Knowledge vs intelligence - The conflict of the saint and the artist

In the past couple of weeks or so I have gone through an emotional upheaval quite fitting in juxtaposition to the euphoric beginnings and sunny introduction to the fantastical reality of beginnings. If 'fantastical reality' is wanting to let you shout 'oxymoron', you'd be quite right. However, not in the sense of contradicting understandings for as you shall see during the course of my argument, it is truly real, but in the original portmanteau of the Greek words sharp and dull. In fact, in it's sourced meaning, I could argue the juxtaposition to be based on the oxymoron of reality of beginnings in that it is painfully sharp yet dull.

The sharpness derives, in this procession of events related to my own experience, from the affinity and taking a shine to the sense of importance and discovery, a sense of importance in uniqueness, appreciation of not the work or object but the concept of being first, that of discovery and merit based on discovery rather than what fills said discovery. I suggest that even more so than happiness, it is greatness, which drives great minds. For we remember many great authors, scientists and philosophers for being the first to publicize a point made, no matter how that same apple may have fallen upon a thinker setting in motion similar thoughts centuries after. The knowledge and drive for genius and to be known stretches beyond the mere contentment with goodness or even greatness of craftsmanship, intelligence or beauty, it strives for individuality, differentiation, and most of all, for being first.

Naivety of knowledge and conceptualization of such knowledge can be truly liberating in the process of thought and creation. It matters not how many generations of humans have learned to grasp the conceptualization of self, for instance, every time it is discovered new, without outside help, almost as a switch of connections of neurons. That, I believe, cannot be dismissed as a lesser discovery for lack of timely births and century choices of sperms and eggs to create, that is, for lack of control over which century one is born in as well as the unfortunate coincidence that one has thought thus before. One should not dismiss the naivety of unknown historical or literate knowledge at the presence of intelligent thought. I have discussed this previously in closer proximity to fashion in my article "Knowledge vs Intelligence - Defining expertise in the world of fashion".

Naivety is an interesting word and an interesting concept. One might quite like to decide that naivety is an attribute unwished for, but I have come to realize that depends on what kind of picture you'd like yourself to be painted in.

In the contextualization of the dualistic view of tough vs. soft, me desperately avoiding the latter, naivety seems to evoke a reaction of protectionism, motherhood and general puppy-with-three-legs-reaction that is extremely unappreciated despite its well meaning intentions. The concept of naivety does not seem, as it should, to create the realization of sharp, unadultered interpretation of, may I suggest, an intelligent observer, but is merely belittled to that of lacking knowledge of what is perceived as reality and in the worst yet most caring cases, in need of protection when reality is often clearer to the naive than it is to the knowledgeable.

On another note, creativity derives from naivety with a much stronger sense of conviction and drive as it does from that of tutored and shaped mind. In fact, creativity in par with productivity is best observed in the reclusion of the creator, the insolvency of interaction or interference. Surely it must be understandable that to interfere a sensation of discovery, genius and uniqueness with an unnecessary and uncalled for tutorial of historical knowledge is hindering in the productivity of creation. The afterthought, dare I suggest the portmanteau afterknowledge, may have to be professionally derived from historical and contextualized fact, however, it should, in the best of circumstances, not appear in the process of creation as a catalyst force of unproductivity and negative stimulus. The easiest, and often most naturally adapted form I have observed in the greatest minds and creators, is that of necessity for loneliness. And that, in turn, requires a necessity to abandon the want to be good to others. Creativity requires for one to be truly selfish in the process of creation, to believe in the possibility of greatness in order to achieve the highest possible form of drive and productivity.

As Iris Murdoch points out in relation to her book "Under the Net", the want to be good and the nesessity to be creative is in recurrent conflict. I thoroughly identify with the statement that there is a conflict between the artist and the saint and I believe it is so because of our necessity for loneliness in order to avoid the negative stimulus of historically contextualized knowledge helping screen the brakes of production and creativity.

Images are snapshots from the BBC program "In their own words: British Novelists - 2. The age of Anxiety (1945 - 1969)

Knowledge vs Intelligence - Defining expertise in the world of fashion

The 10000 hours rule
One of my favourite concepts is that of Malcom Gladwell's 10000 hour rule. You can become an expert in anything when you practice 10000 hours. However true the concept of abundance of ideas and quantity leading to quality might be, I am not certain whether the same applies to fashion style. Sure, expertise is needed in the craft of creating a dress, or in a situation when actual knowledge is involved for instance as someone who is meant to analyse trends. However, does this rule also apply to taste?

Knowing yourself is having good taste
I've done some research and it seems everyone disagrees with each other on this point. 'Fashion consultant' Robert Pante from the 1980s, calling himself an 'expert' after a few years of being involved in fashion, suggests that although taste is born, with a 'right' and alert attitude anyone can copy and consciously measure their style into being tasteful. However, I'm sure many readers will agree with me when I say that this is utterly cringey. The idea of taste and style is to be yourself, not copy, and make "it" work in a way that fits you as an individual best. In many cases just copying someone's outfit that might have suited that person perfectly, most likely won't suit you.

However, I have come to realise that taste comes from knowing yourself, which is a form of knowledge that increases with the amount of hours one spends on actually getting to know the way in which the self interacts with fashion and combinations of pieces. Experimenting, making mistakes and stretching your fashion use to the max does seem to improve the knowledge of oneself and results in an increased awareness of what one can pull off, what looks good on oneself and what is - for your own individual body and type - good taste.

Copying or interpreting?
Where do the boundaries of expertise actually blur, though? When can someone working in the fashion industry actually be called an expert? A great example for this, and what set off the chain reaction of thoughts on this subject were the DIY tights made by the lovely blogger The Haute Pursuit who openly establishes her consumer and amateur stance as a down-to earth girl with fashion sense. 'Inspired' by Cecilia from KeepItFvncy, she copied the idea of Miu Miu prints by skilfully creating tights using similar designs and is utterly open and proud about it. Curiously, its result were a lot more tasteful in the context of her style than the commercially perfect, neat lines of the Miu Miu pieces themselves would have been. My question now is - as an individual, who has spent hours and hours coming close to the 1000 hour rule on fine tuning herself (as it should be) paired with a talent, which must also have been honed in unmentioned hours - can she be counted as an expert despite her 'consumer' presentation?

Despite its certainly fun and talented application, there is a substantial itch that needs to be addressed and although it may not be a particularly important point for a consumer, it always will be an itch for anyone who is a creator of fashion - that of uniqueness. Here I go back to the idea of expertise in fashion - taste is to know oneself because the self is unique. However, as the wise designer Rosario from El Ultimo Grito has once said, ( immortalised on a badge by Stuart Bannocks) - value hirarchy of creative claim is based on either being better or having done it before everyone else. If you exclude cultural attachments and social status that comes with official titles 'blogger/ consumer' vs. 'big-name-established-designer' and look purely at the fashion pieces in the used context themselves, this applies here - the tights look definitely better and in terms of finish and application as well as the placing of the idea on tights and sheer fabric with a rock glam finish rather than on a solid coloured, thick black suit. On the other side of the spectrum of this argument I have come across Lou Lou Magazine from Canada today, which claims to be an 'expert in shopping'. This is, I can assure you true in the sense of the word, but sounds strange as the concept of 'expertise' carries a business, logical attachment as opposed to a the fashion equivalent of 'good taste', which is a lot harder to use as an official status claim. Intelligence has always been harder to prove than knowledge.

It all boils down to value
As in so many of my articles it all boils down to value. Expertise, in its textbook sense of knowledge accumulated in quantity, doesn't apply to the consumer fashion industry in as much of an extent (only through a backdoor way to establish taste) as does the hirarchy of value and contextual and visual intelligence, which is born, not learned as is knowledge and skill.