Vladamir Kush

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Sure, there was a revolution in technique and knowledge of the human form, but Renaissance painters certainly were not in rebellion against the Christian faith. The fact that their paintings were rendered realistically, with superb draftsmanship, understanding of perspective and mastery of human anatomy doesn't make them any less religious.

You fail to grasp the distinction between Augustine and Aquinas, and why it is that mysticism would lead to a disdain for realism in art whereas a revived respect for reason would lead to realism in paintings and other art.

<snip>

By the way, all realistic representational painting is a form of optical illusion. It turns a flat, white surface into a seeming window on a world with depth, weight, color and texture.

If I see grapes in a still life that look good enough to eat, the last thing to cross my mind would be that the artist has launched an attack on "the accuracy of man's sensory perception."

To consign all of the great achievements in Western paintings to the realm of an optical illusion is to betray your real intent. Perspective is not an optical illusion. It is the perceptual form in which we are aware of distances -- a real aspect of existence. That advanced painters can capture this on a flat surface is not their appeal to illusion but rather their grasp of existence -- re-created for all to see. So, the intent of someone who paints those grapes as realistic or more realistic than in real life is affirming his connection to existence. Surrealist painters do the opposite. They are not affirming existence by painting juxtapositions and twisted shapes. They are claiming that what is in their heads -- in their imagination -- is more real than reality; which means primacy of consciousness; especially in those cases where the message is muddled even though the images are rendered realistically.

I'm not really sure that I would say that all of Kush's paintings are surrealism. Certainly some of them are, but many come closer to fantasy art, except I don't know what he is fantasizing about. And I would not say that paintings of angels or other religious art is surreal, it is more like fantasy art. To be surrealism it has to be a rejection of reality rather explicitly. One could say that the Renaissance painters were mistaken in their view of existence -- in terms of the specific subject matter (i.e. angles and people floating up to heaven) -- but they were re-affirming a more rational view of existence via Aquinas, who made the argument that God gave man his senses and his body so that man could more readily partake in the beauty created by God. Augustine held the senses and man's body and man's mind in contempt; Aquinas revered these, as the greatest creation of God. And that difference in philosophy shows quite readily in the art from those two clearly defined episodes of history.

Doing something like Escher, such as his stairways going both up and down at the same time in the image is an utter rejection of perception; similar to you saying that it is all just an optical illusion anyhow.

[~Sophia~]

“A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.”

And just below what you quoted you are given a much more expanded explanation which matches what I said.

Here is another from Artcyclopedia : Surrealism is a style in which fantastical visual imagery from the subconscious mind is used with no intention of making the work logically comprehensible.

There maybe philosophical differences in that community but so far I have not found any pro-reason statements. (If you know of any let me know).

I am not aware that there is a contradiction between these elements. In fact, Arthur Koestler, whom I mentioned earlier in this thread, sees surprise as an important component of laughter. A joke can be regarded as the intersection of two conventionally unrelated "operational fields."

I did not say that there is a contradiction - I just did not treat them as the same. You can be surprised with something which is not humorous or funny. I have no interest in going on tangents with you.

Perhaps the message of the piece is its humor. And what would be the problem with that? If all a painting, drawing or cartoon does is make us smile, then it has made itself useful to us and we don’t have to demand any more of it than that.

If it is poking fun at my values - I do not find that funny and I don't understand how anyone would. I have already addressed the issue of unexplained emotions, of promoting feeling without thinking.

I have already shown that it is fallacious (Dicto simpliciter) to judge an individual in a group by attributes which are true of only some members.

I have not done it so. I have provided explanation for why his art fits that criteria.

I was also speaking against surrealism going by the definitions and examples I was able to find. This is aside to Mr. Kush.

The statement reads, “Very much a rebellion against anti-human values of medieval Christendom.” In fact, Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo were Christian and their religious beliefs were not significantly different than those of artists in previous centuries.

We are talking here about their vision of man and his place in existance as presented in their art. That was different from previous centuries. This was a progression; there were contradictions but overall it was an improvement.

“many of Kush's creations are nothing but mystical.”

Yes I said that.

Ayn Rand explains it:

To the [mystic], as to an animal, the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness.

An animal has no critical faculty; he has no control over the function of his brain and no power to question its content. To an animal, whatever strikes his awareness is an absolute that corresponds to reality—or rather, it is a distinction he is incapable of making: reality, to him, is whatever he senses or feels. And this is the [mystic's] epistemological ideal, the mode of consciousness he strives to induce in himself.

To the [mystic], emotions are tools of cognition, and wishes take precedence over facts. He seeks to escape the risks of a quest for knowledge by obliterating the distinction between consciousness and reality, between the perceiver and the perceived, hoping that an automatic certainty and an infallible knowledge of the universe will be granted to him by the blind, unfocused stare of his eyes turned inward, contemplating the sensations, the feelings, the urgings, the muggy associational twistings projected by the rudderless mechanism of his undirected consciousness.

Whatever his mechanism produces is an absolute not to be questioned; and whenever it clashes with reality, it is reality that he ignores.

]This is demonstrably false.

Europe was aware of what the Greeks produced. The difference was that of values and not technique.

Edited March 14, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Gary Brenner]

You fail to grasp the distinction between Augustine and Aquinas, and why it is that mysticism would lead to a disdain for realism in art whereas a revived respect for reason would lead to realism in paintings and other art.

I've grasped enough of Aquinas to know that his beliefs would fall clearly within Rand’s definition of mysticism -- unless you wish to submit an argument that his faith in the divinity of Christ was based on the evidence of the senses. I've grasped enough of Augustine to know that he was a strong influence on Renaissance art, particularly Michelangelo.

In any case, the issue under consideration is whether we should find fault in Kush’s paintings for their mysticism, when there is ample display of mysticism in the Renaissance works so highly esteemed by Objectivists.

So, the intent of someone who paints those grapes as realistic or more realistic than in real life is affirming his connection to existence. Surrealist painters do the opposite. They are not affirming existence by painting juxtapositions and twisted shapes. They are claiming that what is in their heads -- in their imagination -- is more real than reality; which means primacy of consciousness; especially in those cases where the message is muddled even though the images are rendered realistically.

Once again in this discussion the sweeping generalization rears its head. Yes, there were surrealists who asserted that their dreams were “more real than reality.” Yet some talented surrealists, Magritte, for example, argued the very opposite. His famous picture of a pipe bore the legend, “This is not a pipe.”

I'm not really sure that I would say that all of Kush's paintings are surrealism. Certainly some of them are, but many come closer to fantasy art, except I don't know what he is fantasizing about. And I would not say that paintings of angels or other religious art is surreal, it is more like fantasy art. To be surrealism it has to be a rejection of reality rather explicitly.

In that case, two of the most gifted surrealists, Magritte and Escher, would have to be booted out of school. You are entitled to that opinion, of course. There is no Supreme Court of Taxonomy.

One could say that the Renaissance painters were mistaken in their view of existence -- in terms of the specific subject matter (i.e. angles and people floating up to heaven) -- but they were re-affirming a more rational view of existence via Aquinas, who made the argument that God gave man his senses and his body so that man could more readily partake in the beauty created by God. Augustine held the senses and man's body and man's mind in contempt; Aquinas revered these, as the greatest creation of God. And that difference in philosophy shows quite readily in the art from those two clearly defined episodes of history.

Too simplistic. In fact, Augustine’s maxim “Do we love anything save what is beautiful?” became a guiding principle for some Renaissance artists, challenging them to strive for ever greater levels of beauty. Michelangelo, for example, studiously rejected Da Vinci’s call for “conformity with the object imitated” and instead sought to represent ideal forms of objects. On Michelangelo’s neo-Platonist approach see http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~dvess/micel.htm

Doing something like Escher, such as his stairways going both up and down at the same time in the image is an utter rejection of perception; similar to you saying that it is all just an optical illusion anyhow.

It is not a rejection of perception any more than a stage magician’s illusion that the same Queen of Hearts can be in two places at the same time is a rejection of the law of identity.

Sometimes a game is nothing more than a game.

[Gary Brenner]

And just below what you quoted you are given a much more expanded explanation which matches what I said.

Here is another from Artcyclopedia : Surrealism is a style in which fantastical visual imagery from the subconscious mind is used with no intention of making the work logically comprehensible.

There maybe philosophical differences in that community but so far I have not found any pro-reason statements. (If you know of any let me know).

Here is another: http://www.eyeconart.net/history/surrealism.htm

Let’s be clear on one thing: I’m not going to provide you with any references to surrealism’s attempt to promote reason. All I endeavored to show is that a surrealist does not by definition have to be anti-reason. I have done that.

I did not say that there is a contradiction - I just did not treat them as the same. You can be surprised with something which is not humorous or funny. I have no interest in going on tangents with you.

No contradiction. So far, so good.

If it is poking fun at my values - I do not find that funny and I don't understand how anyone would. I have already addressed the issue of unexplained emotions, of promoting feeling without thinking.

You wrote, “I have nothing against humor or suprises, I enjoy both, but not at the expense of meaning.”

I answered, “Perhaps the message of the piece is its humor.”

Thus one does not have to sacrifice meaning for merriment.

I have not done it so. I have provided explanation for why his art fits that criteria.

I was also speaking against surrealism going by the definitions and examples I was able to find. This is aside to Mr. Kush.

You posted Kush’s picture of the ship and the great candle and asked, “What does this image tells us about man's existance?”

My response in Post #62 explained the positive values one could find in the painting. Perhaps I should have added that the painting is proof that a man with great skill walks among us. That alone says a lot about man’s existence.

You also called Kush’s characters “stick men.” I on the other hand find them delightful in their whimsy.

In sum, I see nothing that would lead one to conclude that Kush or any of his admirers are leading an assault on man or man’s reason.

We are talking here about their vision of man and his place in existance as presented in their art. That was different from previous centuries. This was a progression; there were contradictions but overall it was an improvement.

Fine. They improved. Their work survived the centuries and we can admire it today. They were superb artists who with the greatest skill showed man as a product and pawn of an omnipotent supernatural being.

Let’s be careful then about dismissing Kush for his mysticism.

Yes I said that.

Ayn Rand explains it:

All right. Mysticism is bad. Promoting mysticism is bad. But it’s okay to make exceptions for some really good artists like Michelangelo who promoted mysticism. But it would be wrong to make an exception for Vladimir Kush. Is that it?

Europe was aware of what the Greeks produced. The difference was that of values and not technique.

Greek and Roman sculpture did not advance to the same stage as Renaissance sculpture. Michelangelo and Cellini had no equals in the ancient world.

As for graphic art, there was no contest. None of the surviving ancient frescoes even approximate the skill level of Renaissance works.

[~Sophia~]

Here is another: http://www.eyeconart.net/history/surrealism.htm

All I endeavored to show is that a surrealist does not by definition have to be anti-reason. I have done that.

We have been arguing about the definition and not about weather or not every surrealist (or every piece of surrealist art) must fit that definition. There may happen one who does not (which is not Kush). When it comes to the definition, every link you provided me with says essentially exactly the same. From this current website:

The surrealists admired the artwork of the insane for its freedom of expression, as well as artworks created by children....The word "surreal", in fact, means "above reality". In other words, the artists believed that there was an element of truth which is revealed by our subconscious minds which supercedes the reality of our everyday consciousness.

You wrote, “I have nothing against humor or suprises, I enjoy both, but not at the expense of meaning.”

I answered, “Perhaps the message of the piece is its humor.”

Thus one does not have to sacrifice meaning for merriment.

Of course not. It has not been my claim. This is a strawman. I said that things like humor, or the aspect of surprise do not have a value in a certain context. \

You posted Kush’s picture of the ship and the great candle and asked, “What does this image tells us about man's existance?”

My response in Post #62 explained the positive values one could find in the painting. Perhaps I should have added that the painting is proof that a man with great skill walks among us. That alone says a lot about man’s existence.

Show me that proof. What are the elements that make you concluded that? I do not see how your conclusions follow from the image which you see. The major theme of the painting is quiet clear in this case and it is not what you claim.

You also called Kush’s characters “stick men.” I on the other hand find them delightful in their whimsy.

Painting man in that way, in that context (of being tiny, disfigured, and devoid of individualism (faceless, often genderless, all looking the same), and consistently, has it's meaning, has it's message. This is artist's view of man and his place in existance.

In sum, I see nothing that would lead one to conclude that Kush or any of his admirers are leading an assault on man or man’s reason.

An explanation of this conclusion has been provided to you.

But it’s okay to make exceptions for some really good artists like Michelangelo who promoted mysticism. But it would be wrong to make an exception for Vladimir Kush. Is that it?

The reason for every judgement I made, when it was provided as an argument, has been given to you. The difference between the two has been explained.

I don't wish to repeat myself.

[athena glaukopis]

[KendallJ]

Wait, a businessman holding a stick over a horse? What on earth would a businessman be doing with a horse? Obviously this is completely anti-rational juxtaposition of completely unrelated elements.

Edited March 14, 2008 by KendallJ

[Zip]

Wait, a businessman holding a stick over a horse? What on earth would a businessman be doing with a horse? Obviously this is completely anti-rational juxtaposition of completely unrelated elements.

Obviously the 'businessman' is engaged in some sort of superfluous rite designed to imply the mystical connection of the horse and the stick juxtaposed to his representation of the material money whoring businessman as indicated by his attire

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I agree with athena glaukopis; since I am put in the position of beating a dead horse. By that I mean that I cannot have a rational discussion of art with someone who thinks that the Renaissance was a time of reigning mystics, that Augustine had a profound influence on the realism style of the Renaissance, and who thinks that a painting of a pipe entitle "This is not a pipe" is making a profound statement.

So far, giving all of the quotes regarding surrealism from various sources, by its nature it is not there to depict reality but something going on in the subconscious; and judging what was going on in their subconscious, they needed some serious help. If their minds are such a jumble, then they should have untangled it before vomiting it out onto people. I mean, just look at the state of their minds! It's a nightmare vision of what it is like to be non-rational when it comes to one's own state of mind.

If someone could show me how Kush is presenting some obvious phrase -- i.e. beating a dead horse -- in his depictions, then I might reconsider my estimation of him. But I don't see that when I look at his paintings. I see things that might make an strange decoration in a house, like a flower pot in the shape of a boat, but I have no idea what he is trying to convey; and I think if you asked him he wouldn't have an answer, except that it struck his mind so he painted it.

[Gary Brenner]

We have been arguing about the definition and not about weather or not every surrealist (or every piece of surrealist art) must fit that definition. There may happen one who does not (which is not Kush). When it comes to the definition, every link you provided me with says essentially exactly the same. From this current website:

First of all, I already submitted a definition of surrealism that does not include irrationality as an essential element: “A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.” Secondly, as I’ve said before, surrealism like romanticism encompasses many points of view. According to Wiki, “One of Romanticism's key ideas and most enduring legacies is the assertion of nationalism, which became a central theme of Romantic art and political philosophy.” Now must we conclude that the self-declared romantic realist Ayn Rand is a nationalist? Or would it be wiser to say that that particular attribute of the romantic school does not apply to her?

Of course not. It has not been my claim. This is a strawman. I said that things like humor, or the aspect of surprise do not have a value in a certain context.

Good. Then, returning to Kush, we would have to determine whether his use of humor or the aspect of surprise are inappropriate within the context. So far I have seen no demonstration that such is the case.

Show me that proof. What are the elements that make you concluded that? I do not see how your conclusions follow from the image which you see. The major theme of the painting is quiet clear in this case and it is not what you claim.

I have already said: “The composition is arresting, and the sharp contrast of dark and light tones, warm and cool colors and rough and smooth textures is stunning.” Such a work is the product of remarkable skill and intelligence. Since thought, invention and productivity are admirable human qualities, I can take delight in Kush’s work. I have not denied that the theme is probably religious, but I have explained elsewhere in this thread that connecting with a theme is only one component of appreciating art. Like Ayn Rand, I can admire the realism and drama of a crucifixion without embracing the theology of the painter.

Painting man in that way, in that context (of being tiny, disfigured, and devoid of individualism (faceless, often genderless, all looking the same), and consistently, has it's meaning, has it's message. This is artist's view of man and his place in existance.

By the same token we can ask what sort of view of reality and existence is conveyed by depicting the first woman as the offspring of the first man’s rib bone? It not only violates all modern knowledge of human biology but also the law that mass in an isolated system is constant.

Why would Michelangelo paint man this way unless he accepted the “perception of some other reality -- other than the one in which we live”?

[~Sophia~]

I have no further interest to respond.

[Gary Brenner]

I agree with athena glaukopis; since I am put in the position of beating a dead horse. By that I mean that I cannot have a rational discussion of art with someone who thinks that the Renaissance was a time of reigning mystics,

If there is a body of Renaissance art that depicts a godless universe and rejects Church doctrine and its view of a higher reality, I would love to see it.

that Augustine had a profound influence on the realism style of the Renaissance,

Not precisely what I said. To recap, Augustine’s esthetics with its notion of ideal beauty did influence the Renaissance and Michelangelo in particular. This is not mere assertion: I provided a link to a scholarly treatment of the topic.

and who thinks that a painting of a pipe entitle "This is not a pipe" is making a profound statement.

Not at all what I said. I submitted Magritte’s pipe as disproof of your claim that rejection of reality is a necessary feature of surrealist art.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Not at all what I said. I submitted Magritte’s pipe as disproof of your claim that rejection of reality is a necessary feature of surrealist art.

Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but it is clear to me that you and I have different views of art. Given your disdain for Renaissance art and references to what Objectivists admire, it sounds like you are not an Objectivist. That by itself doesn't mean that I don't want to talk to you, but we are certainly not seeing eye to eye on much of anything related to art and what it is there for. If you have not already read it, I highly recommend The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.

Art -- or at least the highest quality of art -- concretizes an abstraction, and because of this, the meaning needs to be fairly obvious. While a lot of Dali's art or Kush's art might have a meaning other than twisted things or disjointed juxtapositions, art is not there to confuse oneself at first glance. In fact, at first glance, one ought to at least be able to grasp the meaning without having to study it for a very long time. The meaning of Atlas Shrugged, for example, is rather clear even though it is the presentation of a whole new philosophy. One might not accept that philosophy at first glance, but the characters and their motivations are quite clear, even if one doesn't understand the philosophy behind it. In that sense, I don't see the clarity in Dali or Kush or Escher; in fact, I often think they are deliberately trying to confuse -- or maybe there is no meaning there in the first place.

However, given that we are not communicating mostly due to a whole different understanding of history and the contextual history of art, then I don't know what else I can say.

The realism of the art of the Renaissance was brought about by a revived interest in reason. They were depicting real things as clearly as they could and as realistically as they could improved in the sense of a presentation of things as they might be and ought to be -- i.e. they were not naturalists. Their motivation was to celebrate existence, in spite of some of their holdovers from Augustine. It makes a big difference if via Plato and Augustine one thinks that ideal beauty cannot be known by man's senses, or if one thinks that it can be known via Aquinas because this existence has a lot of beauty in it. He attributed it to God, but it was a far sight better than Plato and Augustine's esthetics. Plato's and Augustine's esthetics did not lead to Renaissance art; but if you think Renaissance art was merely technique instead of something much more profound and based upon philosophy, then I wouldn't be able to convince you without writing an art history book and making it rather explicit. And I can't do that here.

[athena glaukopis]

Art -- or at least the highest quality of art -- concretizes an abstraction, and because of this, the meaning needs to be fairly obvious. While a lot of Dali's art or Kush's art might have a meaning other than twisted things or disjointed juxtapositions, art is not there to confuse oneself at first glance. In fact, at first glance, one ought to at least be able to grasp the meaning without having to study it for a very long time. The meaning of Atlas Shrugged, for example, is rather clear even though it is the presentation of a whole new philosophy. One might not accept that philosophy at first glance, but the characters and their motivations are quite clear, even if one doesn't understand the philosophy behind it. In that sense, I don't see the clarity in Dali or Kush or Escher; in fact, I often think they are deliberately trying to confuse -- or maybe there is no meaning there in the first place.

I've chosen to stay out of this fray, though I do have my own opinions about art and what all of you have put forth in your aruments.

Regardless, I just wanted to say that you can't really compare the "graspability" of a piece of visual art to a piece of written art. One uses a single, static visual image and the other uses a plethora of explicit concepts (words) ... they are like apples and oranges when it comes to being able to discern meaning from them.

[Gary Brenner]

Sorry, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but it is clear to me that you and I have different views of art. Given your disdain for Renaissance art and references to what Objectivists admire, it sounds like you are not an Objectivist.

Far from disdaining Renaissance art, I regard it as one of mankind's greatest achievements. I referenced Ayn Rand's praise of Michelangelo and others only to show that religious themes are not incompatible with magnificent painting and sculpture.

That by itself doesn't mean that I don't want to talk to you, but we are certainly not seeing eye to eye on much of anything related to art and what it is there for. If you have not already read it, I highly recommend The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.

I own it, have read it and agree with much of what Rand says.

Art -- or at least the highest quality of art -- concretizes an abstraction, and because of this, the meaning needs to be fairly obvious. While a lot of Dali's art or Kush's art might have a meaning other than twisted things or disjointed juxtapositions, art is not there to confuse oneself at first glance. In fact, at first glance, one ought to at least be able to grasp the meaning without having to study it for a very long time. The meaning of Atlas Shrugged, for example, is rather clear even though it is the presentation of a whole new philosophy. One might not accept that philosophy at first glance, but the characters and their motivations are quite clear, even if one doesn't understand the philosophy behind it. In that sense, I don't see the clarity in Dali or Kush or Escher; in fact, I often think they are deliberately trying to confuse -- or maybe there is no meaning there in the first place.

I disagree. Nothing in the nature of art dictates that meaning need be “fairly obvious.” In fact, art that is intricate, complex, layered in meaning and even mysterious invites the viewer to return to it again and again. An outstanding example is Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa.” It has become the most famous portrait in the world in large part because La Giocanda’s smile suggests so many possibilities. Is it seductive? Mocking? Sad? Wistful? Or a combination of these?

However, given that we are not communicating mostly due to a whole different understanding of history and the contextual history of art, then I don't know what else I can say.

The realism of the art of the Renaissance was brought about by a revived interest in reason. They were depicting real things as clearly as they could and as realistically as they could improved in the sense of a presentation of things as they might be and ought to be -- i.e. they were not naturalists. Their motivation was to celebrate existence, in spite of some of their holdovers from Augustine. It makes a big difference if via Plato and Augustine one thinks that ideal beauty cannot be known by man's senses, or if one thinks that it can be known via Aquinas because this existence has a lot of beauty in it. He attributed it to God, but it was a far sight better than Plato and Augustine's esthetics. Plato's and Augustine's esthetics did not lead to Renaissance art; but if you think Renaissance art was merely technique instead of something much more profound and based upon philosophy, then I wouldn't be able to convince you without writing an art history book and making it rather explicit. And I can't do that here.

You claim that Plato and Augustine’s esthetics did not lead to Renaissance art. I say no one factor did, but that nonetheless both Plato and Augustine through Petrarch exerted an important influence on Michelangelo and others. I previously submitted an article by Dr. Deborah Vess that deals with Michelangelo and neo-Platonism ( http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~dvess/micel.htm ). Here is another by Caroline Shin: http://writing.fsu.edu/?q=node/385

But this is a side issue. Let’s put the matter of Renaissance art back into the context of this thread. ~Sophia~ argued that “many of Kush's creations are nothing but mystical” and submitted the painting of the giant hands and candle as an example. Now Ayn Rand defined mysticism this way: “the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason.” Given that Objectivist esthetics points with admiration to Renaissance painting and sculpture, and given that Christian theology (which posits a realm apart from the evidence of one's senses) was the predominant theme of Renaissance art, on what basis do we condemn Kush for mysticism, when at best the supernatural in his works is only suggested?

[adrock3215]

I just wanted to post that my opinion on this artist has underwent somewhat of a change. While at OCON, I visited Laguna Beach and visited a Kush gallery that contained nearly all the works posted here, plus more. What is clear from my observations at the gallery is that Kush has tremendous skill. I was quite impressed in person, and I agree that in some works he demonstrates a breathtaking worldview coupled with (sometimes) clever creativity.