There is no right or wrong way of approaching any creative discipline. What can be observed, from a fairly objective standpoint, is the creator’s approach, and how their background and experiences will have a direct effect on the creative result. This approach does not need to be strictly categorized, but it can be useful to think of some works as more rational, and others as more spontaneous. The rational, or academic, tends to be more careful and educated. The visceral, on the other hand, comes from a deeply intuitive instinct that is meant to be imperfect and emotional. Seemingly polar opposites, is it possible for both approaches to coexist?
The academic mind abides by a series of strict rules. It is creative, meaning it is human, but it implies a deep thought process that is often methodical. The creative decisions are well thought of and justified by previous findings or existing knowledge. In the architectural field, the work of Rafael Moneo reflects an academic understanding of historical context, and a very specific attention to detail that ensures the justification of most major design choices. As an educator himself, it is clear that his academic approach to design is a knowledgeable one, where the building is able to tell the story of its past, or function. Looking back at the 19th century, the work of architect and educator Jean Nicholas Louis Durand reflects a deep regard for symmetry and the precise use of classical forms following predetermined, "logical" grids. Musically, the mathematical compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach are coded with intricate symmetries, patterns and structures of numerical terms (even hinting at the golden ratio), which make for some interestingly complex, yet virtuosistic, listening experiences.
The visceral comes from within; a creative instinct that seems to take over without regarding formal structure or reason. The spontaneity of the visceral is fascinating, and personally, I believe it is the driving force behind all forms of art. That which should not, or simply cannot be justified, but just is, is what reflects a true, unbound imagination that is free of constraints. Frank Gehry’s work, infamously famous or famously infamous, is purely improvisational. Hailing from the art world, his designs are habitable sculptures that simply rest atop any given site, bearing his known, metallic trademark. Likewise, this improvisation can be paralleled to jazz standards, where a musician improvises over an existing structure, adding a spontaneous feel that is born from intuition. The definition of visceral, however, is not completely synonymous to the spontaneous; but rather, to the emotional. Towards the end of the 18th century, the Romanticist Movement sought this form of expression, where the search for emotional intensity became the source of evocatively visual, literary or musical aesthetics.
This discussion brings about the following conflict: should creation always be justified, or should it always result from the pleasures of imagination? The academic and the visceral, oppositions we generally think of as linear thinking and intuition or the left brain and right brain, are often perceived as polar opposites, when really, they’re simply personal ways of approaching any creative endeavor. If these mindsets are personal and vary from creator to creator, then it’s certainly possible for that fine line between both approaches to dissolve, as no one is entirely exclusive to one or the other: for some, the blend between rational and emotional is more obvious. For example, Jørn Utzon’s sketches are the perfect fusion of rationality and spontaneity, while the genre of math rock, bound by complex rhythmic patterns, celebrates melodic freedom. As such, Moneo had to have had a creative impulse, in the same way that Frank Gehry needed at least a minor formal consideration. The academic and artistic mindsets can be opposing, but more often than not, they’re constantly overlapping.
Comments