I glean from both of your comments that often, liberal artists aren’t as liberal, or as artistic as they’d like to think of themselves–indeed, doing something “completely novel and unprecendented” is rare and I think Kant overstates what creativity is. As someone as put it, only God creates “ex nihilo” (sp?) i.e., from nothing. Classical aesthetics would say that we attempt to find the best expression of a form that has beauty and truth. It may be a known genre, but a well-executed expression of that genre, whether tragedy, comedy, or something else. True and complete originality is rare if and when it ever happens (and the more you learn about any particular genre or medium, the more you see how works considered quite singular had some real precedents that you just didn’t know about at the time–hence the importance of knowing your history. IOW it’s better to do art well rather than doing “completely original” art. Usually the work we enjoy the most starts with something familiar and has a fresh approach or wrinkle to it that suprises and pleases. (Almost everything Shakespeare wrote had prior sources.) As to liberal and conservative approaches, this seems to confirm that classic forms (conservative) expressed in new ways (liberal) produces great art.

But engineers are famously conservative, with industrial scientists only slighly less so, and academic scientists and engineers often being political moderates (which puts them well to the right of their non-scientist colleagues in academia).

Kant’s definition of creativity means, for example, that (at least until fairly recently) bands that were excellent “cover bands” were forced to write their own, typically sub-par, material in order to get a recording contract. Often that meant that the bands failed.

First of all there is not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between creativity and working in the “arts”. I believe that equating the two artificially limits the idea of creativity. There are plenty of ways of being creative without being in the “arts”.

Second, there is really not that much creative even in the “arts”. If by creative we mean innovative or thought provoking. Most of what constitutes the “arts” these days is very derivative or boringly shocking. (Insert a crucifix in urine, fine I’ll put feces on the Virgin Mary–I’m more shocking than you. Yawn.) I’m not saying that there isn’t anything innovative out there or that by and large it may be being created by liberals but it is definitely not in what we by and large identify as the arts.

Overall I like your each side helps balance the other conclusion but in the main both sides tend toward the middle and the possibility of creativity from either side is ignored.

MAK