2023-08-01 | Re-creation in Pragmatism

It has been more than a month since I last wrote a reflection. The reason is simple; internship is pretty busy. But thankfully I do have some time to rehearse my thoughts.

I have been reading William James’ Pragmatism for the past few days. Interesting and insightful, it is a book that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in philosophy. Though, this article is not a book review. Instead, I would like to share some of my thoughts on the idea of re-creation in pragmatism.

The very first thing to do, just like in many other philosophical contexts, is to define the term. Re-creation, in this context, is the process of creating something new out of existing things. It is a process of creation, since time and effort are required to create something new; but different from creation, since the new thing is not created out of nothing, but rather out of existing things. In other words, re-creation is a process of creation that is constrained by the existing things.

Constraints are everywhere. In fact, I would argue that constraints are the very reason why we need to create. If there are no constraints, then there is no need to create. For example, if we can live forever, then there is no need to create new things. We can just live forever and enjoy the existing things. But since we cannot live forever, we need to create new things to enjoy. In this sense, constraints are the very reason why we need to create.

And in re-creation, constraints are the very reason why we need to create new things out of existing things. Re-created things extend the existing things, and simultaneously, the new elements in the re-created things are limited by the existing properties of the original existence.

Macroscopically, moulding specific existence from abstract elements, theories and ideas is a process of re-creation. For instance, creating a new piece of music is a process of re-creation, since the new piece of music is created out of existing elements, such as notes, chords, and rhythms. Musical theories and ideas also extend and limit the possibilities of the new piece of music. In this sense, any original creation is also a process of re-creation. But that’s not what we are going to talk about today.

Microscopically, reshaping specific existence into another thing is also a process of re-creation. And that’s where the pragmatism comes in. There are actually two ways of re-creation in pragmatism: the first one is to keep the structure and form, but modify the content; the second one is to keep the element, but alter the structure or form. They are called redintegration and reconstruction respectively. For instance, rearranging a musical piece is a process of redintegration; while creating a new piece of music or fanfiction based on an existing piece of music or novel is a process of reconstruction.

Redintegration is only limited to a few specific types of existence, such as music, paintings, or code (if you wish to call ‘fork’ with such a long name). But reconstruction is applicable to almost everything. You almost create something new. There are no limitation on forms of expression, and content can be anything. But wait - you are recreating something, so there must be some constraints. It is the elements that prevent you from creating something that is completely new. It can be characters, settings, chord progressions, art styles, or even the laws of physics. In this sense, reconstrctuion is connected to the original existence merely by the elements, which, however, is already enough for readers to recognize the connection.

Readers. Yes, readers are also essential in any creation. They provide a constant stream of motivation for creators to create, or to continue creating; and concurrently, their expectance also constrains the creation. And, in reconstruction, the constraints from readers are even more important. In fact, the constraints from readers are the very reason why reconstruction is possible. If nobody ever recognizes the connection between the original existence and the new creation, then it is nothing but a new creation. Well, if the artist provides tags or descriptions, anybody can easily recognize the connection. But that does not solve the problem essentially. Unrecognizable works are only commented “out of character” or “out of style”, and that’s it.

Is that a satisfactory definition? Well, actually full of mistakes. Although I have emphasized each of the four points, they also come with constraints that make this definition self-conflicting.

First, something I have been always underlining: self-indulgence also has its place in art. The reason behind is too trivial to explain. When both reader and author is you, it is pretty much like:

Artists who create sarcastic works are usually depicted as dissatisfied with anything, including their own works. But that’s not true. They are just dissatisfied with the world, and the fact that they are trying to convey the dissatisfaction through their works should never be interpreted as self-hatred, which, however, would make it impossible to perceive the sarcasm.

Yes, the song is criticizing the self-indulgence. But I quote it here because it is why I would vindiacte self-indulgence. The song is criticizing the self-indulgence caused by unselective information consumption, which will eventually lead to a mentally doomed state, or “doomscrolling”.

But self-indulgence in art is different. It is the very beginning of every creator. To satisfy yourself is the first step to satisfy others. It is also one of the most important motivations for creators to create. You start with no readers. You entered the world of creation, full of enthusiasm, but more importantly, you already know what you must create. You are not satisfied with the existing beings, which motivates you to create something new, and sail you through the first ocean of creation. Before you could replace the engine with readers’ expectations, you need to start with your own expectations.

Even if you are only recreating doujin (lit. same person; refers to re-creation that features the main elements like characters of the original work; basically same as reconstruction) / fanwork / parody, the motivation still serves as an important part of the creation. Whether you are too satisfied with the original work or not, you still starts with no readers, full enthusiasm, clear expectations, and a strong motivation to create. Nothing is essentially different from creating something original; but it should be easier to accumulate fans since you are recreating something that already has fans, compared to starting up as an full original creator.

So why would I quote the song? Because it is a reminder that self-indulgence is not the only thing that matters. Startup is also a stage where the majority of quasi-artists are stuck. They tend to care too much about the comments, reactions and monetization, and eventually lose their motivation to create. They are not satisfied with their own works, but instead indulged with the illusions made up by the readers. Everything seems fine, expect that the work is not at the center of the creation. The readers are. So the creation can be anything; it doesn’t really matter, but the state of “the creation exists” is the only thing that matters.

Or they are easily defeated by negative comments, or too little reactions. And the story is over.

So we should modify the 4th line of the definition to:

try to satisfy both the author and the readers; but never sacrifice the author’s satisfaction for the readers’.

Additionally, about the form and elements. It should be noted that content, an abstract of the internal musical / art / plot / concept flow, is unspecific. If you change the form and elements, but use the same flow, then it will appear different, but feel the same. For instance, low quality reskin games, or AI generated art with same prompts except the characters. Creating such things is a blasphemy to art, and should be excluded from the definition.

That also raises a new question: content is important, but does form matter? Well, in fields of re-creation, most of the creators are only capable of one specific form. I can’t compose music or draw paintings, so I can only write. But form still matters. For majority of both artists and readers, form is more decisive than the type of the content. For instance, if I were not interested in doujin, I would never find an opportunity to read The Disappearance of Suzumiya Haruhi. (Copilot, good book, but who asked? I am serious.)

So with a given form and elements that limits the expression of content, the creator should utilize the idea so that the content are designed in the most pragmatic way. Which is contradictory to the form-oriented mindset: with given idea and elements, the creator instead find a form that can express the content in the most pragmatic way.

Which is better? I would not comment on this. Sarcastic enough, it is difficult to master both routes. But this provides a chance for content and form to be equally important. And that’s why I would like to modify the 2nd line of the definition to:

build up the content and form based on ideas and elements in the most pragmatic way.

So that’s it. In short, re-creation is a process of creation that is constrained by the existing things.

Thanks for reading. I am not sure if I have made myself clear, but I hope you enjoyed it. See you next time.

P.S. I do not wish to admit that I structured the pragmatism based on my views on erotic doujinshi. But that’s a good theory, isn’t it? Just do not read the article again, with “you moulded the theory simply because ero manga is warranted to be pragmatic” in mind.

No, I did not. Actually, based on my interpretation on Kaiwai music (Kaiwai is a small fraternity featuring artists imitating each other’s music), I have already had a vague idea of the pragmatism. But I did not realize it until I read Pragmatism. Original and imitation mixes with each other, and somehow grants birth to a new subgenre.

The good news about it, is many Kaiwai artists have now become renowned musicians. They starts with no listeners and simple imitations, but gradually, they have developed their own styles, and now they are creating their own music. That’s truly pragmatic, in terms of both creation and creators.

And .edley is something you should never miss.