We remember that a work of art is a message, which means that it is a form of communication. A work of art develops a new way of free human communication or dialogue. And vice versa-dialogue is a creative process. I believe, many of us can recall countless times when ideas popped up in a friendly conversation or in an unfriendly quarrel absolutely unexpectedly, out of nothing. The question is, who owes whom in that case? The same thing happens in inner dialogue, whether a person is arguing with himself or with another person in his mind. And the same question pertains to that case: who owes whom?
The fact that thinking is actually a dialogue is especially evident when an outer conversation transitions into an inner one. Two people may have a conversation or an argument and continue pondering the situation long after the conversation itself is over. They continue discussing and arguing with their absent opponents; however, if we look at them from the ourside, we can see that they are really talking to themselves. Who owes whom in this case?
This is what happens with a creator. His inner and outer interlocutors are always hidden co-authors in any work of art. Once more, who owes whom then?
The author is as much a contributer as a recipient in the outer dialogue and in the inner one as well. In fact, the hidden interlocutor is representative of the audience in general. The author and the audience are on equal positions in the creation of the artwork. The more creative a work is, the more ideas of others it implements. Over and over -- who owes whom? Each owes the other.
The audience is comprised of all the creative people -- any time, any place -- who are able to understand the author's work. In reality, we have to talk about the entirety of mankind here. The author, while creating, talks to mankind and gets answered by mankind; he gives and receives. Mankind and the creator are on par. This is in the nature of creativity, and thus, in the nature of culture.
- Войдите, чтобы оставлять комментарии