Jon Johanning wrote:

>Are you implying that "art" has to be the product of a single person?  If
>so, what about opera....

Art does not have to be the product of a single person, but it generally is
as the creative process gets increasingly adulterated and diluted as the
number of persons involved increases.

I don't consider opera a good example of a collaborative creative process.
Yes, there are many functions involved in an opera.  But, usually just one
person writes the libretto, one person composes the music, etc.  Generally,
by the time it's necessary to collaborate, the creative functions have
already been accomplished.

Bernard Gregoire wrote:

>Successful collaboration frequently shows a collective sharing of a
>creative vision, sensitivity and sympatico with the work of others which
>results in an outcome which may very well result in more than the sum of
>its parts.

Or, more frequently, the result is much less than the sum of the parts.
Creativity works best on an individual basis.  "Group" creativity is a
notion that has been pushed mainly by Governments and business for their
own self centered purposes.  The last time I looked at my out-of-date
Schwann Opus, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and practically every other composer
is listed on an individual basis.  Why is that?

In the world of business and commerce, I've had over 30 years of observing
and experiencing the "group creativity" approach.  With little exception,
it's garbage in and garbage out.  Often, the real motivation for its use is
to shield any one individual from full responsibility for the outcome.  "It
was a group decision."

So, you can collaborate as much as you like.  I'll go the solo route, and
be much better off as a result.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]