Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization? • Hacker News Board

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#141

Post by anonymoushn » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:18 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #140

tikhonj wrote: post #11

"a flash of inspiration connecting internalized concepts" Well, okay, but rote memorization is neither necessary nor sufficient to internalize concepts. One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste —so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. More broadly, memorization doesn't help much wit…

> One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste—so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. Well... can you think of an artist who didn't have a deep knowledge of their art-form before they pushed it forward? Three that jump out for me, in no particular order, are Picasso, Borges and Jack Wh…

Pollock is often regarded as pushing painting forward, for example

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#142

Post by flir » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:19 PM UTC

anonymoushn wrote: post #141

flir wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste—so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. Well... can you think of an artist who didn't have a deep knowledge of their art-form before they pushed it forward? Three that jump out for me, in no particular order, are Picasso, Borges and Jack Wh…

Pollock is often regarded as pushing painting forward, for example

Thanks, I don't know enough about him - does that support my hypothesis or tear it down?

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#143

Post by etrautmann » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:22 PM UTC

shw1n wrote: post #39

tikhonj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another alternative is that taste is something you can only learn through experience and mentorship, where memorizing simple rules and heuristics is not sufficient. Taste is an example of tacit knowledge[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge

Perhaps this is where I disagree -- I believe while difficult, all tacit knowledge can be made explicit, but is just hard to do so This may be because I'm not good at picking up on social cues, so had to learn things more consciously But ofc I could also be wrong and maybe there are things the subconscious can learn that the conscious cannot

There’s another argument though that some taste is genetically programmed, like our affinity for campfires or sweeping views. Those don’t seem to be learned as they seem to be entirely cross cultural and innate. Those aren’t examples of art of course but make the point that some sense of aesthetics may not be learned.

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#144

Post by ChrisKnott » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:27 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #116

The most striking comment was this: > Growing up with Indian parents in California, I was exposed to both. My mom would write daily Kumon sheets out by hand for me to do, and teach me from Indian textbooks from the same grade (which were much more advanced than the US equivalents). The result was me breezing through the US school system without much thought. Ukrainian refugees I know are finding the same things in th…

> Ukrainian refugees I know are finding the same things in the UK school system, where the maths is much less advanced.

This doesn't appear to be reflected in PISA scores (489 UK, 441 Ukraine)

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#145

Post by bootcat » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:27 PM UTC

I agree and feel likewise the author's comments on the above about memorization, but I realized - A higher framework

and is as below, https://rajivkapur.com/3-pillars-of-vedantic-practices/

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#146

Post by groby_b » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:31 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #116

The most striking comment was this: > Growing up with Indian parents in California, I was exposed to both. My mom would write daily Kumon sheets out by hand for me to do, and teach me from Indian textbooks from the same grade (which were much more advanced than the US equivalents). The result was me breezing through the US school system without much thought. Ukrainian refugees I know are finding the same things in th…

With the caveat that I haven't looked in a while, the rot seemed very anglo-specific. Coming over from Germany almost three decades ago, it was amazing how much US text books just didn't cover.

There were a few developments in Germany that pointed in the same direction, but there a large gap at the time. Meanwhile, even back then, eastern Europe certainly had even higher standards. (I replaced a lot of math textbooks with a copy of Bronshtein & Semendyayev)

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#147

Post by groby_b » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:36 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #140

tikhonj wrote: post #11

"a flash of inspiration connecting internalized concepts" Well, okay, but rote memorization is neither necessary nor sufficient to internalize concepts. One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste —so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. More broadly, memorization doesn't help much wit…

> One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste—so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. Well... can you think of an artist who didn't have a deep knowledge of their art-form before they pushed it forward? Three that jump out for me, in no particular order, are Picasso, Borges and Jack Wh…

Wait, why do you think Picasso didn't have deep knowledge? He studied both at the School of Fine Arts in Barcelona & the Royal Academy of San Fernando in Madrid, for ~5 years before moving to Paris.

Borges was incredibly talented, but it's worth keeping in mind his dad was a writer too.

Good art very much relies on being exposed to lots of other good art first. I don't know that rote memorization is the best way to achieve that, but you definitely need that exposure.

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#148

Post by rickydroll » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:38 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #146

dash2 wrote: post #116

The most striking comment was this: > Growing up with Indian parents in California, I was exposed to both. My mom would write daily Kumon sheets out by hand for me to do, and teach me from Indian textbooks from the same grade (which were much more advanced than the US equivalents). The result was me breezing through the US school system without much thought. Ukrainian refugees I know are finding the same things in th…

With the caveat that I haven't looked in a while, the rot seemed very anglo-specific. Coming over from Germany almost three decades ago, it was amazing how much US text books just didn't cover. There were a few developments in Germany that pointed in the same direction, but there a large gap at the time. Meanwhile, even back then, eastern Europe certainly had even higher standards. (I replaced a lot of math textbooks…

The influence of religious and conservative types has weakened US textbooks. Do a deep dive into how Texas can dictate what is presented in schoolbooks nationwide.

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#149

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:39 PM UTC

wokwokwok wrote: post #45

Is there anything substantive here? It’s just a bunch of arbitrary unprovable assertions. Everyone here seems to have, broadly speaking; neither a) the qualifications to knowledgeably comment of the (honestly poorly understood, afaik) function of “creativity” or b) anything more meaningful than “here is my naive personal lived experience and opinion” to contribute on the topic. It’s just armchair psychology. If you w…

I think semi-obvious would be a better criticism than unprovable.

You can't make connections unless you have things to connect to.

You can't recognize (your own discovered/inspired) novelty unless you have memorized normality.

If you are creative in the absence of knowledge of what already exists then that's considered as reinventing the wheel, and not very useful, even it it's Ramanujan reinventing much of established mathematics.

Re: Creativity fundamentally comes from memorization?

#150

Post by tikhonj » Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 3:45 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #140

tikhonj wrote: post #11

"a flash of inspiration connecting internalized concepts" Well, okay, but rote memorization is neither necessary nor sufficient to internalize concepts. One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste —so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. More broadly, memorization doesn't help much wit…

> One of the reasons people make fun of the author's approach to creativity is that systematic memorization fundamentally can't teach taste—so the systematic approach reeks of awkward, try-hard, low-brow, tasteless art. Well... can you think of an artist who didn't have a deep knowledge of their art-form before they pushed it forward? Three that jump out for me, in no particular order, are Picasso, Borges and Jack Wh…

There's a big difference between "artist who didn't have a deep knowledge of their art-form" and "artist who didn't follow an explicit system to memorize a bunch of rules to make their art".