The Responsibilities of Ideation

Now, honestly I don't know whether the word 'ideation' exists. But it is strewn about by MBAs and so I thought be a cool add-on.
To the topic at hand. Ideas and the creative process at work that generates the ideas as such do not have any responsibility. And it is better not to weigh the creative process with values and so on. There are very few things I believe on, but I have absolute belief in liberty in all forms of creation, including ideas.

But there is one more thing I steadfastly believe on- every creative form can and ought to be subjected to questioning. A critique is not a caricature. It is a process that may actually enrich both the maker and the observer. I don't think I am naive. Obviously, there'd be many voices that will not make sense and may prove to be disparaging enough to set your creative spirit ablaze. But then that is where detachment comes in. And self-control.

Though I'd admit, in spite of the heavy words used above, the first creative form that comes out of a creationist has special meaning to him. Detachment may seem logical, but it wasn't cold reason that made him create. Every critic has the responsibility to take this as a special case. This is where you bring out the kid gloves. I'm sure it feels great to sound like a big guy and brand a new thing as trash. But that is not what a fan of creation does.

So, essentially I wish to say, is that the observer ought not to go ga-ga over a new form (could be an idea) needlessly neither should he criticise it in such forceful terms that it sows self-doubt in the creationist or antagonise relations to such an extent that neither listens to each other. In both ways, the whole point is lost.
Last night, I met a man (for the second time, the first time I barely got to know the guy) who's about to formally launch a new rock band. We discussed his ideas on how he wishes to shoot his video. Since both have little command on the form, we discussed the plot. I am not at liberty to discuss it fully, but then I'll offer a glimpse: imagine a brown man, disturbed by his complexion. He tries many things to be fair, predictably all in vain. But then one fine morning, he goes out and sees a Black man. It changes the way he thinks- he feels good that his case (sic) is not as bad as his. And then other such scenarios follow.

The idea is nothing new. Explored and dissected in many forms of culture and refined to the extent the aforesaid idea seems a little hackneyed. But then I nodded along, amidst one guy gushing about it (this guy, also my flatmate, considers Tom Clancy as his favourite author. Easy to guess why he is not an audience that needs to be taken seriously). The Rocker put more perspective- in India, where bands sell teeny-bopper romance and puppy love, this is quite a remarkable break. Usual videos have a typical fare- pretty men and women flaunt their bodies, teach people how to make out, and sometimes double up as travelogues for exotic destinations.

This made me look at the idea afresh. It obviously didn't seem any brighter, but at least I knew what he was saying when he claimed that it'd be different.

But what disturbed me was the fallibility of such an idea. The purpose of the idea is not at fault: it wishes to make people feel good about themselves. But the way it seeks to do it is gravely at fault. When you look at the black man on the street and consider yourself lucky, you're still trapped in the world of comparisons. It can only give you temporary solace. One can argue that it will make the person think about his obsession about his shortcomings and come to terms with what we are but does it naturally follow?

I think not. If you are stretching boundaries, stretch them a little bit more. A black man on the street will make you happy today. It won't make you happy tomorrow when you see someone with a paler complexion. If you think I'm making a case out of nothing, then think of this: how many times one has looked at a destitute and considered himself lucky? Has it led to a life-altering epiphany that what you are what you are and one ought not to be bothered about falling back in the great race of life? NO. Everyone still runs the great race, constantly checking how the other guy is doing to make sure he does not fall behind.

The only way, I think, you can escape the vortex of this constant pursuit of "Happiness" is to transcend the realm of comparisons. The brown man has to come to terms with his skin and find the beauty in it, but not by seeing himself as superior to the black man. I am not stupid enough to think that its easy to stop doing what people has accepted as being natural. But I have the responsibility to say that the idea falls short on this and can perpetuate the compare-and-compete world we live in.

Stretching the piece too far, and just for the benefit of my JNU brethren, the "feel-good" the idea propagates reflect the class system. The finest among us sit atop the pyramid, marveling us with their blessed gifts (gift? - or a gene matter? subject matter of another post). The intermediates are stuck in between and feel satisfied that they're better than the worst.
The worst, well, we all know what the class system thinks of the worst.

Isn't rock music supposed to be radical?