This post is related to the Mishra, Henrikson, and the Deep-Play Research Group reading for this week specifically about being in-disciplined and the contradiction in creativity “in which creativity requires deep disciplinary knowledge and also the ability to break disciplinary boundaries and transfer ideas across other subject matters”.
This reading reminded me of the the strong relationship between mathematics art and what is considered aesthetic: the golden ratio in architecture, painting, nature, rule of thirds in photography, Fibonacci numbers in nature, proportions and symmetry in the face, etc… (Frost’s verse, “If design govern in a thing so small.” comes to mind). These patterns were found in art even before they were uncovered and artists explicitly used them (e.g., evidence of the golden ratio in the Great Pyramids).
I think the aesthetics aspect of RAW creativity (in the arts in this case) occurs when the artist unconsciously sees these mathematical patterns and incorporates them in his/her design (i.e., is unconsciously utilizing the trans-disciplinary skills of perceiving, patterning, abstracting, embodied thinking, modeling, play, and synthesis). I think that in terms of creativity, there is a difference between a poet who writes poem verses in iambic pentameter because it “sounds good” and one who writes poem verses using in iambic pentameter because he/she learned it.