tom & i were chatting about categories & novelty. i expressed my discontent — just as i’d expressed a few nights ago to pranjali (and others over the years) — about the lack of novelty.
his take made me look at it in another way.
I guess it depends on how you define novelty. For me, I look for categories in any field to help me have context for what I am seeing. When I have a reference to compare a new thing to, I can learn something from it, and can figure out how it fits into my experience and my world. Subtle differences bring delight, for me.
New categories arise for me when I need them. They may not be appropriate to everyone else’s interests, however. I don’t always write about them because I think there is value in discovering one's own categories, the patterns you see that perhaps others don't. Also because, for example, not everyone delights in the ten thousand variations of a light switch, as I might.
when something is new, it’s new relative to what? therefore, it is new relative to a category; and must become its own category.
my categories don’t have to make sense to you.
this was sensitive. thought about sensitivity, artistic-potential & craftsmanship.
this new categorization thing is also related to learning. i think the best learners make up their own categories & definitions (like pedro did).