I don’t think all creativity requires intentionality. Some forms of creativity are the accumulation of unintentional outcomes, like when someone sets out to copy a thing, but due to mistakes or other factors outside their control end up with something unique to what they were going for.
But you can still be creative if you keep every outcome, it would be very hard to prove creativity if you discard everything. The one could argue you’re creative the moment you select something.
I was asking about creativity, not art. It’s possible for something to be creative and not be art.
I still posit that ceativity requires intentionality.
I don’t think all creativity requires intentionality. Some forms of creativity are the accumulation of unintentional outcomes, like when someone sets out to copy a thing, but due to mistakes or other factors outside their control end up with something unique to what they were going for.
The intentionality steps in when it is decided to keep or discard the outcome.
How can it be creative to destroy outcomes? Destruction is the opposite of creativity.
The creative process necessarily involves abandoning bad ideas and refining to something more intentional
Exactly. That is literally the only difference between “creative” and “non-creative” people.
But you can still be creative if you keep every outcome, it would be very hard to prove creativity if you discard everything. The one could argue you’re creative the moment you select something.
What point are you trying to make, again?