The question of why I feel the need to create has been on my mind the last few days. Not that I've really had time to ponder the answer but it certainly comes to mind when I think about my hobbies I want to do and what future endeavors I'll embark on. From a purely logical standpoint my hobbies have cost me more money than money I saved making beer or soap or whatever. Even my motorcycle that gets 100 miles to the gallon will still only save me so much money after I pay it off. I'll have to ride this Honda Grom 5000 miles before it's saved enough money to pay itself off. And then I have to ride it at least a few times a month to work in order to justify the tax and insurance! Regardless, the relentless desire to seek out new hobbies and expand upon the ones I already have is great. But why?
It is said that creating art is our attempt to portray beauty, to convey an idea, capture an emotion and evoke it in others. What about making soap? Do life long soap makers have a desire, either forefront in their mind or tucked away in the subconscious, to invoke a feeling in other human beings? After all, some create for pure monetary gain. Why create new fast food? Why create images for a marketing business? Some forms of art or creation are just purely motivated by profit. I don't necessarily think that it's wrong. On the contrary, there is an art in itself of creating a new marketing ploy that gets consumers to buy a cheaply made product or sub par service. (Like cable TV or any expensive brand of bleach)
There are many artists who despite going into bankruptcy, being homeless or suffering physically at the hands of other people or government still act upon the desire to create. Why are human beings the only living things that feel this need to create to the point of death for the principle of creating? Is it because we are free too, or at least Should be free to create? Is creating a human right? Is the expression of emotion, in some physical form that others can be galvanized by it or for it, a human right as unalienable as the right to life? Perhaps America's founding fathers thought a little bit about this subject as it's the very first bill in the bill of rights that protects our ability to express in speech and in press. But what about the right to express in marble or clay? On canvas with oil or acrylic? What about with soap?
The censorship of art, other than written word, is a little easier to get away with. Take away the funding for different areas of art and it will diminish from public view. (Such was the case before social media connected everyone I'll imagine.) Movies are a great example of censorship as they are restricted with ratings and certain films of more mature content can't be shown during sensible hours or display such graphic content over public broadcast. Radio, as we all know, prohibits use of swear words and other vulgar terms via the FCC. While this all makes sense as we don't want to expose our kids and other sensitive groups to such language and content, is this form of censorship still too much? Should our ability to express, and more importantly to consume, be restricted by anybody but the individual? After all, I know that certain TV shows expose me to more mature and often vulgar content than what I would want. By simply not consuming that show with my viewership I can self regulate. Does this mean that billboards could or should be plastered with obscene images or language for the sake of advertising? Sex sells as they say, and I can't imagine too many people would be happy seeing erotic images to sell a product or service. Then again, watch a few superbowl ads and you'll be shocked at what comes up.
Perhaps a little government censorship is necessary in order to separate us from the animals. Animals are only beautiful with vibrant colors, feathers, fur, antlers, etc because they want to mate and continue their existence. As mankind we are supposed to be above that having conquered the elements and transcended into a state of existence where art and the creation of it is worth writing about, thinking about or actually doing. What we really need is to get all these old bats out of congress and get some fresh and edgy blood in their to shake things up!
In the end, I suppose it doesn't matter why we create because if the urge is still there then what are we to do other than satisfy the want? Life is about wants and needs. We "need" 3 things to stay alive: food, water and shelter from the elements. But our ancestors, who barely had these three things, still took time and caloric effort to search out materials and transform them into cave art. At this point, perhaps creating art or consuming it should be considered a need just as much as food or water is. In complete isolation, we still feel the need to create, maybe even more so in isolation. Maybe that's a sign that we bother to create because we need to create: Creating art is a human condition.