Creativity versus Originality

"The difference between originality and creativity is that the originator is the one who is the surprised by creativity."

I might be mangling my Teacher's quote, but in that sentence, he provided razor sharp dividing line between the two phenomena. Many moons ago, when I was in college, an art exhibit showcased crucifixes soaked in urine. One of my then-friends gleefully pointed it out as a poke in the eye to Christianity. Reflexively, I declared that it wasn't art, but had to back away when asked to define art. Instead, I commented that it wasn't good art. My friend had the grace to conceded that point.

More recently, a young woman claimed that she had created an exhibit from the remains of an abortion. Fortunately, the story turned out to be just a story. Again, here was art as a statement, which turned out to be bad art. No one had done it before, so it stood in its originality. Yet it was so starkly lacking in creativity, which is necessary to transcend the level of an intellectual exercise or a gaudy show of technique.

The truly creative appeals to the senses through perspiration, the mind through skill, and to the emotions with the lingering echo of the spontaneity that gave birth to the work. It is this holistic trinity of body, will, and spirit that grants great novels, paintings, movies, and other works a life of their own, like Pygmalion's statue. They are truly the children of their creators, and like children of flesh and bone, the creator gains immortality through the continuing life of their children.