome & influence our experience...they are bidirectional...trauma for example can alter our neurochemistry and effect the expression of certain genes and subsequently affect the genes we pass on to our children...As you say, it's far from a dichotomous state of affairs. I work in an area that actually isn't replete with innovative ideas giving rise to stagnation however, in part owing to my cognitive type, this gives me the drive to synthesis abstract concepts and come up with something completely novel. Sometimes simply asking the right questions as opposed to covering old ground can lead to new innovative insights. I wander if AI will ever employ 'enough' divergent thinking to ask the right questions in the first place. Creativity, to some extent, lies in challenging deep seated premises that have went untested for generations, perhaps even hundreds of years. In todays consumerist laden society I fear that as it has in part given rise to a significant drop in our attention span, those who do still possess the aptitude for creativity will never stick to something long enough to see it actualised...TikTok etc do us no favours. Yes I'm all for indulgent experiences in all their sensual guises but do we really appreciate such experiences if we're bombarded with them in a diluted format day in, day out? I've lived on both sides of the tight rope...overly indulgent sensory seeking whilst conversely getting into flow states where I'm that hyper fixated on what I'm creating, it's like I'm in a trance. Maybe it does come down to cognitive type to a degree albeit isn't the whole story.
I think more and more "ordinary" people are realising their potential as artists everyday, in all kinds of ways so I don't think we need to worry too much about becoming a creation-less society. Humans are the masters of creation, robots are just slaves to it.
No actual art, in my opinion, can be replaced by something created in AI way. It’s fun, yes, but doesn’t require much of thought process and the process of creating itself, nor it really needs an actual skillset, except, perhaps, when it comes to the idea itself. I think, over the time people will get used to this, however, I think, that eventually pieces actually created by someone from the scratch might be valued higher than the AI ones since the latter ones are so easy to make and are so accessible to anyone. In a while we might even have people trying to recognize, what’s with the heart in it and what’s just a click. Everyone can click these days, not everyone can build from the scratch. And, at the end of the day… this all can go two ways: one where we’re diving deeper into the digital surroundings, and the one, where the digital stops to exist. Guess, who are the ones surviving both storms..?