Are There Distinctively Buddhist Approaches to Creativity?

[Dharmavidya]

I started a discussion in another forum and it has stimulated much response, so I am restarting it here to see what Amida people think.....

Buddhism in art can mean different things.
- It can mean art the depicts Buddhist themes, in which case the style could be any. In principle one could have a cubist depiction of Milarepa sitting in his cave.
- It can mean styles of art that have been developed in Buddhist cultures such as tanka painting or haiku poetry, in which case the style could in principle also be applied to other themes, even those outside of Buddhist tradition.
- It can mean a Buddhist appoach to creativity that is completely experimental and this could operate either in the practice of art itself or in art criticism and appreciation. Thus one might critique a piece of Western art - say the Mona Lisa - from a perspective that was somehow rooted in Buddhist principles or practice.

The third of these appears to me the most intriguing and I wonder if others have ideas what it might consist of or look like.

[Lisa McCann]

Friends,
I do think that there is room for a distinctly Buddhist approach to the arts, although I'm not sure how it would be recognized, since, for me, the process along the way to the finished product is the part that seems very Buddhist to me.

For example, I love to draw, although I'm only so-so at it. I start with a shape or a figure or landscape in mind; however what I started out with almost always becomes something else, and I am generally excited and delighted by whatever my drawing becomes. The end product usually surprises me--generally being something that I didn't think I would have been able to draw in the first place if I had set out to do the image that almost seems to arrange itself before me. I try to be open and accepting of wherever the drawing takes me, or seems to "want to be." (or maybe it's just goofiness on my part!)

In my life as a musician, I find that I am not as creative as I'd hoped to be, and wonder if that is the product of a classical music upbringing that didn't place a high value on improvisation. Nevertheless, I enjoy trying to play by ear, which may involve paying focused attention to the details of something in order to replicate it.

As a writer, I am amazed by the incredibly beautiful, descriptive detail contained in the Pure Land Sutras. And I can't forget that Dr. Unno's "Bits of Rubble" book brought me to Pure Land Buddhism in the first place.

Gassho,
Lisa

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Lisa, Thank you for responding to this item. During my recent visit to Japan one of the things that sparked interest among our Japanese friends was the way that Amida Trust has become involved in creative writing and theatre. I gave a brief description of our 'Pandramatics' methodology and this stimulated considerable curiosity and enthusiasm. Overall what the Japanese like about what we are doing is that we are experimental and fresh and moved by the spiritual emotions and what I appreciate about them and their situation is both the depth of tradition and the particular genius of the form that Japanese Buddhism has assumed as Japan has become a modern nation. The chemistry between the two (our situation and theirs) is very productive. Japanese appreciation of aesthetics is also famous and some of my Japanese friends - like Yuko who is a member of this forum - are very creative.

[Vatula]

Dear Dharma friends
What I love about buddhism is that it´s not a religion, a belief or a faith.It´s a practice to live life more fully more aware.One of the aspects of meditation is that it waters our roots of creativity.Makes flower the beauty in us ,and it wants to express itself.I don´t want to call art buddhist to avoid new confusions.Art if it has a spiritual dimension is a religious experience without label.Artists are very near to mystics,but also very near to madness.My experience is that meditation nourishes my artwork and helps me not getting drowned in the rush of creative chaos.There´s so much to talk about this.I have a spanish/english/german blog talking about art and life

[Dharmavidya]

Thank you for the lovely picture of your work. Wonderful!

[Simon Williams]

Coming from the perspective of practicing as an Art Therapist I would say that there are a wealth of connections that could be drawn between principles rooted in Buddhism and ideas about the product and process of creativity. This might be seen as an alternative way of viewing art in its broader sense rather than focussing on 'art' that has been culturally defined as 'art' and is in the public realm. We may also think in terms of a 'Buddhist aesthetic' given that the product of the creative process is an 'object' that has resonances for each of us on an aesthetic level. Christopher Bollas has written about how aesthetic experience is a transformative one that reaches to our deepest levels, an experience of what he calls the 'unthought known' and that cannot be put into conventional language. In this sense like a religious object or one that helps maintain our connection with our aspiration or perhaps we could say a 'positive' Rupa as Prasada describes it, a self invested object that connects us to the 'other power' experience, the product of creativity, an art object, might be critiqued or considered from a Buddhist perspective by staying with our ongoing practice to experience contact with the world truthfully, unclouded by self interest. That is that a particular aesthetic experience could be defined perhaps as 'Buddhist?'
So we might detach ourselves for example from 'the artists intention' (and it could be added that our preferences for partcular artists may fall into the territory of attachment to building self identity) so we can encounter a work of art 'as it is', unhooked as it were from the multitude of other possible readings that 'self' will invest it with. There are connections here for me to the Art Therapy process where it is important to regard artwork produced in a therapy session through entering the experience of perceiving from the perspective of the client, as much as this is possible, but to add to that to help bring the client/artist and ourselves as therapists to a position where what they have made, what is in front of us, can became an object that is not experienced simply as a self object and becomes a an object external to themselves. That is to say, that the client/artist can become more open to alternative ways of viewing what their artwork, through intention, has attempted to depict. Something else that interests me when engaging with art making is to consider to what extent (if at all) the image or object that emerges belongs to me. There is the action of making which conditions my view of the world as well as something that reflects my intention and past actions and a product that can be out there for others to see and will have a reaction to. In this respect (I acknowledge that it is more complex than this) making art from the perspective of being Buddhist carries with it a responsibility like all other actions in our lives. Most artwork we might see will not have been made from such a perspective and there is I think a distinction to be made between art that would be defined in relation to having a Buddhist purpose - for example if a Koan is art then its purpose is in a sense to break through the conditioned mind to reach the experience of enlightenment (but if we see it as art does it loose such a purpose?) and art made by someone who is commited to the Buddhist path. This raises the question as to whether any art has the potential for transformation in a Buddhist sense regardless of its purpose. This again resonates with what I have referred to about aesthetic experience, the object of perception providing the conditions for such an experience but it being other than the object itself or the intent of the artist.
This reply is not a considered argument as such but a spontaneous response, so please forgive the rambling nature. I would be interested in hearing other people ideas. I am particularly interested in exploring what Art Therapy has to offer in the area of Buddhist orientated psychotherapy but also equally how my Art Therapy practice can reflect my Buddhist practice and faith.

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Simon, thank you so much for this. There is a lot here that is very interesting. There are many aspects of what you have written that one could take up.

Amaya & Sumaya
One thing I am stimulated to write is that on the one hand one can try to strip out of one's perception all the lakshana of self - to get beyond the rupa to the dharma, as Caroline would say. On the other hand, one can explore the multifacted multidimensionality that opens up when instead of stripping out symbolic meanings one multiplies them creatively seeing as many possibilities as can be. If I can be forgiven for making a play upon the names of two of our sangha members these could be called the amaya (no-illusion) and sumaya (skilful-illusion) approaches respectively. Buddhist practice can be seen as the means to eliminate illusion or it can be seen as the skilful use of illusion. Could there, therefore, be two alternative or complementary dimensions for Buddhistic critique of art and its objects?

Self-power & Other-power
The second thing that I take from your piece is the idea that the art object may be revealing of processes at work in the artist that the artist him/herself is not actually aware of. Some approaches to Buddhism might have a bias toward saying that what matters is to bring as much as possible into awareness and in that approach the art object could be a tool; on the other hand, from a Pureland perspective, there might be more to be said for keeping the process out of awareness so that there is more scope for Other Power to operate and less scope for self-power to grasp and distort (and, in fact, reduce) the creative process.

Thank you for your stimulating contribution. Namo Amida Bu.

[Simon Williams]

Dharmavidya
Thank you for your reply, your points bring back into balance a perspective that took me in a particular direction as I wrote it. The points about the amaya and sumaya approaches are provide focus to thinking about what is both a rich process and experience. In some ways I have a 'back and forth' movement in an Art Therapy situation between the creative expansion of possibilities/meanings provided by an image in what can be described as a shared space as well as working with someone to reach a clearer picture of the image in the present moment akin to stripping away what in psychodynamic terms might be referred to as defensive elements. Though this is different in a number of ways to the amaya approach you refer to (is this correct?) I can see some clear parallels. One of the things I have noted in my Art Therapy practice is how it is sometimes easy without necessarily being aware of it to become entranced by the metaphor and how for the client (and myself as therapist also) this can be a way of avoiding a more authentic encounter or engagement.
Thinking more broadly, one only need think about the Mona Lisa to understand how difficult it is to see or experience an image unclouded as it were, but also how rich as well as elusive the manifold potential meanings are that we associate with it.
In reply to your second point I agree with what you are saying, though I may have given the impression that I was referring to the artists processes that he is unaware of, as you say. This is an area however that as an art therapist has been part of my thinking and theoretically is in the area of uncovering unconscious meaning (if I am understanding your meaning correctly?). The perspective I was trying to convey was as I say similar to yours, I think, namely unhooking the image from the artist and his or her process to allow more scope for awareness of 'Other Power' to operate as you describe. I am now unsure whether you do mean the artists process or our process as the viewer? Your points stimulate much thought.

Namo Amida Bu

Dharmavidya said:

Dear Simon, thank you so much for this. There is a lot here that is very interesting. There are many aspects of what you have written that one could take up.

Amaya & Sumaya
One thing I am stimulated to write is that on the one hand one can try to strip out of one's perception all the lakshana of self - to get beyond he rupa to the dharma, as Caroline would say. On the other hand, one can explore the multifacted multidimensionality that opens up when instead of stripping out symbolic meanings one multiplies them creatively seeing as many possibilities as can be. If I can be forgiven for making a play upon the names of two of our sangha members these could be called the amaya and sumaya approaches respectively. Buddhist practice can be seen as the means to eliminate illusion or it can be seen as the skilful use of illusion. Could there therefore be two alternative or complementary dimensions for Buddhistic critique of art and its objects?

Self-power & Other-power
The second thing that I take from your piece is the idea that the art object may be revealing of processes at work in he artist that the artist him/herself is not ctually aware of. Some approaches to Buddhism might have a bias toward saying that what matters is to bring as much as possible into awareness and to that approach the art object could be a tool; on the other hand, from a Pureland perspective, there might be more to be said for keeping the process out of awareness so that there is more scope for Other Power to operate and less scope for self-power to grasp and distort (and, in fact, reduce) the creative process.

Thank you for your stimulating contribution. Namo Amida Bu.

[Dharmavidya]

Thank you for your "back and forth" suggestion. I am sure that this is true in much therapeutic work, involving art or otherwise. Many therapists see their function as being essentially that of 'bringing material to consciousness'. This idea goes back to Freud at least. A the same time, Freud did think that when something is completely dealt with ('cured') it disappears from consciousness altogether. I think, therefore, that we have to regard awareness or consciousness less as an end and more as a stage along the way - and not even always a necessary one. From the Pureland spiritual perspective, consciousness can be regarded as a form of self-power and belief in it as an impediment rather than an asset. Putting these ideas together suggests that as Pureland pratitioners we will probably not value consciousness as highly as many spiritual practitioners (and therapists) do, but will be more inclined to trust the underlying process, whether we ever become aware ofwhat it consists of or not. The sense that 'something is going on' may be enough. In the realm of pure art (as opposed to art therapy) artists do not always have any conscious understanding of what they are doing and the intrusion of awareness may even inhibit the work. The notion of the 'Muse' as an other power that knows better than oneself may be a more conducive stance in furthering genuine creativity - and, perhaps, therapy too.

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

[Mat Osmond]

I've read the exchanges here with great interest, thankyou all round.

I wondered, reading Dharmavydia's four suggested models of Buddhist creativity, if there might be a fifth possible take on this: that of using the practices and ideas that we find within the realm of contemporary art to explore, digest, integrate and (ideally) embody the discoveries and values encountered in Buddhist training. Does that make any sense?

I also chime very strongly with the approach that Dharmavydia associates with Other Power, of placing less of a premium on consciousness (or conceptual thinking), and trusting the work to feel its own way - to guide us. I identify strongly with the suggestion that through art practice "one can explore the multifacted multidimensionality that opens up when instead of stripping out symbolic meanings one multiplies them creatively seeing as many possibilities as can be."

An interesting aspect of allowing the creative process to lead rather than follow the thinking mind is how one may often find a quite unexpected understanding of one's own work emerge after one has made it - often arising with the compelling sense that the work itself had this very understanding in mind, but 'you' didn't yet see it.

A personal example is attached (as a PDF). It was as I was in the final stages of putting this book together that I read "Who Loves Dies Well". Reading this had a powerful effect on me, on many levels, but one of these levels was that it led me to fundamentally reconsider what I had been trying to get at with the imagery I was attempting to work with in this book. (Its a bit long to throw in here, so please feel free to ignore it!)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts. Its great to hear an Art Therapy perspective, too. I have in the past been greatly helped by both people and ideas from that field - especially Shaun McNiff's "Art as Medicine: Creating a Therapy of the Imagination".

[Robert McCarthy]

I talked of this in a poetry group maybe a year back. Earlier i had done studio pottery. What so appealed to me about this was the lack of consciousness in creating a pot on the wheel. As if by magic the pot appears at your fingertips, any thought processes often register themselves in opposition to the flow. Often a batch of thirty or so pots can be thrown from one mound of clay on the wheel. The experience is meditative, just being there as part of the process.

[Armida]

Not too long ago I finished the book, entitled True Perception, the Path of Dharma Art, by Chogyam Trungpa. In the chapter "Endless Richness," it was prefaced with "The whole philosophy of dharma art is that you don't try to be artistic, but you just approach objects as they are and the message comes through automatically."

I had the gracious occasion to interview an international artist, Prem Singh, via cloud computing some time ago. He reached to me all the way from India. I never asked him why he selected me to write on him. Nonetheless, upon seeing his work, a few samples follow, I wrote what I wrote about his art and what information I was able to gather via e-mail.

Open publication - Free publishing - More prem singh

With regards to my art, I have touched on all three categories--

a/ Awareness

Botanist in the Garden

White Tara

Dream State of Rita & Chitta


Lastly,

form, sound, thoughts appear / structures integrate quickly / freed in its own place

[Eileen Kidwell Sullivan]

I find all of the art shared here quite beautiful.

To articulate what is meant by Buddhism in art, especially by the third suggestion, that is an experiential, experimental practice of use of principles, seems very difficult, but ultimately likely to be the most interesting and productive. That is what I would find creatively attractive. Nothing that is either dogmatic or pedagogic would strike me as fresh.

"A poem should not mean, but be."