The Creative Power of Contradiction

Illustrations by Steph Medeiros

Hi! It’s so good to see you here. I just got some fresh flowers for my desk, and the studio smells like Peach Black Tea scented candle. A lot has been on my mind these last couple of weeks. I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of contradiction in my creative process.

I am an inspiration-seeking sponge. I am the friend who stays a little behind on every walk because I am taking pictures of random stuff around me (sorry). I'm not just observing the world; I'm using my eyeballs as Save As buttons, stuffing things into my mental desktop folder. Sure, that folder is an abject mess, but it's where the ideas come from.

Despite the disarray that might be going on in my mind, my brain loves consistency. It craves neatly separating things into little categories, shaping my aesthetic sense of taste and style. I am always open to new inspirations, but over time, I learned what I like and what I don't. I found a creative process that works. Use, rinse, repeat. After all, branding experts say over and over again, “Consistency is key.”

Consistency might be key for brands. But I’m not a brand. I want to connect with others, and sometimes I feel like I have to adhere to certain categories in order to fit in. In today's world, so many things tend to look similar. Content is replicated ad nauseam in the quest for virality. Nostalgia for the past fuels current trends. Look, I get it. I’m from the 90s. Familiarity feels comforting amid increasing instability. Sometimes the only fix is the extended trilogy of Lord of the Rings, a CBD gummy, and a pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. I often find myself revisiting familiar themes and subjects, and romanticizing the past. In art school, I was taught to stick to a coherent vision and follow design rules. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

But when does consistency become a constraint?

In his book Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher raises some thought-provoking questions: "How long can a culture persist without the new? What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises? The new defines itself in response to what is already established; at the same time, the established has to reconfigure itself in response to the new. Tradition counts for nothing when it is no longer contested and modified. A culture that is merely preserved is no culture at all."

“How long can a culture persist without the new? What happens if the young are no longer capable of producing surprises?” - Mark Fisher

These questions pierced me. Am I falling into the postmodernist trap of perpetually recycling old ideas? How can I foster a way of thinking to give birth to the new? I start my projects by researching, gathering inspiration, creating iterations, and refining from there. But I am thinking of changing that approach. Perhaps, instead of immediately defining what a concept is, I should also take time to explore what it isn't.

Enter Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German philosopher renowned for his systematic thinking. You might be asking yourself what the hell does Hegel have to do with this? Hegel’s Dialectics offers insights into the process of generating new ideas. I will be using a simplification of this concept in this essay, but if you would like an in-depth explanation, check out this Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article.

In Hegel’s dialectical method, new ideas arise from the friction of contradiction. Think of this method as an ongoing dialogue or debate between opposing sides. To visualize this better, we can use the triadic formation: thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. The thesis, also known as a proposition, is the the starting point, or the status-quo. The antithesis is the counter-proposition, or the contradiction to the thesis. The tension between the thesis and antithesis is only resolved by synthesis. Synthesis is the combination of the thesis and the antithesis to form something new. This ongoing process of contradictions sparks the birth of new ideas, richer and more evolved than their predecessors.

Everything is the sublation of constantly evolving opposites. As Hegel puts it, the result of the dialectical process “is a new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite.”

“Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.” – Hegel

Throughout history, Hegelian dialectics have provided a philosophical backdrop for artists to explore contradictions, push boundaries, and create innovative forms of expression.

From Romanticism versus Realism in the 19th century to the clash of fragmented forms and unity in Cubism, artists have embraced contradictions, leading to higher levels of creativity. Surrealism delved into the tension between the conscious and unconscious mind, while Abstract Expressionism liberated artists from the confines of the easel, with artists such as Pollock working on the ground, tackling a canvas from all sides. Dadaism was an anti-art movement that challenged the very meaning of art by putting ready-made objects into galleries. Pop Art challenged the distinction between mass culture and fine art. Postmodernism blurred traditional boundaries, but has since been saturated by pastiche and revivalism.

The current state of the creative world is in flux. It feels like everything is happening all at once, and yet nothing feels particularly new. I’m curious about what revolutionary and radically disruptive movements we can create today. I’m not siding with the detached blasé cynics on this one. There has to be space for the new.

As I explore this dialectical way of thinking, I realize I had been viewing the world in 2D, stuck between fixed polarities. In order to better understand the nuanced ebb and flow of creation, I need to embrace the 3D complexity of contradiction. I feel like I have been looking at a sculpture from the frontal view this whole time, without realizing I could walk around it to better experience it in 360 degrees. Two or more things can be true at the same time. Nothing is static. Concepts are in a constant process of tension, change, and evolution.

“In order to better understand the nuanced ebb and flow of creation, I need to embrace the 3D complexity of contradiction.”

Contradictions don’t exist in a vacuum. According to Jacques Derrida, who developed the philosophy of Deconstruction, meaning is often defined in terms of binary oppositions, where "one of the two terms governs the other.” I can define love by saying it is the absence of hate. I can define dark by saying it is the absence of light. I can define good by saying it is the absence of bad. Things contain in themselves the shadow of their opposites. Every element of progress has within itself an element of struggle.

Intersectional Feminists, Marxists, Post-Colonialists, and Critical Race theorists advocate for a nuanced understanding of the power imbalances in societal structures by challenging binary oppositions. These theories study how dichotomies like man/Woman, bourgeoisie/Working Class, colonizer/Colonized, cishet/Queer, white/Black, etc. have historically served to reinforce existing power dynamics, contributing to the marginalization and subjugation of certain groups.

These social structures change over time. For example, men in 1680s France used to wear wigs, makeup, and heels, often as a symbol of power and status. Now, those items are mostly classified as feminine. Social constructs aren’t static.

Trans and non-binary people have been around for centuries in multiple cultures as early as 5000 B.C. Queerness is a pre-colonial concept, yet many people still think it is a current trend. Unfortunately, that ignorance generates real violence, as anti-Trans legislation and policies spread nationwide.

The current people in power will always push back against the people who they believe threaten their hegemony. As Assata Shakur beautifully said, “No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them. Nobody is going to teach you your true history, teach you your true heroes, if they know that that knowledge will help set you free.” It is important to not only identify contradictions, but to also understand the historical context and the material conditions that created them in the first place.

“Marx proposed that the most effective solution to the problems caused by contradiction was to address the contradiction and then rearrange the systems of social organization that are the root of the problem.” Maurice Cornforth, Dialectical Materialism: An Introduction

In bell hooks’s essay “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness” she writes: “Within complex and ever shifting realms of power relations, do we position ourselves on the side of colonizing mentality? Or do we continue to stand in political resistance with the oppressed, ready to offer our ways of seeing and theorizing, of making culture, towards that revolutionary effort which seeks to create space where there is unlimited access to the pleasure and power of knowing, where transformation is possible?”

The dialectical method is not advocating for centrism. Progress doesn’t come from settling in the performative comfort of the middle. It comes from using the tension between opposing sides to form a new concept and a new material reality that is better than whatever was left behind.

A false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy or false binary, is a logical fallacy where a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things. Sometimes I get stuck between two false options, thinking those are the only two options I have. It keeps me from seeing the possibilities of transformation within the spectrum. I was able to embrace the paradoxes within my nonbinary gender identity and my Latine heritage, so why wouldn’t I also embrace them in my work?

“The paradox is the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo.” Soren Kierkegaard

How can I incorporate contradiction into my creative process? How can I explore the tension between opposites to generate new ideas? I want to create unexpected pairings, explore dichotomies, reinterpret traditions, combine diverse influences, and integrate conflicting emotions into my work. Is there a way to create an anti-capitalist brand? A fluid structure? An invisible symbol? A nonbinary artwork? An anti-logo? Something beyond a brand as we currently know it? Could a bad idea have the seed of a good idea within it? What is the inherent opposite contained within my creation? By questioning the givens, and embracing the tension of confronting pre-determined beliefs, I can perhaps get a step closer to creating something new.

“I want to create unexpected pairings, explore dichotomies, reinterpret traditions, combine diverse influences, and integrate conflicting emotions into my work.”

In a world where fast-paced productivity and consistency are seen as assets, our experiments, mistakes, and messiness aren’t always encouraged or celebrated. To innovate I need to trust that I will still be ok, even if I fail. To innovate I need to be ok with taking risks. My fear of failure keeps me tied to safety and conformity. It is easier to stay consistent with “the way we do things here”. But contradiction can be a catalyst for creative innovation. If I don’t question my methods, I fear complacency might take hold, leading me to opt for the easiest and most intuitive ideas rather than delving into the development of more refined ones.

When I am in need of some extra courage and inspiration, I go to Netflix to revisit the Chef’s Table episode of Chef Grant Achatz, from Alinea and Next. He is one of the greatest chefs in the world, and is constantly breaking preconceived notions of what food should look and taste like. This documentary highlights the creative process that made him a 3-Star Michelin chef.

Chef Achatz explains to the interviewer why they keep changing their menu, even though the restaurant is successful and they are fully booked daily. “What is important? Is it a signature dish? No, it’s about having a restaurant with philosophy, where the creativity is the priority. We could have created a greatest hits menu, but I think, if we do that, we fall into that trap of counter-creativity. I don’t think Wednesday night we will put the greatest meal that we ever put out. But I think it’s important to recognize the fact that we’re putting out different meals. To me the evolution of experience is almost more important.”

At one point in his career, Achatz was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer - squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. In an ironic twist of fate, he was a chef who could’t taste. Paradoxically, his sous chef said that temporarily losing his ability to taste is what made Achatz the chef he is today. He was able to see his cuisine in a completely different way, and to trust his team to help him come up with new ideas. Chef Achatz, now cancer free, is constantly disrupting his own work and creating new syntheses of culinary experiences that delight every single one of his guests.

I think it’s time I revisit my own creative menu. Going through the motions, without question or opposition, is a form of creative decline. If I don’t challenge and revisit my own contradictions, biases, and assumptions, I lose the creative spark of potential hidden within them.

“Resistance isn’t our destination or resting place, it is the catalyst for the solutions of the future.”

Instead of seeing friction as a barrier, I want to see it as an opportunity. I don’t want to stop at resistance. I want to build from it. Resistance isn’t our destination or resting place, it is the catalyst for the solutions of the future. Sometimes, consistency isn’t key. Some things should not be preserved. Sometimes, contradiction is where the creative gold lies.

I’m going to leave you with a poem I wrote that inspired this essay. Don’t be a stranger. It has been delightful to have this space to chat with you. Until next time.

“synthesis”

If one binary begs the other

Can I love without the hate?

Feel the sun without the shadow

or the random without fate?

Pressing opposites

The clash

The spark

The mutiny it creates

Synthesizing contradictions

Dialectical debate

Soar within these dual sides

The spectrum yearns to be unhidden

Opportunities abide

This land is fresh

Thinkers, come hither

Synthesizing imperfections

On a path of constant growth

Realizing intersections

Turning new what once was old

Unprovoked, these oppositions

Leave rare knowledge fruits to rot

Stagnant pools of ancient wisdoms

When affront them we do not

Anti-thesis

Confronts thesis

To a synthesis create

Onwards, impermanence

Seas of progress, inundate

Written by Steph Medeiros on August 2023, in Portland, OR.