![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
crankyoldmanOr, I write something entirely geeky and prove that I am a dork. Relates fandom, stuff I learned in history, and my own theories. This would be my meta essay of meta, and I think it qualifies as an essay BARELY, since I use "I" a couple times and likely broke a couple of rules. Oh well.
In every person capable of higher thought, that is, thought above survival and pleasure, there is an inventor. Something as complicated as creating a one fourth scale model of a fighter plane and as simple as changing one part of a morning routine falls within the scope of invention. One of the biggest illusions that has permeated throughout our culture is that to create one must possess extraordinary talent or training. Or that imagination only lies within certain personality types. But even the least imaginative of people have been known to create quite surprising things.
Even with this in mind, certain things are more likely to draw the invention out of a mind than others. Anything that requires complex thought, movement, or focus spurs invention. For the sake of clarity and as a reference point, I am going to connect the concept of flow, which is a state of focus and enjoyment, to the act of invention. All that is needed for understanding are a few terms, which will be defined as they come up.
One such draw for invention is fandom or a group of people creating things centered around a common source. Note the use of "creating". Inactive and passive participation within a fandom is very unlikely to incite invention or get a person into a state of flow. Passive participation is that which makes a person simply a spectator--for even someone that is a reader or a viewer, if they think critically or truly absorb the medium cannot be considered a spectator.
Fandom tends to get negative connotations on the basis of most of its creations not being "original" and there is even a distinction within fandom between works that are "original" and not. I personally find the distinction misleading, for an act of creating anything is original onto itself. But there can be a distinction between works that are stagnant and not engaging and those that are. Note that this is not indicative of quality in the slightest, but more involved in the act of participating.
A commonality between famous inventors and meditative masters is the focus on their work that borders on inhuman. Thomas Edison was alleged to have even gone so far as to try and artificially engage in this focus, by sleeping very little and setting it up so that if he got tired he would be awakened immediately from his dreaming state, to hopefully tap in on his unconscious mind. That's an extreme example, considering how unethical and crazy he was, and hopefully none of us will reach that level (as well as that being a myth). Even still, that such legends exist indicates that people for the most part recognize there is something extraordinary about focus in regards to invention.
But how does one achieve flow and what does it have to do with fandom?
I often hear from writers especially how their best stories are written in a state where they are simple "into it". Depending on the length or subject matter, this can be related to marathon writing sessions, or various periods of time where they are focused on nothing else. Time passes without much notice, there is a lack of awareness even of the self, or maybe even a hyper awareness. This is quite simply flow, even if it's unrecognized as such. This can apply to artists and cosplayers as well. Roleplayers and iconners. Even something seemingly as detached from creation as making a fan soundtrack holds a certain amount of focus and analytical level of engagement--as most that participate in this kind of art will often say they can dwell on a soundtrack for months and suddenly in a moment of clarity will find the right song.
Flow doesn't stop with the classically defined creators either. Self-professed "addicts" of the reading variety often go hunting through archives to find the stories that hit them just right, be it through portrayals of their favorite characters or simply ones that are different. Over time a reader will often become more picky with what they are willing to invest their energy in, looking for insights they haven't yet thought of or plot lines that take interesting turns. Some will even go so far as to become critical reviewers, putting their own words to the elements and styles that pull them in.
Enjoyment and invention are the foundations of flow.
A person has to be careful, though, in their participation. Because another principal to the optimal experience is that challenges continue. Plateau-ing at any point is likely to result in frustration and a loss of the "rush" a person can experience. A writer that only explores one angle of what they enjoy is likely to become bored and frustrated with it. An artist that never attempts a different coloring technique or a character with an intricate costume may find that they are stagnating. Even the reader may eventually grow bored with an over-used plotline between their favorite characters.
This may result in uprooting to a new fandom, where the challenges are more fresh, or leaving fandom completely. While this can be regrettable, it's natural for those that seek out invention. The human mind craves complexity. It's why many people are unsatisfied with simply watching their favorite show, or playing their favorite game within the confines of its rules. To some extent, fan participation is healthier than the dull "relaxation" that many people do after their workday is done, because it keeps the mind going. It's also a real credit to the source creator of anything that generates a significant fan community--they've truly engaged their audience at that point.
One of the best ways to combat the opposition to flow--something sometimes referred to as "psychic entropy"--within fandom activity is to continually challenge oneself. That explains the popularity of theme and claim communities. Even if someone does not finish a claim, there is a sense of enjoyment from the attempt, but even more so if the goal has been reached. One of the worst ways to combat psychic entropy is by the trap of popularity--quantity of positive response doesn't indicate the quality of the response. Flow is a self-contained phenomenon that is only augmented by the response of other people. If someone is not happy with their own work, the adoration of other people is only a hollow sort of victory. But it can be a vicious cycle at times, as the initial impetus may be difficult to summon on the creator's part.
Balancing external stimulus and internal desire has plagued humanity since the birth of higher thought--don't expect that to change any time soon.
The point of this essay is not to criticize, but merely to point out that there is an inventor in all of us, and that maybe some of us have been drawn to the activities we like because we are in better contact with that inventor. Our world is full of things that want to make us into passive observers and beings ruled by the search for pleasure. To some extent it is the duty of a person of any intelligence to fight this. Seek your flow. Don't let anyone criticize your engagement--even if all you do is self-insert and porn you're a step ahead of many people.
You at least see the potential.
Supplemental Reading (aka, what likely sparked this):
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets by Donald Cardwell
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards
In every person capable of higher thought, that is, thought above survival and pleasure, there is an inventor. Something as complicated as creating a one fourth scale model of a fighter plane and as simple as changing one part of a morning routine falls within the scope of invention. One of the biggest illusions that has permeated throughout our culture is that to create one must possess extraordinary talent or training. Or that imagination only lies within certain personality types. But even the least imaginative of people have been known to create quite surprising things.
Even with this in mind, certain things are more likely to draw the invention out of a mind than others. Anything that requires complex thought, movement, or focus spurs invention. For the sake of clarity and as a reference point, I am going to connect the concept of flow, which is a state of focus and enjoyment, to the act of invention. All that is needed for understanding are a few terms, which will be defined as they come up.
One such draw for invention is fandom or a group of people creating things centered around a common source. Note the use of "creating". Inactive and passive participation within a fandom is very unlikely to incite invention or get a person into a state of flow. Passive participation is that which makes a person simply a spectator--for even someone that is a reader or a viewer, if they think critically or truly absorb the medium cannot be considered a spectator.
Fandom tends to get negative connotations on the basis of most of its creations not being "original" and there is even a distinction within fandom between works that are "original" and not. I personally find the distinction misleading, for an act of creating anything is original onto itself. But there can be a distinction between works that are stagnant and not engaging and those that are. Note that this is not indicative of quality in the slightest, but more involved in the act of participating.
A commonality between famous inventors and meditative masters is the focus on their work that borders on inhuman. Thomas Edison was alleged to have even gone so far as to try and artificially engage in this focus, by sleeping very little and setting it up so that if he got tired he would be awakened immediately from his dreaming state, to hopefully tap in on his unconscious mind. That's an extreme example, considering how unethical and crazy he was, and hopefully none of us will reach that level (as well as that being a myth). Even still, that such legends exist indicates that people for the most part recognize there is something extraordinary about focus in regards to invention.
But how does one achieve flow and what does it have to do with fandom?
I often hear from writers especially how their best stories are written in a state where they are simple "into it". Depending on the length or subject matter, this can be related to marathon writing sessions, or various periods of time where they are focused on nothing else. Time passes without much notice, there is a lack of awareness even of the self, or maybe even a hyper awareness. This is quite simply flow, even if it's unrecognized as such. This can apply to artists and cosplayers as well. Roleplayers and iconners. Even something seemingly as detached from creation as making a fan soundtrack holds a certain amount of focus and analytical level of engagement--as most that participate in this kind of art will often say they can dwell on a soundtrack for months and suddenly in a moment of clarity will find the right song.
Flow doesn't stop with the classically defined creators either. Self-professed "addicts" of the reading variety often go hunting through archives to find the stories that hit them just right, be it through portrayals of their favorite characters or simply ones that are different. Over time a reader will often become more picky with what they are willing to invest their energy in, looking for insights they haven't yet thought of or plot lines that take interesting turns. Some will even go so far as to become critical reviewers, putting their own words to the elements and styles that pull them in.
Enjoyment and invention are the foundations of flow.
A person has to be careful, though, in their participation. Because another principal to the optimal experience is that challenges continue. Plateau-ing at any point is likely to result in frustration and a loss of the "rush" a person can experience. A writer that only explores one angle of what they enjoy is likely to become bored and frustrated with it. An artist that never attempts a different coloring technique or a character with an intricate costume may find that they are stagnating. Even the reader may eventually grow bored with an over-used plotline between their favorite characters.
This may result in uprooting to a new fandom, where the challenges are more fresh, or leaving fandom completely. While this can be regrettable, it's natural for those that seek out invention. The human mind craves complexity. It's why many people are unsatisfied with simply watching their favorite show, or playing their favorite game within the confines of its rules. To some extent, fan participation is healthier than the dull "relaxation" that many people do after their workday is done, because it keeps the mind going. It's also a real credit to the source creator of anything that generates a significant fan community--they've truly engaged their audience at that point.
One of the best ways to combat the opposition to flow--something sometimes referred to as "psychic entropy"--within fandom activity is to continually challenge oneself. That explains the popularity of theme and claim communities. Even if someone does not finish a claim, there is a sense of enjoyment from the attempt, but even more so if the goal has been reached. One of the worst ways to combat psychic entropy is by the trap of popularity--quantity of positive response doesn't indicate the quality of the response. Flow is a self-contained phenomenon that is only augmented by the response of other people. If someone is not happy with their own work, the adoration of other people is only a hollow sort of victory. But it can be a vicious cycle at times, as the initial impetus may be difficult to summon on the creator's part.
Balancing external stimulus and internal desire has plagued humanity since the birth of higher thought--don't expect that to change any time soon.
The point of this essay is not to criticize, but merely to point out that there is an inventor in all of us, and that maybe some of us have been drawn to the activities we like because we are in better contact with that inventor. Our world is full of things that want to make us into passive observers and beings ruled by the search for pleasure. To some extent it is the duty of a person of any intelligence to fight this. Seek your flow. Don't let anyone criticize your engagement--even if all you do is self-insert and porn you're a step ahead of many people.
You at least see the potential.
Supplemental Reading (aka, what likely sparked this):
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets by Donald Cardwell
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-10 02:09 am (UTC)And it's nice to see someone who feels creation is almost a basic right of a person, not something that the uber of us do only.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-10 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-10 01:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-11 05:58 pm (UTC)Overall, I think that my favourite argument of yours was how there's a creative force in all of us. I've long felt that we probably draw the line far to quickly between 'creativity' and 'art' and everything else in the world.
I've always thought of the practical reasons why fandoms exist (i.e. for young writers, it's normally a little bit easier to start at a story when you have the bases down; environment, context, etc). But, your essay pushes it one tiny step further; a look at the why (instead of 'enjoyment', you throw in a concept of flow) and relate it to everything else that is (and is not) traditionally considered creative. Very nice.
Mostly, I still grin at how 'academic' you sound - minus perhaps the quip about Thomas Edison being crazy. ;)
-T. pirate