Re: OT: Tinkering versus creativity

Sai Emrys, On 27/06/2006 18:58:
> On 6/26/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
>> 1. The article is unclear about what is meant by "tinkering".
>
> "Tinkering consists of exploring relatively minor variations on known
> themes, or subjecting new stimuli to an array of already known
> techniques."
>
> Which isn't quite either of the definitions you used...
I didn't read that sentence as definitional, since the putative definition would
have so little resemblance to any ordinary meaning of the English term.

But on reflection, I think you're right that it is intended to be a definition.
And therefore Dutch's remarks have nothing to do with creativity or tinkering
at all, but are instead about originality, which is also what your yourself
seem to be getting at:

> What it doesn't include is people trying to go in new directions. I
> try; I think Kelen does, DP's sign language does (if simply *as*
> consignlang), Ithkuil does in its own weird way, etc.
>
> Obviously I'm not indicting tinkering-type creativity; just saying,
> well, it doesn't really interest me, because it's not *new*.
IMAO, the lust for novelty in art (i.e. the propensity to endow novelty with
aesthetic value) is merely symptomatic of an impoverished sensibility. And if I
think of the artlangs I most admire, novelty is not in any way criterial to my
admiration. But to engineering, and hence to engelanging, novelty is genuinely
of value -- it is a step forward in knowledge and understanding and
achievement. I infer from your comments that you have an engelanging-type
interest in exploring the limits of how language could work, and in that light,
your judgements make perfect sense to me. (And like you, and for broadly
similar reasons, I find I have comparatively little interest in the great
majority of conlangs, much though I like and esteem their creators.)

--And.

Reply