I was thinking today about the differences between being “artistic” and “creative.”
By definition being creative is to have the ability to cause something to exist or to bring it into being. Being artistic is the ability to satisfy aesthetic requirements, or showing skill or excellence in execution. There are obviously differences between the two, but can they be mutually exclusive?
I would argue that it’s possible to be creative but not artistic. You can invent a new object or devise a new way of doing something, but put the idea together in a shoddy way. We can probably all find potentially nifty things that were blown in the execution.
Imagining the reverse, however – artistic but not creative – I’m not quite as sure of. Perhaps one can argue that someone can have the artistic skill to pull off an exact replica of a master work, but not have the vision to use those very same skills to create an original work of their own. But isn’t the act of creating even an exact replica…well, creative?
I’m not sure if these two sets would be better represented like this:
or like this:
I’ll have to ponder this one some more.
What do you think?