
To be creative, Chinese philosophy teaches us to abandon ‘originality’ - canada_random1
https://psyche.co/ideas/to-be-creative-chinese-philosophy-teaches-us-to-abandon-originality
======
hprotagonist
A very similar trend shows up in poetry fairly often across many cultures.

Adherence to a strict form, like a sonnet, breeds creativity because of the
constraint. (a little known fact is that e.e. cummings wrote more than a few
very good ones)

Much earlier in time, scops and skalds -- the epic oral poets of anglo-saxon
and norse cultures -- were renowned not so much for their ability to come up
with new things as such, but by how cunningly they could weave together stock
phrases and allusions to speak to the current moment.

Parallels to the midrashic traditions should be fairly obvious.

You see it in greek epic poetry too: the opening invocation of _The Odyssey_
ends with "tell the old story / for our modern times".

~~~
segfaultbuserr
> _A very similar trend shows up in poetry fairly often across many cultures.
> Adherence to a strict form, like a sonnet, breeds creativity because of the
> constraint._

Its hacking equivalent is demoscene and hand-tuned assembly.

~~~
ionwake
Good analogy thank you

------
stedman_rh
> _The wheelwright responds that, at least concerning his craft, he can create
> what he does only because he’s developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be
> wholly conveyed in words._

This parable sounds like it's less concerned with creativity and more with
tacit knowledge.

[https://commoncog.com/blog/tacit-knowledge-is-a-real-
thing/](https://commoncog.com/blog/tacit-knowledge-is-a-real-thing/)

~~~
dfischer
That’s what I got out of Tao Te Ching as well - knowledge being dangerous
because many consume it without the ability to use it. Tacit knowledge is
important vs the abundance of “ability to search google for facts or
information” and never do anything more than posture with it.

~~~
whakim
The way that the Laozi (Daodejing) and the Zhuangzi discuss knowledge is
subtly different. The Laozi is secretly a very political text and has to be
read in the context of other philosophies which emerged around the same time.
These philosophies, including what was later called "Confucianism," argued
that a virtuous ruler cultivates himself and, in doing so, transmits his
virtue on down to his subjects. The Laozi, on the other hand, argues that a
good ruler keeps his people poor and stupid (to totally butcher it, something
along the lines of "they'll be happy if they don't know what they're missing
out on"). In the Laozi, knowledge is dangerous _for the people_ but not for
the ruler.

In the Zhuangzi, knowledge is often discussed in terms of the
interconnectedness of all things. The story cited in the OP is one example of
several anecdotes which describe a skilled craftsman who is instinctively good
at what he does but is unable to describe what he's doing in a formulaic
manner. (Again, note the contrast to the "Confucian" texts which are very
prescriptive about self-cultivation - in other words, they're all about
following precise formulae.)

For background, I have undergrad/graduate degrees in Chinese Literature
focusing mostly on ancient/early medieval texts.

~~~
dumb1224
>The Laozi, on the other hand, argues that a good ruler keeps his people poor
and stupid

This is a bit different from my understanding of Daodejing. Do you know which
chapter? I quickly checked the original text and only the 65th chapter
mentioned along the lines "commoners shouldn't be taught to be cunning instead
of honesty, otherwise difficult to rule" <excuse crappy translation>

~~~
whakim
Off the top of my head, Chapter 80 is a good example of the "idealized state."
(I do think some things are often lost in translation; many of the freely
available translations on the internet tend to read into the Laozi what they
"think" it means.) There are a bunch of other references too though. It's also
worth remembering that these are composite texts - there was no "single"
author so if things occasionally seem self-contradictory, that's pretty
natural.

~~~
dumb1224
That's absolutely true. From the fact that there were so many equally ancient
text commenting and interpreting the the original text (later also become
canonical sources), it could be contradicting itself too. My views were
basically formed via my background and what commonly understood in my
upbringing.

~~~
whakim
Yes, for sure. It's also the case that our understanding of ancient texts has
changed a lot over the past 20-30 years as more archaeological finds have been
discovered (e.g. Mawangdui). I once had a Professor who tried to discourage me
from focusing so much on ancient literature because he joked that all my
research would be out of date in 20 years :D

------
nabla9
This point of view is not especially Chinese. It's very common for all
cultures.

Chinese, Indian and European art traditions used to flavor integration. You
learn to copy the masters. After you master the earlier techniques you are
ready to contribute something new to the whole.

Originality for the sake of originality is very modern concept. Modern art
takes this into extreme. Artists are trashing around desperately and are doing
random things to be original. We end up with works that generate momentary
'heh' moments when the artist is especially clever.

~~~
anonAndOn
Are you suggesting that the banana-taped-to-a-wall[0] wasn't a seminal work in
the evolution of fruit art?

[0][https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-
scli-...](https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-scli-
intl/index.html)

~~~
eecc
Ha ha, has been raising eyebrows for a while already, this moment [0] is
hilarious, although the whole clip is a classic from the '70s.

[0] [https://youtu.be/OfsJAgaY62E?t=546](https://youtu.be/OfsJAgaY62E?t=546)

------
eludwig
When I was in Art School, the instructors there stressed that it was wrong, or
rather, misguided, to infuse your beginner work with a "Style." Style should
come from the inside out, not the outside in.

In other words, learn your craft and the way you express it will be individual
to you. There is no need to create a "style" for your work. I think this
relates to the topic!

~~~
paulryanrogers
Somehow this strikes me as pay-your-dues elitism. I agree the fundamentals of
color and form are essential. And perhaps some basic technique. But ultimately
the sooner and more free people are to experiment then I believe the more
variety society will gain.

Having studied only a few semesters of art at university I realized it wasn't
for me. Still, I appreciate that the instructors weren't dogmatic about the
craft. They let me explore it from a digital first perspective in the early
oughts.

~~~
smoe
All the art teacher and professionals I interacted with encouraged
experimentation but also stressed to not skip the fundamentals.

The problem is that especially beginners are quick to jump to saying it is
their "style" when being critiqued even tough what they were doing wasn't
intentional or isn't perceived as intentional.

E.g it is easy to play an instrument off-beat, and every now and then it will
sound really good by accident. But playing off-beat intentionally,
consistently in a appealing fashion in different contexts takes a ton of
practice.

But there is also the other extreme. The founder of FZD, a concept art school
in Singapore mentioned in one of his videos that he is worried that a lot of
young students are way too focused on learning fundamentals and doing tedious
muscle memory drills found on Youtube instead of drawing just for fun for
hours and hours, experimenting, making mistakes and correcting them.

So I think it is about finding a balance between honing your technique and
knowledge and applying your current skill level in different creative ways,
that will eventually result in your own style and the development of your
style over time.

------
knolax
Sensationalist title made to appeal to stereotypes. None of the source
material mentions either "originality" or "creativity".

> In this short vignette, a wheelwright known as Pian (扁) tells a duke that
> the book of sages’ advice he’s reading is nothing but ‘chaff and dregs’.
> Angered, the duke demands an explanation. The wheelwright responds that, at
> least concerning his craft, he can create what he does only because he’s
> developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be wholly conveyed in words. If the
> blows of his mallet are too gentle, his chisel slides and won’t take hold.
> If they’re too hard, it bites in and won’t budge.

The above excerpt makes no mention of originality, and a normal person would
just read it as promoting practical experience over theory.

This is just the author trying to push her own opinions onto some ancient
works, with nobody able to call her out for it because the source materials
are in a language the audience can't understand.

~~~
ywei3410
The article completely falls apart because the only link that the author has
between crafting wheels and creativity is done in the following paragraph
which is so vague that it can be applied to anything and nothing at all.

> a spontaneous integration between contrasting types such as the hard and the
> soft, as well as the learned and the spontaneous, the active and the
> passive, and even the unproductive and the productive – all of which apply
> in the case of carving wheels, as well as elsewhere. In other words, living
> well involves creativity.

Even if we examine the story in more depth, it _still_ doesn't make any sense;
incredibly strong propositions such as the one below are thrown out all over
the place.

> his craft in an integrated manner that can’t be fully captured through an
> algorithmic list of instructions

------
cherryorchard21
This is an interesting idea. The two people who come to my mind are Bob Dylan
and Pablo Picasso, both of whom are considered the "top" of their fields, but
neither of which could be considered especially original.

Dylan initially rose to fame by rewriting old folk songs and gospel hymns,
emulating a lot of Beat poetry (Kerouac/Ginsburg), and then doing a similar
thing across genres like rock and blues. Picasso also famously drifted between
styles. "Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal".

~~~
libraryofbabel
Shakespeare also. He lifted almost all his plots from other sources.

~~~
thursday0987
he may have lifted his plots, but Shakespeare created 1700+ of modern english
words [0]

Shakespeare can definitely be considered "original".

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_influence#Influe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_influence#Influence_on_the_English_language)

~~~
pfraze
Just to add some dimension to that observation (but not diminish it) at least
some of those words are better described as "credited as first used" rather
than invented. He did invent many words, however, and I think more impressive
is the number of phrases which he invented and are now so commonplace you
don't think you're quoting shakespeare. Some examples:

As luck would have it; Break the ice; Fair play; In a pickle; It's greek to
me; What's done is done.

------
bovermyer
That's an interesting perspective and a valuable way of looking at things.
I'll have to consider that deeper.

I'm not sure I would call it "creativity," though. I'll have to think about
that, too.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I certainly wouldn't call it creativity. Making wheels and dealing with grief
are craftsmanship. There's nothing wrong with craftsmanship, but genuine
originality is rarer.

This shouldn't be controversial, because it's the difference between making
good wheels and inventing the idea of the wheel in the first place.

~~~
pmoriarty
Craftsmanship gets a bad rap in the arts, and is widely considered to be
somehow "lesser" than "True Art".

The work of craftsmen is often denigrated as being unoriginal and
indistinguishable, but quite often a craftsman's work bears the distinctive
stamp of its creator, and when you look closely you can tell one craftsman's
work from another.

Craftspeople also do innovate in technique and coming up with new motifs. The
line between craft and art is blurry, and there are good arguments to be made
for craft to be considered art.

I am reminded also of the snobbish attitude some people have towards genre
fiction and genre films. Work made in a genre is often seen as somehow lesser
or not worthy compared to "serious" film and fiction. However, again and again
genre films and fiction come out which are widely considered to be
masterpieces. I'm thinking of, say, Kubrick's work in science fiction and
horror ( _2001_ and _The Shining_ ), Philip K Dick's science fiction, and
Lovecraft's horror. Many of their works are now considered masterpieces
despite working in what were once considered to be backwater genres.

What is considered to be art has also radically changed over the millennia.
Many things now considered to be high art (like, say, Duchamp's _Fountain_
[1]) are considered masterpieces of art that broke new ground, but at the same
time it could be argued that it's not art at all, and in fact any work of a
craftsperson has more of a claim to the term "art" than something like
Duchamp's _Fountain_ , which wasn't even made by Duchamp, and is a mere
industrial product. But can industrial products be art? Apparently they can,
if they're placed in to a gallery and looked at in a certain way.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_\(Duchamp\))

~~~
wahern
Abstract art is about representing something invisible in a culture. It's like
comedy--the joke only lands if it resonates with some unspoken, often even
unrealized, but shared experience. And abstract artists, like comedians, keep
hammering on very similar themes, even if their output is superficially
diverse throughout their career. IOW, they're like craftsmen who become
increasingly, intimately familiar with some shape or form, the ways it can be
manipulated, and (to the extent they're interested) reintegrated into the
culture.

There's much more craftsmanship (e.g. the cultivation of tacit knowledge) in
abstract art than meets the eye. Relative to the entire process, the
substantive novelity, such it is, is so miniscule that I would hesitate to say
that it's greater than what can be found in the more mundane crafts, at least
when comparing people of similar intensity, intelligence, and devotion. And
often the reverse may be true, as the constraints in working on well-trodden
ground can be challenging and inspiring. That's my $0.02. ;)

TL;DR: I agree.

------
hammock
To sum up in a few words: "You had to be there." Or, "nuance that can only be
felt, not explained" Similar to other comments, I wouldn't say this is a call
to abandon originality, but rather illuminates a different aspect of creators
and what goes into what they make.

~~~
pizza
In a word (that I recently learned myself), haecceity

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Thanks, I'll be busting this one out in casual conversation from now on.

------
pmoriarty
_" Some writers confuse authenticity, which they ought always to aim at, with
originality, which they should never bother about."_ \-- W.H. Auden

------
naringas
This characteristic of Chinese culture, IMO, serves to understand why the
whole Intellectual Property debacle has been so contentious.

As I see it this is the main point behind the USA-China "trade war"

I think the USA only defends IP because of the economic implications. I think
the Chinese have the better idea regarding "IP".

But I have no doubt that were the roles reversed (China "owns" most IP and USA
just manufactures it) the Chinese government would be staunchly defending IP.

~~~
newen
It's entirely economic. The US didn't care about IP when it was starting out.

~~~
georgeecollins
Um source? The US Patent Law was enacted in 1790.

~~~
bildung
"The city of Lowell, Massachusetts actually got its start after its namesake,
Francis Cabot Lowell, visited England in the early 19th century and spent his
time trying to figure out how the Brits had managed to automate the process of
weaving cloth. Charming his way into factories, he memorized what he saw, and
managed to reproduce the weaving machine.

Hamilton didn’t just send Americans to Britain in search of the secrets of the
industrial revolution. He used patents to lure immigrants with skills and
knowledge to move to the United States. George Parkinson, for example, was
awarded a patent in 1791 for a textile spinning machine, which was really just
a rip-off of a machine he had used in England. The United States also paid his
family's expenses to emigrate and re-locate to the US."

[https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/07/30/ip_thef...](https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/07/30/ip_theft_is_what_once_helped_make_america_great_103367.html)

Edit: The history of hollywood is also fitting:
[https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-
histor...](https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-history-
hollywood-and-copyright-law)

~~~
georgeecollins
Thank you. Good point!

------
volume
I have a good friend I know this would certainly apply to. However, if I just
send him the link it will come across as criticism. I'll have to stealthily
slip it into conversations over time.

Sort of like changing culture at a company. It won't work by firing off links
to everyone - at least where I work. Will need to sneak it into converations.

------
ngcc_hk
What rubbish is that. Instead of writing 12,000 words can I simply say there
are at least 3 Zhuangzi In his inner and using the fake Zhuangzi not written
by him is not credible.

For the idea this is more traditional and no need to quote him as he might not
agree. Let us say the first book is about totally free from anything and above
everything. Conform, constraint ... the whole message is about free from
everything.

It is comment inside the book that a guy which can freely fly away to anywhere
is not good enough as he still need to wait for the wind.

And if ignore whether it z or not, the problem of just copying and stealing
without a culture nurture individuality is the harm to humanity by chinese
culture. Not contribution. Not something one should model and sell to the
wider public.

We need individuality and original idea. Not another copy or ...

Evolve and beyond, no constraint and free.

------
maverickJ
This was an interesting article. It sometimes pays to leverage an old
experience and integrate it into a present one.

The article below talks about a similar concept albeit from a business
perspective [https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/originality-is-
not-t...](https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/originality-is-not-the-only-
way-it)

------
phendrenad2
Counter-intuitively, only once you master something can you develop a style.
Up until that point, whatever "style" you have is too unfocused and random.
Once you hone your craft, your style will also be refined.

------
kitotik
You have to learn the rules in order to properly break them.

------
Khelavaster
This is a core point of Hegelian dialectic, too.

------
app4soft
> _To be creative, Chinese philosophy teaches us to abandon ‘originality’_

Ant/Bee philosophy.

------
rasz
bounce that ball my little drones
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PtX8BNLn_c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PtX8BNLn_c)

------
carrozo
The desire to be original is a form of self-censorship.

