What is the final stage of creative work?
Creation is no longer the prerogative of highly trained experts. Society has become so natural that there is no need to write it down. The threshold has been lowered enough to allow you to try it as one of your hobbies, and as the boundaries of art disappear, even if you do not have to learn a technique, it is worthwhile if it is meaningful to you. (Market value is an entirely different matter.) Countless people are doing their work based on their experiences, thoughts, and senses. In the meantime, thanks to technology and capital, anyone can disclose their work to an unspecified audience. It is an era where presentations are possible without an audience. Thanks to this era, I can write and post too.
What kind of change has it brought us in a society where we can access published works like endlessly pouring products anytime, anywhere? Are people enjoying a culture that has become as rich as the number of practitioners and the reduced restrictions? Is poverty amid abundance just the hollow cry of sharp-minded people?
It is undoubtedly democratically right that anyone has an opportunity to develop their own work, and it is a meaningful achievement in terms of diversity. It is vital to create a society where amateurs can be provided with opportunities to demonstrate their abilities without discrimination. However, this cannot be construed as erasing professional and amateur boundaries. The society that can move to the position of an expert even tomorrow if one amateur demonstrates an expert’s ability is clearly different from a society that regards the abilities and achievements of experts as the same as those of amateurs.
Moreover, is it a correct society where people accept simple humming, strokes, and scribbling as the tastes of the majority, depending on who the subject of the act is? Can we really enjoy it? Is there any affection left there? If this is the future, creativity may disappear from the world. Or change the definition of creativity at least. If you are not keeping up with the times, there is nothing you can say anymore, but at least it is clear that the current definition is also not keeping up with the times, so should not you prepare a new word?
Even in the skill field in creation, as machines can replace it, absolute evaluation standards that anyone can convince are disappearing. If it became difficult to determine what ‘real’ art was and the group that established the standard had collapsed, it would have brought about some significant change, and it would have happened in a completely different aspect, but they still can decide which of the two works to give value to with the new standard. In fact, creators have become more likely to complete themselves under the shade of freedom of expression as the reference to the minimum standard or comparison has disappeared. It is no longer critical to figure out where you have taken root and where you are now in a world that moves every moment without a standard. Unfortunately, GPS cannot follow this location.
In fact, in the 20th century, the situation mentioned above was somewhat predictable. The cutting edge at the time was to break down and dismantle the techniques that had been passed down. There was a time when it was not limited to just one of the ways of expression; it was the future and the solution. Destroying the older generation’s values was the correct answer, and denial and deconstruction were other words for creation. Of course, it was an innovative and essential time in that it pioneered a new expressive area, but looking back now, I think it was a somewhat romantic and even optimistic idea. Looking back on history, there was a grammar used in that era regardless of the period. Of course, there were opposing opinions, disregard, and ridicule, but nonetheless, there was a unique language and established grammar that penetrated the times. However, deconstruction and freshness became grammar; this grammar fell into self-destruction that had to be deconstructed by itself. The precise language that existed in the past cannot be seen now.
Could it be because of the society where we can create and present without an audience? It doesn’t matter if all the practitioners focus on themselves and if they are content with it. Regardless of what you are focused on, isn’t it just a practitioner’s duty and basic attitude to work with immersion? At least, for the artists who found their language and established the grammar of the era and who still shone in that era, work must have been just a part of their daily life. Whether it’s a hobby, healing, or any personal purpose, if the purpose of practising is not to satisfy personal satisfaction, in the end, wouldn’t the completion of the work be about connecting a part of life with society? If you say that times have changed, needless to say anymore. Nevertheless, I still want to believe that connection with the community is essential and establishment in society is vital. The aforementioned is true of all fields, but creative works cannot be established alone without being separated from society.
Design also cannot be separated from society. The design needs to consider the user even more, and in the case of fashion design, the problem is more complicated with the ‘wearer’. It seems to be said every time, but clothes are not designed to be just seen with the eyes. Fashion design takes the ‘ideal body’ regardless of mannequin or person and considers where to cover and reveal and how to cut and connect fabrics in new shapes. But if it’s uncomfortable for the wearers and it’s hard to get along with them, I would like to say those are useless. A designer’s reputation and a brand’s name value are also essential and cannot be quickly built up, but in the end, the problem is clothes. The result of the designers’ fierce work is not the name but the clothes. Wouldn’t it be possible to connect design with society in a true sense by allowing people to find clothes rather than words?
Muyo Park, 朴無要
instagram@parkmuyo
