creativity

I’ll Come Back as a Wave

The thing I crave most is a moment of stillness. The soft rush of nothing, the freedom of fusing into that which is unstoppable, powerful, beyond recognition of what the human mind can truly comprehend.

I wonder if this cadence of the wave is not the same as the artist’s?

The wave is only there for a moment, proud on its own, before being subsumed back into the dark, cool depths of infinity.

To break without consequence. To once again repeat a cycle of ancient rhythms, older than ancestral bones. The ebb, the flow, the coming and going—falling apart only to become whole once again—indistinguishable, unrecognizable.

What the wave is in one moment, is not what it becomes in the next. The rocking, the soothing lull; sinking out of sight, sound and into the freedom of the mind—the abyss with no bottom. That which can never truly be reached—never really known. All we can do is guess what might lie below by following the hints and clues provided for us by dreams. Glimpsed only in an instance.

What does is truly mean to be a wave? To be free? To be a part of something greater than the self? Is it a return to who you were before the world made you forget who that was? Is this not akin to the life of an artist? The continual search for meaning. The ability to die, revive and die once more—the phoenix can only rise after it has been burnt to ashes. Fire is it’s own sort of surge.

The artist is always seeking, fueled by a deep instinctual pull into movement, a driving force into another creation; made up of all. And yet distinctly individual in each performance, each line of prose, each stroke of the brush. If only waves could be molded in the hands as clay, composed of our greatest strengths and our deepest downfalls.

There is a precipice to be reached, but the high will not last forever—inevitably the wave will once again fall, crash, lose form…plunging low before beginning the familiar churning to momentum. What does the artist generate next? Does the yearning for more never cease? The unseen, yet felt force which compels the wave to once repeatedly reach for the sky, the air—for just one gasp—for height, for freedom. It is the same freedom a woman might feel as she wades into the water, letting the soft crests wash over her, beckoning her to return…perhaps unburdened by the stones that normally line her pockets—the ones that have spent years weighing her down, draining her life force. The voice in her head whispers, “You’ll never be enough.”

And I ask, “Enough for who?”

So maybe becoming isn’t about sacrifice at all, but surrender. The wave is but a moment—it is akin to a feeling, an impulse, an idea—for how long the aftermath or the residual waters will continue to spread out and over? One never knows.

Gold-tipped in the moonlight—transparent in the sun—filled with the crashing rage of chaotic storms and the quiet hum of steady tides. The artist, much like the warrior— like any true force of nature, must always be ready and willing to adapt. Regardless of conditions, the wave carries on—it does not delay. Yet patience is required to learn the timing, the importance in falling back, resting and restoring that which has been depleted. This is a necessary part of the process, as before long, one will again feel the inescapable pull towards the endless journey. A meeting of both the perilous and profound. And most importantly, the final and most sacred of acts:

Letting. Go.

The wave is power with no control. Force with no end. Fluidity even in stasis. The wave can reflect as much as it can obscure. The endless seas remind us that even one drop of water is a a very powerful thing. Art is never just about the self, but the whole. And so when one moves as a wave, they inevitably move with the entirety of the ocean. And for me that is the truest form of embodying art.


Keep Flowing,

E

Art & Design

Like twins fighting for their mother’s attention, art & design have always had, at best, a symbiotic relationship. And like many twins, people have trouble telling them apart.

To address this as effectively as possible, I incorporated this exercise into my design history course. The first assignment is “Book of Kells” - art or design? To further that discussion, we first established a simple definition for both art & design. We decided that art is “anything that provokes an emotional response.” As Mark Twain supposedly said, “I saw a man spit over 20 boxcars, now that’s art.” Or the ever-popular belief that “art is in the eye of the beholder.” That doesn’t mean everyone is qualified to declare what art is. It just means that without the viewer, it may not be art. Art occurs when the viewer responds to the piece, like the tree falling logic. A painting, a sculpture, a print, a photograph, good music, a good meal, a fine night out, it is all art. If it evokes a feeling, it is art.

The design definition we agreed on was “anything that serves a purpose.” So whether it is an industrial design, architectural design, automotive design, or visual design, if it successfully serves a purpose, it is design. And here comes the argument, and even worse heresy, while “design” is often seen as a subset of “art,” just a part of the process, it is actually the opposite. This occurs because many people confuse design with composition. A painting, a drawing, a sculpture, or a photograph can have a good or bad composition. That composition is the byproduct of design; it is not design itself. Design is about creating a solution to a problem - the purpose behind the work.

And here is where the rubber meets the road - if art is “anything that provokes an emotional response,” and design is “anything that serves a purpose,” wouldn’t art be a subset of design? Isn’t the purpose of art to evoke an emotional response? And since design is a structure under which all things that serve a purpose fall, isn’t it logical to conclude that art is a subset of this category? Yikes! Blasphemy? Not really- because as Dr. John Maeda is quoted as saying, “The sciences are what we do to enjoy art.” Yes, enjoying art is the reward, but so can be doing the sciences.

Back to the “Book of Kells” argument. Which is it - art or design? If you are not familiar with the Book of Kells, here is a quick definition from Trinity College.

The Book of Kells pages are decorated with bright colours, elaborate knotwork, and detailed illustrations of animals and mythical creatures. The manuscript is a wonderful example of the artistic style known as Insular art. This style is characterised by intricate detail, patterns, zoomorphic and curvilinear motifs, a vibrant colour palette. The manuscript measures 13 inches by 10 inches. Originally bound in a single volume, the Book of Kells was later divided into four volumes. As a complete gospels manuscript, it contains the four Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).

When we raise the question, “Did the Book of Kells have a purpose?” the answer is always, “Yes. To advance Christianity in a pagan world.” Since most people could not read, they used images over the written word and even animalistic images to portray the disciples. This is supposed to allow for the transition from paganism to Christianity. So again, purpose. In the case of the Book of Kells, the purpose was derived from using art to convey the message of importance and simply to create awe. Here again is the symbiotic relationship, but we must agree that purpose drove the creation of the artifact.

Now we step towards fine art, where composition replaces design as the governing feature. In many cases, with representational art and especially in the art of the Renaissance, you see a triadic harmony occurring. By this, we mean a constant movement from the main object to subdominant objects that leads the viewer in a triangle of motion in order to keep the viewer from “leaving” the page. This is done so that the viewer maintains the subject as the message. Even in something as meaningful as Michelangelo’s “Pieta,” the blessed mother is holding the Christ figure across her lap with her head, his head, and his feet completing the triangle. The viewer is contained within the triangle to keep the message in the forefront of the work.

As we get to modern art, this format slowly dissipates, especially in Abstract Expressionism. The most well-known of these artists may be Jackson Pollock. His rhythmic work doesn’t so much rely on composition as it does on the harmony of all elements through a personal motion. Here, design is seen through intent and not composition. In his Life Magazine interview, when asked about the subject of his paintings, Pollock responded,

“Today painters do not have to go to a subject matter outside of themselves. They work from within.”

Therefore, the work is fulfilling the design choice, regardless of the composition.

In visual design, the purpose and message are always the intent. Whatever the requested message or the intended message, the design must fulfill that purpose if it is to be successful. There cannot be opinion; there must be consensus. If we are looking to portray a brand, as in advertising design, the design must successfully portray the benefits of that brand. Typically, this is done most simply and concisely. The embodiment of simplicity in advertising is the “Got Milk” campaign. Two words, one image, and it has been successful for over 30 years. In all other forms of visual design, simplicity reigns. “Just Do It” - the FedEx logo - MasterCard’s “priceless” campaign. All simple concepts are met with simple images. All meant to convey a specific message. All is counting on a group understanding and agreement. This agreement makes the world go round.

Today, the most common form of design that we interact with is user experience design - or UX. UX is employed to build and develop apps and websites, or any form of digital environment. All phone apps or even streaming interfaces are examples of UX design. Here science meets design.

Usually requiring the deployment of technology, success is achieved through iterations. User interface elements are also developed - usually based on the metaphor - such as “$” for banking, notes for music, etc. Together with coding, these screens and icons aid the user on their journey or goal. Unlike gaming environments, app or web environments depend on a “frictionless” environment to be successful. Planning and iteration are extremely important to the process. Like an architect planning each stage, the UX designer needs to be inspirational and functional. Here is where the connection between art and design deepens.

Personally, the highpoint of art meeting design is the Guggenheim Museum. Designed by the holy father himself, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright, this building’s purpose is to give the most space possible to showcase artwork in a very crowded area of New York City. Wright does it with the perfect solution - the corkscrew spiral. At no point does the continuity break. The viewer is brought on a journey of never-ending steps until voilá, you are back where you started, ready to start again. A beautiful clean design allows the viewer no obstructions or containment in order to enjoy the art - the purpose of the design. This is to me the epitome of art and design. As Maeda said, “We do the sciences to enjoy the art.”


Patrick Aievoli

is the Chair of the Art, Design, and Game Development Department at Long Island University Post campus. Click here to get his most recent book - “rock•paper•pixels” published by Taylor and Francis, 2025.


G&E In Motion does not necessarily agree with the opinions of our guest bloggers. That would be boring and counterproductive. We have simply found the author’s thoughts to be interesting, intelligent, unique, insightful, and/or important. We may not agree on the words but we surely agree on their right to express them and proudly present this platform as a means to do so.

The Horror of Creation

The mind unravels very much the same way that a good story does: it all begins with the pull of a single thread…

A thread, that depending on our condition, either will, or won’t, be sown back together. Turning chaos into cohesion…a deeper and much darker understanding of the true self. This is the struggle of the artist and the psychoanalyst. This is the struggle of creation.

What horror…

I’ve been thinking deeply about Frankenstein these days….not just because the spooky season is upon us, but more so in regards to my dark and archaic musings on how I have come to be my own Frankenstein Monster; a true compilation, made up of small parts and pieces, sometimes coming together in wholeness, at other moments, falling apart into fragmentations. Yet, the threads remain, as well as my ability to sew myself back together, as I have done time and time again, as both a person, an artist and now a psychoanalyst. I am a creature made up of so many parts, of so many experiences…that in the process of growing and healing scars, I was forced to reevaluate what belonged to me and what did not…slowly but surely I began to learn who I was as a “human” and who I was as a “monster.” How did I come to be this creation?

We can argue that our creation is the first and most primal experience of “true horror.”

Leaving the dark, warm safety of the womb to be thrust into the chaotic reality of blood, pain, noise and sensory overload…This is the same experience I imagine the Monster felt as those bolts of electricity shocked him out of the peace of stasis and into the harsh cruel confines of humanity and civilization…with all its discontents. As an artist and training psychoanalyst, I know these early life experiences and affects are essential in our growth, understanding and further development, but they can also be responsible for our psychic disintegration. I think of the rejection of love and care that the Monster experiences; his fragmented body mirrors his psychic state; the continual abandonment and neglect ultimately turns him into the horror society has seen him as, and as a result, he becomes a reflection of their own murderous projections. How are humans any different? Have we not all experienced those same early infantile feelings of helplessness? Have we not experienced the sting of rejection? Disgust? Alienation? Does it not shape much of the horror we see in our world today?

Creation can generally be seen as a miracle or purposeful experience, but what if the creator is in fact, looking to “create” their own destruction? Artists often find themselves consumed by their craft, their ability to express and sublimate the darkness into something progressive and lasting…but what if that darkness cannot be contained? How aware are we of the parts of ourselves that we lose and often destroy in the hopes of creating something meaningful? How much of ourselves are we willing to sacrifice? For what? For humanity? Or for the ego?

The horror of creation follows us endlessly.

The fear that our work will never survive the building process, or perhaps the terror that once the creation is introduced to the world, it will be hated and attacked. And that which is often considered the most horrific of artistic fears: that of our work being meaningless…forgotten. I believe we are responsible for the horrors that influence our art/craft, and as a result, the lives of those who consume our creations. If we are creating without purpose, without intent, what or whom are we really creating for? What are we actually saying? And how much of this can have a direct impact on lives outside of our own?

Psychoanalysis, a highly artistic and individualistic craft steeped in investigating the secrets of the human mind, follows this same structuring: if we have not dealt with our own darkness, if we cannot understand our patterns…if we do not see where the threads have been resown or cut open…then how will we be able to contain the darkness and pain of our patients? The regression that occurs during the psychoanalytic frame can mirror the early dyad between parental figure and child…the same bond that Frankenstein and his monster share (this two- hander can even be seen in certain artist/audience interactions). But it is in this “frame” that the analyst and patient can create a new lived experience, good or bad or something in between, remains to be seen. In order to do this kind of work, it is essential that the analyst accept all the horror their patient has experienced. Only by working through this horror can we create new experiences beyond…

in simpler terms:

“the only way out is through.”

There will always be fear and uncertainty in life due to the unpredictable elements of environment, trauma and circumstance constantly shaping, cutting, molding, sewing and integrating us into the unique individuals that we are and are (hopefully) evolving into— this means constant revision, working through difficult feelings and exploring deeper levels of self-awareness. This path requires grit, fortitude and adaptability, as no one has ever created anything meaningful without a little strife, sweat, patience and tears. The journey of the creator is not for the fainthearted…as Victor Frankenstein learned the hard way. It is for those who are prepared to face the monster inside, for only then can we see how horror and destruction has continually added to our own creation as well as the creations we have yet to inevitably bring into existence; to breathe life into oneself is to breathe life into the greater good of civilization.

Only when you can understand your own creation, will you be able to find meaning in the act of creation outside of the self.

We are shaped and terrorized by things outside of our control, yet contained in a sense of self and purpose to continually produce, grow and change. There will always be horror, but that should never stop one from pushing on, in bravery or fear, it matters not, only that you continue with purpose.

Take heed, dear reader, as you are no longer the same monster you were before reading this post only a few minutes ago.

What will you create next? Yourself?

Keep Creating,

E

Kindling Creativity: Should I Reignite the Embers of the Artist Who Once Was?

A creative act is a spark of life.  So when life is at a standstill, how do we continue to create?

This question has harassed me ad nauseam since the beginning of this pandemic. I remember, during those early days of fear and uncertainty, being particularly filled with dread by a meme that was circulated online amongst fellow artists. It said something to the effect of, “Shakespeare had written King Lear during a plague.” It presented what seemed to me a daunting challenge: would I use this newfound time and space to create my masterpiece? It was tinged with just enough social media snark-guilt that I felt that if I did not write my own Lear by the end of this “gift” of a time, I would most certainly be a failure. 

Six months into this seemingly endless crisis, I have done absolutely nothing creative. I have not taken one idea and actually put pen to paper. I haven’t even tried. My pages, where short films and screenplays should be facing edits and re-writes are filled with cobwebs. Sure, I have tooled around on my guitar here and there but fine-tuning my bar chord’s really does nothing for me in the long run. 

I have been utterly paralyzed. 

I incessantly wrestle with the why? I have more than enough time these days to allow my obsessive brain to feed on questions like these. Why am I incapable of creating during this time? Why has every shred of artistic discipline I’ve ever had left me? It’s a vicious cycle of guilt and anxiety. The more I ignore what I should be doing, the more I don’t want to deal with the guilt of not doing it. And so on and so on it goes. I often see a ghost of myself in the early morning hours of a restless night, which are at this point a regular for me. The ghost looks like me, in just February of this year. It stands before me, a better more confident self. Suddenly, February me starts violently screaming at me in bed, “This is how you spend these precious hours of your life? You’re lazy. You’re weak. You should be doing more. Writing more. Working more.”

 

As time has gone by, I’ve begun to realize that who we were in the non-plague times, our very identities were all relative to a society that no longer exists. 

And that is what has led me to the recent realization that the act of creation in-and-of itself reminds me of everything we’ve lost. I can’t create without remembering a time I could do so freely. Every project I started pre-plague had potential. Anything was possible. Now we all must reckon with an undeniable fact: None of us lives in a world of potential any longer. 

 

Art should reflect the moment. We all know the age-old adage that art often serves as a mirror to society. 

 

I have no idea how to wrestle with this moment. 

 

I watch about 10-12 hours of news a day. It plays in the background as a constant reminder, a little voice in my head that no matter what I do I can’t fix or escape this new reality. I am not in control. But I don’t want to dig into it. I don’t even know what to make of it. Maybe it’s because I can’t make any sense of it. Maybe because it doesn’t make sense. Maybe I can’t control a narrative that helps me understand what is happening. Art needs a reference point. All art is inherently in reference to the society it exists in. Comedy is in relation to firm social norms. Ideas of love and tragedy exist in relation to a fundamental understanding and illumination of the world around us. 

 

And yet, we are in the midst of the most uncertain period of time in a generation. There’s no baseline to refer to. No foundation to reflect on.

 

In moments of sporadic and fleeting inspiration I ask myself, what do I have to say about all of this? What insight do I even have to offer? Or do I even have a right to try?

 

How can I create when there are so many people dying, so many getting sick, so many important social justice issues, so many lost jobs, so much workplace abuse, so much gender disparity, so much wrongful prejudice against sexuality, so many dying from abuses in parts far across the world, so much hypocrisy pervading our lives on a daily, hourly, minute to minute basis? 

 

How can it not consume every waking minute of my day? How is the loss of my own livelihood, potentially my entire career not supposed to consume me? How do I forget the fear I have for my loved one’s who may be vulnerable to this virus? The spiral never ends.

 

It occupies my mind. Almost every waking hour.

 Right now, I tend towards things that help to soothe. Things that give me comfort. I try as best I can to find ways to forget the woes, even for a moment. It doesn’t work. And I know deep down that these tendencies are antithetical to creation itself. As artists, we must dig deep, rip scabs off of wounds, tear open our guts and take a hard look at what is there. As dark and ugly as it may be. As long as it is in pursuit of the truth.

 

But here I am, six months in, unable to create. Because doing so would force me to actually face all of these truths. It would take it from the intellectual, the way I can cope with all of this mess and bring it to the full-blown emotional. A place I am afraid to go.

 

I don’t know that I have it in me. And I’m not sure if I should.

Stay Safe,

Robbie


RobbieTan_GEPRoductions.png

Robbie Tann

Professional actor, writer, director & college professor

Robbie Tann is a professional actor, writer, director & college professor. He has worked extensively in television, film and theatre for nearly a decade. 

G&E In Motion does not necessarily agree with the opinions of our guest bloggers. That would be boring and counterproductive. We have simply found the author’s thoughts to be interesting, intelligent, unique, insightful, and/or important. We may not agree on the words but we surely agree on their right to express them and proudly present this platform as a means to do so.