Introduction

It is said that an artist “creates”, that a craftsman “fabricates”, that a scientist “discovers”. The single word hides distinct actions, and separating them requires making precise what “to create” means in the strict sense and what the human being actually does when it produces something new.

1. Seven distinct verbs

Between creating (creare: producing from nothing, ex nihilo), making (facere: producing from something, in the generic sense), fabricating (fabricare: constructing with materials), producing (producere: bringing forth into the light), transforming (transformare: changing the form of a matter), inventing (invenire: finding or devising a new form) and discovering (discooperire: uncovering what already existed hidden) there is a decisive difference. Only creating does not presuppose prior matter; all the other verbs describe operations upon something already given. Greek and Latin already separated ποιεῖν / facere (making) from κτίζειν / creare (creating).

2. Creation ex nihilo

The doctrine of creation from nothing has a biblical foundation and a patristic development. In Genesis 1:1 we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; the Hebrew verb בָּרָא (bara) is reserved in the Bible to God as subject, for men asah (make) and yatsar (form), but do not bara. 2 Maccabees 7:28 specifies that God made things “out of nothing” (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). The doctrine is developed against Gnosticism in Saint Irenaeus and Tertullian and is fixed in the Nicene Creed.

Saint Thomas Aquinas systematizes it in the Summa theologiae I, q. 45. He states that to create is to make something from nothing (creare est aliquid ex nihilo facere, I q.45 a.1), that creation is not a change (mutatio) — because every change presupposes a subject that changes, whereas creation presupposes nothing and is rather the total emanation of being from the first principle — and that creating belongs to God alone (I q.45 a.5), for man cannot produce the being of things and only operates upon what already is.

3. The decisive distinction: esse and forma

The whole problem is resolved by separating two levels. God creates the esse — being itself, from nothing —, while man produces the forma — a new form in already given matter —. Man can produce new forms — a statue, a symphony or a poem — but cannot produce the being of anything. That is why human “creativity” is real and, at once, analogous: it participates in divine creating — producing novelty — but does not equal it — it does not produce being —.

Three assertions that are not equivalent should not be confused. It is true that “the artist does not create the being of things” and that “human creativity is real but not equivalent to divine creation”; it is false, on the other hand, that “the artist creates nothing”, for that would deny the real novelty of form. Passing from “does not create being” to “does not create anything” is the most frequent error and arises from using a single word for the two levels.

4. Art imitates nature

The principle “ars imitatur naturam” comes from Aristotle (Physics II.2, 194a21: «ἡ τέχνη μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν»), developed in Physics II.8, 199a: “if the art of shipbuilding were in the wood, it would produce by nature the same results”. Nature and art share finality; they differ in that nature carries within itself its principle of movement, whereas art has it outside, in the mind of the artist.

It is necessary to indicate what “imitating” means here: art does not copy the appearance of nature, but reproduces its operation — tending toward an end through form —. The physician does not copy the appearance of health; he reproduces the operation by which the body recovers its balance.

Saint Thomas gives the reason for the principle in his commentary on the Physics (In II Physicorum, lect. 4, n. 6):

«Eius autem quod ars imitatur naturam, ratio est, quia principium operationis artificialis cognitio est; omnis autem nostra cognitio est a rebus.»

“The reason why art imitates nature is that the principle of artificial operation is knowledge; and all our knowledge comes from things.”

That passage traces an exact bridge: art operates through knowledge, and knowledge proceeds from things. The resulting chain is reality → knowledge → art, with nature as reality in its dynamism ordered to an end. Saint Thomas further adds that nature itself is “divine art” (natura est ars divina), so that human art ultimately imitates the art of God — albeit only “insofar as it can” (in quantum potest), because its form is extrinsic.

Conclusion

It can be safely asserted that only God creates being (ex nihilo), that man produces new forms in given matter, and that art imitates nature by reproducing its operation, not its appearance. It should not be asserted that man “creates” in the strict sense, nor that he “creates nothing” — he produces forms —. The relation between this human making and the notion of aesthetic representation is studied in Mimesis: art and reality; its application to a thesis about the artist’s activity, in The artist, representation, and reality.

References

Primary sources

  • Genesis 1:1 and 2 Maccabees 7:28.
  • Aristotle, Physica II.2 (194a21) and II.8 (199a) (Bekker ed.).
  • Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I q.45 and In II Physicorum lect. 4, n. 6.
  • Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses.

Secondary sources

  • Gilson, É., L’esprit de la philosophie médiévale.