(I'm going to post this on /lit/ too because it's equally applicable there)
When someone creates a great work of art, how much of it is through rational thought processes, and how much of it is simply due to instinct; emotion?
I should begin by saying that I am, or rather was, firmly of the belief that it is an unconscious (I shan't go as far as to say spiritual) force that drives successful works. However, of the people that I have discussed this with, the majority seem to believe the opposite—that it is, at least in part, a methodical process. Not to say that it is in any way clinical or formulaic, but that the artist is fully aware of what they are doing and why.
Having read more analyses of famous authors and directors I think I understand why this view is common; if it is possible to dissect a work of art from merely having read/seen it, it isn't difficult to imagine that the person who actually made the damn thing knew exactly what they were doing. However, I still cannot shake the feeling that inspection of this kind simply describes why a piece works, and not necessarily the thought process of the creator.
Are there any authors/directors/whatever who have talked about this? The closest I have come to is Tarkovsky's comments on symbolism, but even that isn't really what I'm talking about. (funnily enough I love Tarkovsky's films. If I wanted to be a big homo I'd say they speak to me)
pic unrelated
