The cultural and philosophical foundations of the correlation of the phenomena of «artistry» and «creativity»

Kachay Il'ya Sergeevich ORCID: 0009-0009-7500-2493 Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, Siberian Federal University 660041, Russia, Krasnoyarskii krai, Krasnoyarsk, pr. Svobodnyi, 82A, aud. 428 monaco-24-Ilya@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

For the first time, the scientific interest in the topic of the correlation of the phenomena of creativity and creativity arose in the 2010s, when the first material on this topic was published, considering creativity as a technological, pragmatic, imitative and shocking variation of creativity, as an imitation of creativity ^[1]. At that time, only a few scientific papers were devoted to the substantiation of creativity as a similarity and simulation of creativity, because its understanding as a creative ability was considered the dominant and even unshakable definition of creativity in the meaningful space of social-humanitarian (and, above all, psychological and pedagogical) discourse. However, over time, the problem of distinguishing creativity and creativity as, respectively, genuine and imaginary creativity began to be increasingly developed in philosophical, cultural, art history, sociological and the same psychological and pedagogical sciences, which was reflected in a large number of studies on this issue. Moreover, the topic of developing criteria for the correlation (differentiation) of the phenomena (and concepts) of creativity and creativity is considered quite dissertable today, which could not have been thought of ten or fifteen years ago.

The phenomenon of creativity: a historical and philosophical excursion

Before considering the cultural and philosophical foundations of the relationship between creativity and creativity and talking about the current state of the problem, it is necessary to make a brief excursion into the history of philosophical reflection on the phenomenon of creativity and identify the nodal historical and philosophical ways of conceptualizing this phenomenon. Thus, in the context of ancient philosophy, creativity is justified in two ways: on the one hand, as a divine act of establishing a new being, and on the other – as an imitation of man's existing material existence, which, in turn, imitates the perfect world of ideas. Plato reveals creativity in an ontological way, meaning by it "every transition of one object from non-existence to being" ^{[2, p. 96]}. At the same time, the source of human creativity, mimetic in nature, is the obsessive contemplation of eternal existence by the subject in order to achieve true knowledge, which also indicates the epistemological determinacy of creativity. In the space of medieval philosophical searches, creativity is understood mainly from the creationist and theocentric positions and is revealed as a theistic or deistic act of creation and invocation of something from nothing by the free will of the Creator God. In this regard, human creativity is reduced to the conversion of a person to God and is understood as the religious aspiration of the subject to virtue.

The anthropocentrism and humanism of Renaissance philosophy, coupled with its inherent cult of genius, allow us to assert man as an autonomous creator, independent of natural or divine forces. The creativity of a Renaissance man is justified as the sublime activity of a free subject to bring new things into reality, as well as as a process of self-improvement, the ideal of which, nevertheless, is the divine principle. The philosophy of Modern times absolutizes the epistemological aspect of creativity, understanding the latter as a combinatorics of the available elements of existence based on the knowledge of the laws of the universe, which determines discoveries and inventions. In particular, in the philosophical teachings of F. Bacon and J. Locke reveals "the actual identity of human abilities of creativity and cognition, the result of the actualization of which is the correct orientation of the subject in his practical transformative activity" ^{[3, p. 45]}. In the conceptual space of German classical philosophy, the epistemological line in understanding the phenomenon of creativity is developed by I. Kant, who substantiates the latter as the foundation of the cognitive activity of the subject, since in the process of cognition, according to Kant, the subject de facto creates his object. At the same time, productive imagination plays a key role in cognition, which is revealed as "a link between sensuality and reason and ensures their organic synthesis" ^{[4, p. 39]}. Productive imagination as an intermediary link between theoretical and practical is justified by F.W.J. Schelling, who considers creativity to be the culmination of human activity. The activity nature of creativity is also revealed in the dialectical-materialistic approach, which asserts creativity as an activity for the transformation of natural and socio-cultural reality by man, as well as as a self-transformation of the subject.

Non-classical and modern philosophy places the main emphasis in understanding the essence of the phenomenon of creativity on its irrational, intuitive, instinctive, volitional and sensual principles. Being itself in the space of non-classical doctrinal constructions is interpreted as a continuous creative process, as the incessant formation of otherness and otherness, as an aimless and chaotic stream of renewal that cannot be comprehended from the standpoint of limiting and schematizing reason. This kind of procedural and dynamic understanding of creativity is reflected in the concept of being as a creative evolution by A. Bergson, the doctrine of cultural forms by G. Simmel and in many other philosophical ideas. It is also impossible not to note the characteristic justification of creativity for non-classical philosophy as a permanent process of free and responsible self-creation and self-transcendence of the subject, which can be traced in the works of J. P. Sartre, H. Ortega y Gasset, E. Mounier, J. Lacroix and many other thinkers. In postmodern philosophy, the place of creativity is occupied by the play of the author and the reader, the latter of whom brings his own meanings to the author's text: "In conditions of permanent fluidity of meanings, the author enters into a playful relationship with the reader as a co-creator of the text. Moreover, the author does not create, but rather combines the specified elements of the text of culture" ^{[5, p. 66]}. Finally, the philosophical understanding of creativity in the context of Russian religious philosophy, associated mainly with the names of V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev, is revealed in the understanding of creativity by the first thinker as a process of free theurgy aimed at the ascent of the subject to God, and in the understanding of creativity by the second philosopher as a continuation of divine creativity by man, as ecstatic transcending beyond the immanent objectified being. In this regard, Berdyaev defines creativity as "an increase, addition, creation of a new, unprecedented in the world" ^{[6, p. 117]}.

The Existential rootedness of creativity: a layered ontology

As shown by the appeal to the historical and philosophical reflection of creativity, the latter reveals its productive intentions at various levels of the hierarchy of being – the levels of natural, socio-cultural and existential-personal being. In other words, creativity is justified as the self-actualization of transcendental principles (natural level), as the establishment of social and cultural values, meanings and ideals (socio-cultural level), as self-creation, self-actualization and self-transcending of the creative subject himself (existential and personal level). In this regard, S.I. Fiut notes that in the act of creativity, the subject transforms various levels of the hierarchy of being: "The work is a manifestation of the freedom of the artist, who in himself and in the world ... has found favorable conditions for his existence" ^{[7, p. 328]}. At the same time, V. Blok points out that "although humanity is not the subject of the creation of the world, ... rooting in the world is not complete without human participation, since this world is performatively constituted in the act of invention" ^{[8, p. 16]}. It should also be noted that creativity is organically intertwined with everyday human life, manifesting itself in the search for original ways to solve everyday difficulties, as evidenced by K. Moruzzi: "Creativity as a way of solving problems can also be observed in our daily interaction with the environment and in actions that, otherwise, we could consider them trivial" ^{[9, p. 5]}.

Multidimensional conceptualization of the essence of creativity

In addition to highlighting the existential levels of disclosure of creative intentions, the historical and philosophical reflection of the phenomenon under study allows us to consider it through the prism of various aspects, each of which represents the fundamental criteria of creativity. These aspects should include ontological, epistemological, axiological, socio-cultural, anthropological, praxiological, ethical and aesthetic. Indeed, in order to form a full-fledged ideological picture of the phenomenon of creativity, it must be considered from the ontological (creativity as a product of a new being), epistemological (creativity as cognition), axiological (creativity as the embodiment of values), socio-cultural (creativity as a dialogue between a person and Another and a way of developing cultural traditions), anthropological (creativity as a manifestation of the potencies of the subject and the process of self-creation), praxological (creativity as a process and activity), ethical (creativity as moral self-development and the realization of humanistic intentions) and aesthetic (creativity as the creation of works of art) positions. Thus, the fundamentality and poly-vector nature of creativity consists in the fact that, on the one hand, it is a source of new objects, knowledge, values, a way of interpersonal and intercultural communication, a way of self-creation, the essence of activity, an expression of virtues, a source of works of art, and on the other hand, it acts as an integrative characteristic of various spheres of human existence (society and culture): actually creative (innovative), cognitive, valuable, social (communicative), cultural (traditionalist), personal (existential), activity, moral (spiritual), as well as artistic.

The philosophy of creativity: the contours of the discipline

This kind of multidimensional phenomenon of creativity requires a comprehensive approach to understanding its essential characteristics and specific features from the point of view of various sections of philosophy. In addition, there is a need to develop a special section of philosophy – philosophy (general theory) of creativity and its separate subsections – ontology of creativity, epistemology of creativity, axiology of creativity, cultural philosophy ^[10] of creativity, anthropology of creativity, praxiology of creativity, ethics of creativity and aesthetics of creativity. In this regard, B. Gaut focuses on the fact that creativity cannot be considered only from aesthetic positions, because "creativity is found in science, craft, business, technology, organizational life and daily activity" ^{[11, p. 1034]}, in connection with which the philosophy of creativity should be built on various sections of philosophical knowledge. It should be noted that it is only on the basis of such a multidimensional study of the phenomenon of creativity that it becomes possible to formulate the criteria foundations of genuine creativity, as well as to develop cultural and philosophical foundations for the correlation, differentiation of creativity and creativity. In this study, an attempt is made to comprehensively comprehend the correlation between the phenomena of creativity and creativity and to develop multidimensional cultural and philosophical grounds for their differentiation. The criterion basis for such a distinction is ontological, epistemological, axiological, socio-cultural, anthropological, praxiological, ethical and aesthetic grounds.

Creativity: classical definitions

The first mention of the category "creativity" is associated with the name of D. Simpson, who in 1922 defined it as the ability of a subject to overcome stereotypes and patterns of thinking ^{[12, p. 155]}. Similarly, creativity is conceptualized by J. Gilford, in fact identifying it with divergent thinking, characterized by the ability to generate a large number of non-standard solutions for a specific task in a limited period of time ^[13]. Creativity is also justified as the ability to discover original ways of expressing a problematic situation (K. Rogers ^[14]), develop hypotheses that fill in the missing elements of solving the problem (E. Torrence ^[15]), deviate from stereotypes at the stage of recombination of associative elements (S. Mednik ^[16]), expand existing experience by including new components in it (F. Barron ^[17]). Gilford and Torrence identify such direct creative abilities as cognitive fluency, flexibility and originality. Researchers of creativity also reveal such specific characteristics of creativity as the ability to improvise, variative combination, intuitive choice, anticipation (anticipation of the results of activity), aesthetic empathy, finding non-trivial associations, etc.

Creativity as the general potency of creativity

One way or another, creativity in the problematic field of theoretical psychology and pedagogy is understood in the most general way as the unity of the creative abilities of the subject, as his total creative potential, as the general human ability to create. Creativity is justified as an integrative characteristic of the subject, which includes intellectual, affective, motivational, need-based, volitional, communicative and other determinants of personality, allowing the latter to be nominated as "creative". So, N. Myshkovsky, B. Barbeau and F. Zenasni considers "a set of key intellectual, personal, motivational and emotional aspects" to be the main characteristics of a creative subject ^{[18, p. 33]}. At the same time, various researchers prioritize, mainly, either the emotional or intellectual qualities of a creative personality. If, for example, R. Trnka declares the importance of the emotional component of creativity, justifying it as "a set of ... personal traits associated with the originality and relevance of emotional experience" ^{[19, p. 321]}, then R. Strauch and N.L. King consider intelligence to be the general creative determinant, since "the subject is motivated... intellectual benefits ... and makes reasonable judgments about when and how to engage in creative self-expression" ^{[20, p. 103]}.

Creativity and creativity: the territory of terminological crossroads

Thus, in the modern socio-humanitarian space, hundreds of definitions and conceptual approaches to the phenomenon of creativity can be found, which indicates a semantic heterogeneity in relation to this phenomenon. No less problematic is the ease with which the concept of "creativity" is actually identified with the category of "creativity", and in many cases replaces the latter. Indeed, for about half a century the term "creativity" has been in scientific use in socio-humanitarian discourse. Concepts such as "creative industries" ^[21], "creative technologies" ^[22], "creative cluster" ^[23] and similar have become an integral part of the categorical framework of many sciences and the lexicon of the broad social masses. However, as will be shown below, the tendency to replace the concept of creativity with the category of "creativity" is not limited to a purely problem of translation, especially since creativity (both as a concept and as a phenomenon) in the Russian-speaking space acquires specific connotations that are not synonymous with the rich semantic palette of the concept (and phenomenon) of creativity.

Without going into a detailed linguistic analysis of these concepts (which was carried out by the author of this article earlier ^[24]), it should nevertheless be noted that the English verb "to create" in Russian translation has a huge variety of meanings ("to create", "to create", "to invent", "to discover", "generate", "establish", "produce" and many others), the reverse translation of which does not lead to the original calculated term. It should also be noted that the roots of this verb should be sought in Latin ("creare") and, in particular, in the name of the religious and philosophical concept of creationism as the doctrine of the creation of the world by the free will of God from nothing ^{[25, p. 80]}. As a result of various kinds of semantic collisions affecting the phenomena of creativity and creativity, as I.S. Zinchenko emphasizes, "creative activity is called activity that resembles it in appearance, but is not such in essence," while "such activity can be called a surrogate of creativity, as the embodiment of false, unreal, fake" ^{[26, p. 17]}.

The secondary and (at best) serviceability of the concept of "creativity" in relation to the category of "creativity" at the linguistic level is emphasized by the concepts of "creatura", "creakle" and "createma" formed from the first term. The first concept refers to a temporary protege for a prominent position, obtained only through third-party patronage. The second term defines an infantile person with mediocre intelligence who tries to achieve social recognition through outrageous behavior, but at the same time parasitizes on public goods. Finally, the third concept describes a stylistic device consisting in the use of pre-thought-out lexical means and technologies to create a certain emotional effect among a wide audience in order to achieve certain pragmatic goals. Thus, the volumes of the above concepts, formed from the category of "creativity", intersect in the semantic field, representing such personal determinants of a creative subject as dependence on someone else's will, infantilism, pretentiousness, eccentricity, immoralism, technology and pragmatism. In this regard, A.I. Luchankin and L.A. Kadyrova note that "an etymological analysis of the root meanings and synonyms of the term "creativity" reveals its official meaning" ^{[27, p. 127]}, and G.N. Yakovleva emphasizes that "the contexts in which the concept of "creative" is used in the Russian language do not give it opportunities to become synonymous with the word "creative"" ^{[28, p. 228]}.

However, a full-fledged analysis of the correlation between the phenomena of creativity and creativity cannot be carried out only from linguistic (as well as only from psychological or pedagogical) positions. To realize the main goal of this study, it is necessary to turn to the methodology of philosophy, especially since the philosophical understanding of objective patterns and the ultimate foundations of creativity has a centuries-old history.

I. Ontological grounds

The ontology of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that studies objective patterns, essential characteristics and ultimate foundations of creativity as a product of a new, unique and original being. The ontology of creativity studies the ways of revealing various intentions of creativity at the levels of natural, socio-cultural and existential-personal existence. Indeed, creativity in an ontological perspective is justified as "a cosmic (natural), divine and human process of creating a unique and original being, inseparable from a deep knowledge of the essence of phenomena, the disclosure of the subject's potencies and moral self-improvement" ^{[29, p. 128]}, for which reason "the ontology of creativity explores the objective laws of the process of establishing a new being and creativity itself is justified as an attribute of human, natural or divine existence" ^{[30, p. 138]}. In this regard, the ontology of creativity can be considered the main, fundamental section of the philosophy of creativity, acting as the foundation of the other sections of the philosophy of creativity, because creativity, being a product of a new being, inevitably affects the cognitive, value, social, cultural, personal, activity, moral and artistic aspects of human existence (as well as society and culture).

It is not for nothing that M.S. Neves-Pereira and M.A. Pinheiro justify creativity as a "social, semiotic, dialogical and relativistic phenomenon developing through processes permeated by the special dynamics of the human mental constitution itself" ^{[31, p. 11]}, and V. Blok notes that creativity "establishes a new identity for the world and at the same time the same time places itself outside the existing" ^{[8, p. 10]}. It should also be noted that creativity "reveals itself as an experience of the ontological unity of the subject and being," while "the ontological orientation of the creative act unfolds in the context of semantic transformation, where the unique meaning is the result of a creative meeting between man and the world" ^{[32, p. 45]}.

The development of cultural and philosophical foundations of the correlation of creativity and creativity from an ontological point of view requires the formulation of more specific criteria for their differentiation.

1A. The basis of "novelty – combinatorics". The essence of creativity is the creation of a new, unique and original existence. Moreover, new forms of existence, as already noted, can acquire not only physical objects, but also knowledge, values, communication processes, ways of existence and human activity, virtues and, of course, artistic creations. However, these existential forms can be considered works of creativity only on the condition that they are new. In this regard, it should be noted that "new" can be understood both as something that did not exist before (in other words, as fundamentally and qualitatively new), and as something that is new for a particular culture, society, or even for the most creative subject (new in existential and personal terms). At the same time, what is often presented as new is what is the result of the recombination of already existing (already known) elements, as a result of which, in this case, it is more appropriate to talk rather about a pseudo-original, quasi-creative product, which is formed, as I.V. Yerofeyeva writes, "through the use of creative technologies that allow to deploy a bright, expressive and an unconventional picture of existence" ^{[33, p. 231]}. In other words, creativity is revealed as a combinatorial reproduction and a "successful" (in terms of solving a specific pragmatic problem) comparison of heterogeneous elements of existence with subsequent fanfaronish flaunting of a pseudo-original product as a fundamentally "new" creation. Indeed, creativity, as O.S. Gagarina notes, is "the most successful combination of elements borrowed from various fields of ... activity, providing maximum effect" ^{[34, p. 25]}.

1B. The basis of "originality – plagiarity". If creativity establishes new spiritual and material values, relying on existing cultural traditions and at the same time organically developing them, resulting in a harmonious work, which, in turn, is a source of creative inspiration for other creators, then the source of creative activity is often a mechanical compilation of individual fragments of other people's creations or even almost complete the calculation of these works, followed by the attribution of authorship by the creative subject to himself. It is quite natural that such parasitic plagiarism does not take into account existing cultural traditions and does not lead to their creative enrichment. As a result, the result of creative activity becomes a pseudo-creative pseudo-production, which is then often borrowed or completely copied by other creative subjects, which causes the replication and circulation of such creative simulacra in the socio-cultural space. Therefore, "the modern stage of cultural development can be safely dubbed the era of closed creativity, in the plagiarized context of which it is often not possible to find the true source of creativity" ^{[24, p. 45]}. In this regard, F. Nietzsche, calling this kind of activity vain creativity, clearly shows that the latter "causes a fatal consequence – the vulgarization of the truly great influence, and this vulgarization occurs due to the fact that it is replicated as soon as possible, and the methods and techniques of genius are devalued by everyday use" ^{[35, p. 321]}.

1C. The basis of "content – form". Due to the fact that creative activity has a combinatorial and plagiative nature, its result is a product in which the external (presentational) form prevails over the semantic content. Orientation to the novelty of the form, rather than the content, is determined by consumer intentions of creative activity, as T.N. Ovcharova writes: "Creativity ... tends not to meaningful, but to formal novelty, for which the key characteristics will be originality, unusual, non-standard form (design, presentation, interpretation), aimed at attracting the attention of the consumer to the result already created by productive activity" ^{[36, p. 39]}. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the Confucian concept of correcting names, according to which the inconsistency of things with their names contributes to the chaoticization of social, cultural and even natural existence, in connection with which Xunzi postulates the inadmissibility of such pseudo-creative realities, "when the appearance of a thing changes, but in its real [content] this thing remains the same, not giving birth to a new, different thing" ^{[37, p. 194]}. In other words, the primacy of the external, presentational, wrapping side of the work over its essential content leads to the formation of a pseudo-event, which is why creativity is formal (in all senses) creativity, in other words, meaningless form-making.

1D. The basis is "quality – quantity". Similarly, the dominance of the quantitative component over their qualitative characteristics can be traced in the products of creative activity. Indeed, a combinatorial, plagiarized and formal approach to creative activity determines the build-up of quantitative predicates of a creative product that mask the emasculation of meaningful content (and formal execution). The replication of such creative objects condones the quantitative and mechanical expansion of existence to the detriment of its qualitative transformation and spiritual enrichment. E. Munier describes the tendency to replace the quality of creative works with their quantitative increase: "Dexterity, accomplice, accomplice are put in place of creativity and just honest spiritual activity to cover for accomplice" ^{[38, p. 344]}. Thus, the products of creative activity (unlike creative works) have an understated ontological status, since it is much more difficult and responsible to create a high-quality work of art or make a revolutionary scientific discovery than to create out-of-the-ordinary creative or to create creative ersatz products.

II. Epistemological grounds

The epistemology of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that considers the cognitive functions of creativity and the creative nature of cognition. In this regard, it is worth noting that creativity from an epistemological point of view is interpreted as "an active, continuous and purposeful search for previously non-existent solutions and is characterized by an intention for the future, which reveals itself as the ability to generate new existential perspectives and worldviews" ^{[3, p. 47]}. At the same time, creativity implies the ability of the subject not only to rational, but also to intuitive discretion of implicit (deep) meanings-the meanings of external events and phenomena, as well as events and phenomena of the intimate existential and personal space of the creative subject himself. The processes of creativity and cognition also intersect in the sense that "cognition is a creative process, consisting both in the desire to discover new opportunities among existing connections and relationships, and in the direct generation of new knowledge, ideas, meanings and images" ^{[39, p. 98]}.

The synthesis of creative and cognitive activity of the subject is also postulated by M. Peshl and T. Fundneider, emphasizing the anticipatory nature of cognition, because "what needs to appear is more important than the recombination of already existing knowledge structures" ^{[40, p. 17]}. In turn, I. Licata and G. Minati point out that "creativity begins with sensory relations with the outside world and continues with cognitive processes, such as the production of theoretical modeling and representations" ^{[41, p. 10]}. M. Baumtrog emphasizes the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, the latter of which is "not only a thorough analysis of existing conclusions and arguments, but also ingenuity, creativity and imagination" ^{[42, p. 147]}. In this regard, R. Khalil, B. Godde and A. Karim note that "having a creative mindset is one of the keys to achieving ... noticeable progress in professional, personal and social life" ^{[43, p. 1]}.

However, in order to clarify the relationship between creativity and creativity from an epistemological point of view, it is necessary to develop more narrowly focused criteria for their essential differentiation.

2A. The basis of "knowledge – information". The epistemological source of the creative process is the cognitive activity of the subject, which, in turn, also has a creative character. In other words, creativity requires extensive, deeply learned and thoroughly rooted knowledge from the subject, which, on the other hand, arise, among other things, as a result of creative activity. In this regard, the creative principle of cognition allows the subject not only to master, but also to assimilate information, thereby turning it into living knowledge and deep understanding. At the same time, living knowledge favors the implementation of the creative process, acting as the epistemological origin of the latter. In turn, creativity from an epistemological point of view is revealed as the ability of a subject to process and rebuild contradictory information flows and on this basis generate the maximum number of extraordinary, eccentric and even exotic ideas for a limited period of time. However, such an approach to the generation of creative ideas does not guarantee their creative nature, not to mention the fact that, as A.O. Ovcharov and T.N. Ovcharova note, "with destructive motivation, creative thinking acts as an imitation of creative thinking, which excludes its unconditional belonging to creativity" ^{[44, p. 216]}.

At the same time, it should be emphasized that this kind of ability to "tear patterns" in extreme conditions of information collapse and temporal constraints is necessary mainly to achieve a certain utilitarian result. However, it is not uncommon for the desire for anti-pattern at any cost to turn into either empty extravagance or the primitivism of a creative product. Needless to say, such creative skills are aimed not at mastering (and even more so not at mastering) knowledge, but only at consuming and subsequently rebuilding information. At the same time, creativity is most directly related to the transformation of information into personal knowledge and understanding. In this regard, it should be noted that "the substitution of knowledge with information and the transformation of creativity into creativity contribute to the massization and standardization of the educational process, which negatively affects the quality of learning, which turns into consumption (often chaotic) by the subject of information content" ^{[39, p. 99]}. Indeed, according to N.M. Azarova, "bringing creativity to the fore as a value leads to an underestimation of education and a decrease in the status of professionalism" ^{[45, p. 27]}, because in such conditions, as V.V. Mineev and M.A. Petrov write, "the being of an individual degrades... to the level of information-rational existence" ^{[46, p. 151]}. In this regard, the statement of O.Y. Nesterova is no less true: "Creativism is evolutionism and technicism brought to its logical end, prevailing in modern theoretical consciousness" ^{[47, p. 17]}.

2B. The basis of "truth is a problem". Creative activity in its highest aspirations is focused on the search, disclosure and establishment of truth (scientific, artistic, moral and others). In this regard, M. Heidegger writes: "An artistic creation reveals the existence of existence in its inherent way. In creation, this revelation is accomplished-the discovery, that is, the truth of existence" ^{[48, p. 131]}. At the same time, creativity is aimed rather at finding extraordinary ways to solve momentary problems. Moreover, these problems are often artificially (creatively) created beforehand, since their solution promises financial, stratification, career and other benefits to the creative subject. As N.M. Azarova writes, "creativity is understood ontologically, creativity is understood socio–psychologically, therefore creativity, unlike creativity, does not correlate with the concept of truth, but correlates with the concept of problem" ^{[45, p. 22]}. Therefore, the maximum of creativity is the simulacrum of truth, formed due to the fact that, as A.A. Gorelov writes, "long-known stamps are being rewritten or fictions that do not have objective content are presented under the guise of truth" ^{[49, p. 159]}. Anyway, the modern information age, which highlights the consumption of information leading to hearsay knowledge, contributes to the transformation of the whole worldview of a creative subject into a fragmentary worldview of a creative personality, as well as the transformation of the creative process into discrete creative acts, into formal, fictitious creativity, into make-believe creativity.

2C. The foundation of "imagination – fantasy". Imagination is one of the most important abilities of a creative subject, as well as an integral component of the creative process. Based on the systematization, generalization and creative transformation of internalized experience and acquired knowledge about the patterns of the outside world, imagination develops original, unique, holistic images that form the foundation of future creations, and thereby anticipates the actual reality. Therefore, R. Gottlieb, E. Hyde, M. Immordino-Young and S. Kaufman interpret imagination as the ability of a mental journey into the future ^{[50, p. 709]}, and L. Ostarik reveals the function of imagination in the institution of the genius of original aesthetic patterns ^{[51, p. 75]}. In other words, if the imagination of a creative subject unfolds in "the potentials of creative assimilation of information and deepening knowledge about the world, mental transformation of reality within the framework of a cognitive act, as well as a holistic understanding of the subject's own existential and personal space and the inner world of Another" ^{[4, p. 38]}, then fantasy, representing a fruitless series of fictions and speculationbeing revealed as a way of escapism, it does not contribute to the deepening and expansion of the cognitive acts of the creative subject and forms the basis of creativity as originality for the sake of originality.

III. Axiological grounds

The axiology of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that explores creativity as a process of embodying personal, social and cultural values. Creativity is characterized by an intention to establish and develop values relevant to the creative subject itself, society and/or culture as a whole. At the same time, it should be noted that "value in the creative process, on the one hand, acts as a guideline for creative activity, and on the other hand, determines the structural features of the implementation of the creative act itself" ^{[3, p. 46]}.

Understanding the axiological foundation of the essential separation of the phenomena of creativity and creativity is impossible without formulating more specific axiological grounds for the correlation of the desired phenomena.

3A. The basis of "value – price". If creativity is motivated by the creation of a unique, unique, original product that has both personal (significance for the creative subject himself) and socio-cultural (importance for society and culture as a whole) value, then creativity is focused mainly on the production of goods and services that are valuable to the mass consciousness and a wide consumer audience. In other words, creativity is revealed as consumer-oriented creativity, because it serves the pragmatic interests of business structures in the constitution of an outwardly attractive product that excites imagination, irritates hedonistic "think tanks" and strengthens the consumer dependence of a solvent clientele. In this regard, A.V. Ovrutsky notes that "it is consumption that is becoming the most demanded social sphere of creativity in a modern market society" ^{[52, p. 16]}. Therefore, it seems not only inappropriate, but also absolutely unacceptable to synonymize "creativity as a free irrational divinely inspired act aimed at creating original spiritual values and creativity as a technologically pragmatic mercantile process focused on the combinatorial generation of material things" ^{[24, p. 43]}. It is not for nothing that L. Briskman, noting the tendency to replace the value of a creative work with the price of a creative product, warns that "without criteria and values, creativity ceases to exist" ^{[53, p. 129]}.

3B. The foundation of "elitism – mass character". Consumer intentions of creative activity determine the replication of its products among the broad social masses. The algorithmic and technological nature of the creative process also contributes to the mass production of creative products, especially since, as I.V. Erofeeva writes, "creativity is a productive reproduction of original ideas on the stream" ^{[33, p. 229]}. The conveyor nature of creative products displaces the criteria of novelty, uniqueness and originality, which predicate creativity, since the main axiological measures of creative products are "exclusivity", "elitism", "prestige", "unsurpassability", "incomparability" and others. The demand for such creative products, goods and services is also conditioned by the fact that "the modern consumer society, which imposes the necessity, obligation, immutability of certain things, condones the false identification of desires and needs in the human mind" ^{[54, p. 230]}. At the same time, as T.N. Ovcharova writes, "in order to meet consumer demand, creatively new things must meet fashion trends, manifest themselves through catchy design, unusual packaging, original interpretation, bright advertising and other creative solutions" ^{[36, p. 39]}. However, the irony lies in the fact that the often positioned "elitism" and "uniqueness" of the objects of creative promotion is just a disguise of their emasculation, secondary and mediocrity, while truly original ideas and unique products are rejected by the passive consumer majority as "unfashionable" or "too complex". In this regard, F.H. Daudova's statement is true: "Society determines the price of works of art. But the real value of works of art is determined by time and the quality of art" ^{[55, p. 193]}.

In this regard, it is impossible not to refer to X. Ortega y Gasset, who reveals the thesis that "a mass person ... will not miss an opportunity, under any pretext, to move levers to crush any creative minority that irritates him always and everywhere" ^{[56, p. 129]}. Thus, in the era of creativity, which is "a characteristic product of civilization – the era of ... the triumph of the masses" ^{[57, p. 179]}, the ultimate need to return to creativity is actualized, while the creative subject himself "needs to feel a solid axiological foundation under his feet in the form of an existing system of value orientations, which is especially relevant in crisis periods of society development, associated with various axiological perturbations and shocks" ^{[3, p. 46]}. In this regard, E.G. Naumova notes that "the substitution of creativity for "creativity" occurs as a result of the "collapse" of the transcendent sphere, the "dilution" of the world, and then the collapse of the sphere of semantic and value" ^{[58, p. 18]}.

IV. Socio-cultural foundations

Culturosophy ^[10] of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that studies creativity as a dialogue between a person with himself, Others and the world, as intercultural communication and as a way to preserve and develop cultural traditions. The socio-cultural aspect of creativity reflects the latter's focus on establishing a harmonious interpersonal and intercultural dialogue, as well as on the succession and development of cultural heritage, cultural traditions and values, which are the socio-cultural foundation for the creation of a new one: "Creativity contributes to the preservation of the cultural heritage of past eras and at the same time is aimed at the establishment of a unique being, which is significant for the most creative the subject, so in a broad social and cultural context" ^{[29, p. 122]}. It is also worth noting that through creativity, the subject "expands the socio-cultural space, thereby making it both his-for-himself and his-for-others" ^{[59, p. 48]}. In this regard, R. J. Sternberg notes that a person is able to "show creativity beyond cultural boundaries both in space and in time" ^{[60, p. 363]}.

However, in order to form a socio-cultural platform for distinguishing creativity and creativity, it is necessary to present more specific criteria for differentiating the studied phenomena from culturosophical positions.

4A. The foundation of "traditionalism – nihilism". As is known, creativity represents a dialectical unity of productive and reproductive aspects, the first of which causes the emergence of the new, and the second contributes to the organic connection of the new with the old, ensuring the continuity of material and spiritual, cultural and social forms. Indeed, "at various stages, passing into each other, the reproductive and productive components of creative activity determine the process of systemic generation of a new one as a necessary moment for the removal of contradiction and its further formation" ^{[61, p. 172]}. Similarly, creativity cannot be imagined outside the dialectical connection of traditions and innovations, since the creation of unique and original objects, knowledge and values has cultural traditions and social institutions as its foundation, which, on the one hand, are preserved and supported by creativity, and on the other, are overcome by innovative activities, which, nevertheless, unfolds in in line with the continuity of socio-cultural traditions and values. Thus, N.A. Berdyaev justifies creativity as a unity of conservatism and progressivity, because in creativity "the sphere of being conquered in the past and the reconquest of new spheres of being continues, the line of disclosure stretches further" ^{[62, p. 175]}. However, creativity, which has a combinatorial and plagiarized nature, "can unceremoniously use the cultural baggage of previous generations to realize their selfish interests ... and predetermined tasks aimed at obtaining benefits" ^{[1, pp. 100-101]}.

4B. The foundation of "innovation – innovation". At the same time, it should be noted that creativity is often presented as a way to bring creativity to various fields of activity – economics ^[63], education ^[64], pedagogy ^[65], management ^[66] and many others. But creativization of various spheres of social and cultural processes often turns into primitivization or obsessive algorithmization of these spheres, turning free human activity into torture. Thus, the notorious "creative and innovative approach to education, which is often forcibly introduced into various educational institutions and does not take into account cultural and historical traditions and values, in fact often turns into only thoughtless coaching and memorization" ^{[39, p. 100]}. In particular, E. Steiner writes that "innovation is often an end in itself" ^{[67, p. 145]}, in connection with which M. Boden emphasizes that "limitations are necessary for creativity, even if creativity largely consists in overcoming them" ^{[68, p. 76]}. Indeed, innovative creativity by its nature is limited by the practices of cultural inheritance, while creative originality, uniqueness and extraordinarianism does not know these boundaries, but in fact (paradoxically) reveals its limitations. In this regard, E.G. Naumova notes that "the "race for novelty" turns into pseudo–innovations - such socio-cultural neoplasms that ... limit the further development of the creative potential of culture" ^{[58, p. 8]}, and T.N. Ovcharova notes that "the pursuit of originality ... entails a situation in which the subject of creative activity, showing more and more efforts to find new forms, loses the value-semantic content of creative activity" ^{[36, p. 41]}. But this kind of creative race for novelty is not surprising, given that, as I.A. Zaitseva writes, "the pursuit of innovation becomes a kind of temptation for the creators of the so-called "creative product"" ^{[69, p. 44]}.

4C. "Dialogic – chatter". As already noted, creativity is revealed as an internal dialogue of a person with himself, as an internal and external communication of a subject with Another and the world, or, in the language of G.S. Batishchev, as a harmonious intersubjective polyphony: "The human way of being consists in openness to the real world, as it is in itself. It is not about imposing your own specifics on the world ..., but about being true to all measures and entities in all their polyphonic diversity" ^{[70, p. 309]}. This kind of dialogical polyphony of the subject with himself, others and the world as a whole determines the creative way of his existence and contributes to the harmonization of social relations. However, the internal dialogic nature of a person within the framework of the modern information society is often transformed into an increase in external communicative layers, which is characteristic of creativity, because, as I.V. Yerofeyeva notes, "the subject of creativity is inclined not so much to sincere dialogue as to purposefully create an artificial image of a communicator" ^{[33, p. 231]}. V.V. Feshchenko argues in a similar way: "Creativity is based on mass communication, and creativity is based on interpersonal communication" ^{[71, p. 147]}.

In other words, creative dialogue turns into creative chatter, which, from the point of view of M. Heidegger, is a manifestation of inauthentic being (Das Man). Indeed, as A.G. Dugin writes, "chatter is speech permeated with everyday life, immersing in it the one who speaks and the one who listens" ^{[72, p. 263]}. Genuine speech, transforming into empty talk and chatter, breaks off the creative dialogue between subjects and the connection of a person with genuine being. However, chatter, as K.A. Ermilov notes, "needs Something Else as a victim, as well as a channel for the flow of poison, so that the carrier of chatter does not completely corrode with his own groundless whirling" ^{[73, p. 61]}. Similarly, creativity, which turns the dialogue between subjects into empty talk, corrodes and poisons modern society and culture. As T.D. Sukhodub writes, "such pseudo-creativity knows no limits – after all, everything exists... you can first make it an object of "creative" interest, and then easily change the assessment of any socio-cultural phenomenon or fact to the opposite" ^{[74, p. 108]}. In such conditions, according to E.I. Danilova, "humanity faces the task of overcoming creativism as an immeasurable desire to rebuild the world and realize the patterns of a "polylogical" attitude to the world" ^{[75, p. 4]}.

V. Anthropological grounds

The anthropology of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that studies the creative abilities of a person, the personal characteristics of a creative subject and creativity as a process of human self–creation. Through creativity, the subject not only productively transforms the natural, social and cultural reality, but also creates and foundations his own existential and personal space, establishing his subjectivity as a unique (creative) individuality. In this regard, "the anthropology of creativity is focused on the study of the essential characteristics and intrapersonal determinants of the subject, who in the act of creativity not only creates and transforms external reality, but also actualizes, manifests and foundations his own essence" ^{[30, p. 139]}. It's Not For nothing That I am. J. Kidd points out that "philosophical studies of the merits of creativity should pay attention to how our ideas about human creativity can be based on ideas about human nature or the nature of reality" ^{[76, p. 1]}, and M.A. Kuznetsova emphasizes that "the problem of distinguishing genuine ... and inauthentic creativity, creativity as such, and the creative activity of a person, is directly related to the interpretation of the essential characteristics of a person and human existence" ^{[77, p. 30]}.

In order to realize the task of distinguishing genuine creativity and creativity as an imitation form of creativity, as well as to clarify the essential differences between creative and creative abilities, it is worth presenting detailed anthropological grounds for the correlation of the studied phenomena.

5A. The foundation of the "creator – imitator". The cultural and philosophical reflection on the phenomenon of creativity in all historical epochs has been inextricably linked with the postulation of exceptional creative abilities and personality traits that allow her to present unique and original works. The phenomena of giftedness, talent and genius have always been associated and continue to be associated with the divine principle in man, which manifests itself in the creative process, including in the form of creative inspiration and insight. Confirmation of this, at first glance, romanticized approach to the nature of creativity and the creative subject are the testimonies of the creators themselves, emphasizing the spontaneity and inexplicability of the emergence of creative ideas and insights that appear, nevertheless, as a rule, after painstaking work on a particular creative task. Therefore, I. Kant, as one of the features of creative genius, asserts the inability of the latter to explain the mechanism of the appearance of the work: "The creator of the work, which he owes to his genius, does not himself know how these ideas came to him, and it is not in his power to arbitrarily or systematically invent them and inform others in such prescriptions that would allow them to create such works" ^{[78, p. 194]}.

At the same time, in each period of historical and philosophical development, there is a tendency for thinkers to distinguish between the personalities of creators and imitators, the latter of which are described as pseudo-creators of pseudo-original works. At the same time, in this case, we are not talking about the Platonic imitation of the subject of the ideal primordial images reflected in things or about various concepts of creativity as a human desire to imitate the divine (in theistic teachings) or natural (in pantheistic and deistic doctrines) creation. We are talking about imitators who parasitize the original works of the creators, but at the same time imagine themselves to be creative geniuses. Plato describes such imitators as those who "depict what seems beautiful to the ignorant majority" ^{[79, p. 416]}. In turn, J. Bruno characterizes imitators as those "who were not a poet at all, but only knew how to choose rules of the same kind ... and not with their own muse, but with the monkey of someone else's muse" [80. p. 30]. Finally, A. Schopenhauer defines imitators as follows: "They manage to assimilate the external, random and arbitrary side of other people's truly beautiful creations as a special manner, i.e. instead of the core, they grasp the husk, thinking at the same time that they have achieved perfection and even surpassed their samples" ^{[81, p. 321]}. It is also impossible not to cite D.S. Likhachev's remark that in modern culture "next to geniuses and talents, impersonal claims to the places of geniuses and talents appear, pseudo-creators, pseudo-styles, pseudo-works of art appear" ^{[82, p. 69]}.

In this regard, creativity must be understood precisely in the context of imitative activity, as imitation of creativity, as a kind of creativity, as a kind of "creativity". Indeed, a creative subject, intending, first of all, to achieve a certain pragmatic result as soon as possible, has no time to indulge in creative torments and create something new, in connection with which a superficial imitation of the form of already created unique and original creations becomes for him a way out of the situation. Thus, creativity parasitizes innovative creative works, borrowing, stylizing or imitating not even the content, but the form of the latter.

5B. The foundation of "talent – entrepreneurship". Important components of the giftedness of a creative subject are such personal determinants as inner freedom, the ability to improvise, perseverance in finding harmonious solutions, versatility and flexibility of judgments, taste, orientation towards spiritual values, the ability to trust intuition, the desire to discover original forms of expression of the author's idea, perseverance, hard work, reliance on inspiration and imagination, high tolerance to frustration and many others. As H. writes Ortega y Gasset, "creative life requires perfection, the strictest regime and self-discipline" ^{[56, p. 158]}. At the same time, the key characteristics of a creative subject are such abilities as generating the maximum number of ideas (regardless of their qualitative component) in a limited period of time, adapting to changing socio-cultural realities, quickly discovering a productive solution to an urgent problem, quickly finding or creating non-trivial connections between phenomena of different order, combining contradictory layers of information, etc. Such creative qualities of the subject are aimed, first of all, "at attracting consumer attention, increasing sales, strengthening the image characteristics of the object of promotion, increasing competitiveness against the general background of attraction and attraction of the mass consumer" ^{[24, p. 39]}.

Clarifying the distinctive features of the creative and creative determinants of the subject, it should also be noted that creativity is not only a source of personally, socially and culturally significant works, but also a source of intellectual, emotional and, in general, spiritual self-improvement of the creative subject himself, while creative activity contributes only to the development of non-standard approach skills in the subject to problematic situations and the generation of a large number of "extraordinary" ideas, despite the fact that "balance, harmony, the golden mean are the qualities that are least meant when talking about creativity" ^{[83, p. 19]}. We should also not forget that the ingenuity, resourcefulness and enterprise of a creative subject are most often of applied importance and serve to realize the interests of a purely pragmatic nature. In this regard, it is necessary to once again alert the danger and inadmissibility of replacing creativity with creativity in order to avoid depersonalization of the creative personality. Indeed, the modern era of creativity should be characterized as an era of speculation in human creative abilities, which are used and extracted from the subject in his own or others' selfish interests, leaving nothing in return but a state of existential vacuum, or, using the metaphor of J. Baudrillard, states "after an orgy" ^[84].

In this regard, it is necessary to treat with extreme caution various kinds of technologies for "diagnosing" and even more so stimulating creative abilities. If creativity as an ability for non-standard and anti-standard thinking is, in all probability, possible to test (although the results of such tests will not have one hundred percent validity, accuracy and objectivity due to the complexity of human nature), then the "diagnosis" of creative abilities and talents seems similar to testing a divine gift, measuring the level of spirituality or getting a percentage displaying the degree of freedom of thought, which in itself is absurd. Undoubtedly, in some cases, it is advisable to psychologically, pedagogically or career-oriented identification of a person's inclinations to any type of activity, but as for creativity, it is impossible to evaluate and measure it in points, percentages and other values. Similarly, various kinds of "technologies" for the development of creative abilities are questionable, since there is a risk that with the introduction of such mechanisms for "pumping" and stimulating creativity, the latter may not only not manifest itself, but, as they say, "choke on the vine". As T.N. Ovcharova and A.O. Ovcharov note, today creativity often "loses its value load and turns into a pure technology to stimulate creative abilities, the value orientation of which may be far from unambiguous" ^{[85, p. 73]}. In this regard, the idea of N.A. Berdyaev is indicative: "To understand a creative act means to recognize its inexplicability and baselessness. The desire to rationalize creativity is connected with the desire to rationalize freedom" ^{[86, p. 369]}.

5C. The foundation of "professionalism – handicraft". If creative work requires certain abilities, serious professional skills, a high level of skills and other qualities and skills that are developed and improved in the course of creative activity, then the ability to "create" something attractive and attractive is available to a much larger number of people. It is not for nothing that such professions as scientist, researcher, artist, musician, poet, writer, philosopher are associated with creative professions that involve high and prolonged tension of intellectual and emotional forces, complete immersion of a person in the subject, a high level of freedom of action and lack of mercantile intentions. It is difficult to call the professional activity of representatives of these professions applied in the pragmatic-utilitarian sense of the word. At the same time, creative professions that are not devoid of a creative component, but are much more focused on the realization of commercial interests and the generation of entertainment products, are usually referred to as such areas of activity as "media and PR technologies, design and contemporary art, advertising and ... Internet technologies, entertainment and leisure industries, journalism and production, management and marketing, branding and promotion, consulting and image-making, copywriting and speechwriting, naming and eventing" ^{[24, p. 37]}. Such professions and activities are more artisan in nature and require not so much a creative as a creative approach to solving short-term practical and pragmatic tasks and achieving an effective end result. In this regard, N.M. Azarova writes: "If work was appreciated in the era of creativity, then in the era of creativity it is something that is not necessary to do, including creative leisure or unencumbered, creative work" ^{[45, p. 26]}.

VI. Praxiological grounds

The praxiology of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that studies the specifics of the process of creating a new one and the essence of creative activity. In this regard, the most important "tasks of the praxology of creativity are the development of methods and techniques to improve the quality of creative products, ... creating conditions for the development of creative abilities of the individual", as well as "studying the process of transformation of ideas into creative products" ^{[87, p. 52]}. It should also be noted that the activity itself, as a purposeful activity of the subject, is creative by nature, which distinguishes a person from the rest of the animal world.

However, what is called creative activity and is called a creative process is often only partially creative, since it is a creative process ("creativeness"), the differences between which and creativity are set out below in the form of praxological grounds for the correlation of creativity and creativity.

6A. The foundation of "freedom – dependence". Freedom as an essential attribute and an immanent characteristic of the creative process is emphasized by almost all thinkers of various historical periods, starting from antiquity. The most fully indissoluble synthesis of creativity and freedom is revealed in N.A. Berdyaev, who interprets the creative process as an act of creative freedom leading to the transcendence of deterministic being: "Man is completely free in the revelation of his creativity. This terrible freedom contains all the godlike dignity of man and his terrible responsibility" ^{[86, p. 337]}. Indeed, responsibility appears to be the flip side of freedom, and therefore an irresponsible approach to creative activity levels creative freedom and creative freedom, as well as infringement of creative freedom increases the risks of the latter's transformation into irresponsible and even destructive activities. Needless to say, the emasculation of creative freedom contributes to its transformation into an alienated, forced and dependent on external factors and third-party influences mechanistic and algorithmic process, which is a fiction and simulation of creativity. In this regard, E.K. Barnes notes that any manipulation of the creative process "jeopardizes possible creativity and thus reduces freedom and responsibility" ^{[88, p. 560]}, and A.Z. Barnes emphasizes that "a person is free if and only if... he lives a creative life" ^{[89, p. 311]}.

However, in modern conditions of permanently accelerating time and constantly increasing competition in various areas of social and cultural existence, creativity requires a quick solution to opportunistic tasks, which reduces creativity to the level of an official function and thereby turns it into a set of discrete creative acts. In other words, free and voluntary creativity, rooted and maturing in the depths of the human spirit, turns into creative activity, the latter of which is "forced creativity", creativity-by-order, creativity-by-order, implementing purely executive functions or functions of adaptation to the conditions of permanent socio-cultural perturbations. In such circumstances, freedom of creativity as an internal necessity, or rather, a person's need to create, coming from a sincere interest, a disinterested desire to create, express, convey, is replaced by dependence on external factors (for example, on the will of the customer), which characterizes creativity. As a result of this kind of creative creativity, a tortured, emasculated, in a word, pseudo-creative product often appears from under the stick.

6B. The basis of "inspiration – prudence". If creativity is a spontaneous (unplanned), spontaneous and to a certain extent instinctive process based on intuition and inspiration, which, as is known, does not come on schedule, then creativity is a purposeful activity providing for a pre-known (assumed) result necessary to achieve a specifically designated pragmatic goal. In this regard, creativity reveals its official position and reveals itself as creativity-by-calculation, focused on a positive, successful, "necessary" result. Thus, as V.V. Moroz writes, if "the creative process is based on the inspiration of the author, his abilities, the traditions that the author follows," then the main component of the creative process "becomes a pragmatic element, that is, the initial understanding of why, for what and how something needs to be created and, in fact, what exactly it is necessary to create" ^{[90, p. 36]}. Indeed, genuine creativity "does not depend on the effects of external factors and ... is determined by inspiration, which temporarily takes a person away from the world, since he becomes completely fascinated by the object of his creativity, thereby eliminating his egocentric intentions" ^{[91, p. 23]}.

6C. The basis of "selflessness – pragmatism". The selfless and even altruistic basis of creativity is beyond doubt, but creative activity bears the stamp of pragmatism and utilitarianism and has purely mercantile intentions. In other words, the creative process presupposes a pre-established pragmatic goal, which must be achieved in certain ways in order to realize mercantile interests. A creative product is created in order to attract wide consumer attention and, as a result, increase revenue from the sale of this product, in connection with which its production is based on the expected expectations and real demands of the mass consumer audience. Creative activity is also focused on the formation of products that will satisfy the ambitions of recipients and consumers or, in marketing terms, involve the "pains of the target audience." According to E.G. Naumova, creative activity "is charged with the duty not so much to create something useful, as to attract attention to a new product, to form new values among the target audience, often consumer values" ^{[58, p. 18]}.

Indeed, creativity is focused not only on anticipating consumer expectations and requests, but also on their formation, in connection with which M.P. Taimur emphasizes that "the main task of creative activity is to ensure the saleability of goods, that is, manipulation of consumer opinion" ^{[92, p. 128]}. For these reasons, a creative product is like a short-term "flash", which quickly fades away due to the implementation of a pragmatic task, as well as due to the need to produce another promotion product, which should have an equally strong (albeit momentary) impression on the buyer. In this regard, M. Heidegger's thought is indicative: "If a product is manufactured, it means that, neglecting itself, it is ready to completely disperse in its service" ^{[93, p. 187]}. At the same time, a truly creative work, unlike a creative product, often receives sincere social attention much later than a precocious creative semi-finished product, initially focused on immediate success, urgent reward, emergency recognition and indefinite popularity, gains fame. V. Benjamin notes that "the familiar is consumed without any criticism, the really new is criticized with disgust" ^{[94, p. 49]}.

6D. The basis is "improvisationality – algorithmicity". As already noted, creative activity as its guideline has a pre-assumed result necessary for the realization of pragmatic goals, as a result of which the creative process (as opposed to creative), as a rule, is carried out in accordance with pre-thought-out algorithms of actions that should provide the necessary result. In other words, "creativity is replaced by creativity – the ability of the subject to create not so much new products as new schemes and algorithms for creating these products, as well as schemes and algorithms for creating new schemes and algorithms themselves" ^{[95, p. 132]}. However, as I.V. Yerofeeva emphasizes, "proven algorithms and verified mechanisms of action possible in professional creativity are poorly integrated into the canvas of understanding the phenomenon of creativity" ^{[33, p. 230]}. Naturally, if the creative process has an improvisational nature, which causes the unpredictability of the content and form of the final work, which always differs from the original author's idea, then the technological, algorithmic and mechanistic creative process most often leads to the establishment of a predictable product, which was planned in advance in accordance with the original pragmatic task. In this regard, the product of creative activity is a painting "that will be placed in a pre-selected frame, with a pre-designated place and a pre-selected museum", and "which will delight visitors selected in advance" ^{[96, p. 43]}.

6E. The basis of "regularity – haste". It is also necessary to focus on the differences in the temporal characteristics of creative and creative processes. If the creative process, as a rule, covers a very long period of time due to the desire of the subject to carefully hone the semantic content and formal details, then creative acts, as E.V. Ryazantseva notes, are characterized by "time constraints, the ability to offer as many possible solutions as possible in a fairly short time" ^{[97, p. 319]}. The temporal differences between creativity as a measured, unhurried and painstaking process and creativity as fleeting and momentary acts can also be traced through the prism of linguistic knowledge, because "the semantics of creativity also includes a plan (plan), something that needs to be nurtured, often for a long time", while "the semantics of creativity, on the contrary, includes a certain idea a product or a certain problem that requires an instant or time-limited solution" ^{[45, p. 25]}. Thus, if the subject of interest of a creative subject is mainly the creative process, then the interested in creative activity need, first of all, the result, especially since "eternal working condition, lack of time, pressure of competition, promptness of information slow down, and sometimes exclude the creative process" ^{[33, p. 233]}.

VII. Ethical grounds

The ethics of creativity is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that explores the moral determinants of the creative subject and the humanistic orientation of creativity. It should be noted that creativity itself is one of the ways of moral self-improvement of the subject. In this regard, G.F. Nardone notes that "a true artist and a truly moral person are actually much closer than one would judge from stereotypes" ^{[98, p. 183]}. The importance of the ethical foundations of creativity is also articulated by M.A. Ranko, emphasizing that "rapid technological progress with unpredictable consequences enhances the influence of creative thoughts and actions, as well as the importance of ethical regulations of what we do" ^{[99, p. 105]}.

To develop the ethical side of the issue of the correlation of creativity and creativity, it is necessary to formulate separate grounds for the essential differentiation of these phenomena.

7A. The foundation of "spirituality – immoralism". Creativity cannot be imagined without spirituality as a fundamental characteristic of the direction of the creative process and an immanent property of the creative subject. Indeed, an activity that results in the formation of a new one that threatens the integrity of natural, socio-cultural or personal existence cannot be called creative. Genuine creativity enriches what exists and organically continues and harmoniously transforms existing existence, rather than destroying it. In this sense, a creative act cannot but possess spiritual and moral intentions, and the creative subject in his activity remains committed to the highest spiritual values of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. At the same time, the reduction of the spiritual component of creativity leads to its degeneration into creativity, indifferent to moral principles and guided by the principle "the goal (pragmatic) justifies the means" (even if they are immoral, defiant and aggressive). As E.V. Mareeva notes, "creativity is precisely creativity devoid of a moral principle. This is the production of new ideas that have nothing to do with ideals" ^{[100, p. 10]}.

7B. The basis of "responsibility is infantilism". Due to the fact that the immanent characteristic of creativity is freedom, the flip side of which is responsibility, free creativity is unthinkable without the responsibility of the subject for his activities. In other words, the creative subject is responsible for the results of his work. In this regard, it should be noted that "responsibility comes from creative questioning of existence and ... listening to the quiet voice of the universe, resonating with the spiritual world of the creative personality and giving her an inspired answer in the form of illumination" ^{[24, p. 41]}. However, the lack of responsibility of the subject for the results of his creative activity leads to the degeneration of creativity into an irresponsible, infantile, arbitrary and self-willed creative process, into creativity for the sake of creativity, which potentiates the risks of violating the integrity of various spheres of being and harmony between man and man, man and society, man and culture, man and the world. To prevent such threats, V.A. Kutyrev calls for limiting the permissiveness of the subject's creative intentions to moral regulations, since in the modern era, when "passion for creativity suppresses the ability to love and all other life manifestations, society faces the task of regulating this kind of activity of its members" ^{[101, p. 59]}.

7C. The basis of "self–actualization - self-presentation". Creativity is a way of self-knowledge, self-improvement, self-actualization of a creative subject. In creative activity, a person reveals his essential powers to the greatest extent and highlights the directly Human for himself and the world. However, creativity often turns from a way of self-actualization into creativity as a way of self-presentation. Indeed, a creative subject strives in every way to attract the widest possible public attention to his person, for which shocking and shocking technologies and other extravagant and eccentric ways can be used to arouse public interest at any cost. As E.A. Kaverina writes, "the use of shocking technology in the development of creative ideas and images is becoming a traditional practice today. Sometimes such solutions are created out of creative impotence" ^{[102, p. 150]}. The motivation for acting out this kind of creative "performances" is also conceived by the neurotic desire of the subject for fame, fame, success and recognition, without which the creative personality feels "inferior". In this regard, it should be noted that the results of creativity "can be evaluated only after time has passed, then creativity ... gets evaluated almost immediately, otherwise it is impossible to move on to solving the next creative task" ^{[1, p. 99]}.

Needless to say, creative escapade, egocentric self-expression and the desire for originality, sometimes reaching the point of accentuated nonconformism, often lead to ethical nihilism. It should also be noted that this kind of activity often turns into a template and primitiveness of the resulting product. It is worth emphasizing once again that creativity does not come from a sincere human interest in bringing this or that original idea to society, but from selfish motivation, egocentric motives and neurotic needs. Thus, A.I. Luchankin and L.A. Kadyrova note: "By cunningly manipulating their identities and self-identities (overestimating or underestimating the opinions of others about themselves), creatives achieve social, financial and personal well-being in a consumer society" ^{[27, p. 134]}. Quasi–creative actions aimed not at improving the world, but at obtaining certain preferences, R. J. Sternberg designates as pseudo-transformational creativity, since "in fact, its goal is to improve the situation of a person who is a pseudo-transformational creator" ^{[103, p. 1]}.

VIII. Aesthetic grounds

Aesthetics of creativity (philosophy of art) is a branch of the philosophy of creativity that explores creativity as a process of creating works of art and artistic creations. In other words, the aesthetics of creativity considers creativity in its artistic hypostasis (as art) in the unity of all categories of aesthetic (beautiful and ugly, comic and tragic, sublime and base). At the same time, some researchers distinguish aesthetic creativity as a separate type of creative activity. Thus, A. Kauppinen conceptualizes aesthetic creativity as "the perception or emergence of some modification of the source material or environment as contributing to a new way of realizing the desired goal" ^{[104, p. 1]}.

To develop the aesthetic foundations of the relationship between creativity and creativity, it is necessary to present a specific criteria basis for their essential differentiation.

8A. The foundation of "artistry – art practice". In the modern socio-cultural context, there is clearly not only a tendency to replace creativity with creativity, but also a desire to replace art as the aesthetic culmination of creativity with various kinds of meaningless forms of art practice. Among the latter, V.O. Pigulevsky includes such as "typical readymade, surreal objet trouv?, assemblage, construction, installation, performance, happening, aleatorics, "concrete music", serialism, sonorica, etc." ^{[105, p. 17]}. There is no doubt that these forms of modern art have the right to exist, but at the same time, it is impossible not to note the priority of formal, presentational, commercial aspects in many of these forms of art practice. As a result of the substitution of content by form, quality by quantity, value by price, priority is given to art for sale, rather than art that reveals values and carries meanings, or, as K.V. Peitner writes, "the emphasis is on art as a product or commodity" ^{[106, p. 4]}. In this regard, E.G. Naumova articulates the modern trend of "the rebirth of art into art practice, the main distinguishing feature of which is a destructive attitude to the semantic sphere of culture", and in which "the place of the artist-creator is occupied by the artist-manager, and creativity becomes a fashionable attribute" ^[107].

8B. The foundation of "art – artificiality". Being an aesthetic expression of creativity, a genuine work of art organically combines the beautiful and the ugly, the comic and the tragic, the sublime and the base. However, when priority in the artistic process of creation is given to one of the sides of the aesthetic, which is excessively and deliberately emphasized or even absolutized and "erected into a cult" only for the sake of achieving a certain affect in a specific audience of recipients, there is a threat of transformation of a work of art into an artificial work, and creative activity into a creative process. In this regard, K.B. Sokolov and Yu.V. Osokin note that "the most unexpected thing may turn out to be the subject of contemporary art if it is marked by the market as special (exclusive) and expensive, and in its content capable of surprising, amusing, entertaining" ^{[108, p. 172]}. Moreover, as B.C. Dmitrienko and E.A. Rubets note, "the replication of these surrogates of art ... teaches the cynical to consider interesting, the ugly to be original, the ugly to be bold, to call anti–culture culture, anti-aesthetics aesthetics, pseudo–art art" ^{[109, p. 219]}.

Creativity and creativity: multidimensional definitions

Based on the above-mentioned cultural and philosophical foundations of the correlation of the phenomena of creativity and creativity, it is necessary to formulate definitions of the studied phenomena, including ontological, epistemological, axiological, socio-cultural, anthropological, praxiological, ethical and aesthetic criteria that reveal the essential characteristics of creativity and creativity, as well as the specifics of their sources and process, subject and orientation.

Creativity is the creation of a previously non-existent or original, meaningful and qualitative transformation of existing existence (ontological criterion), which manifests itself in the establishment of a work of art or artistic creation (aesthetic criterion), which is valuable to the subject itself, society and culture by virtue of its actual exclusivity (axiological criterion).

Creativity is a combinatorial and plagiative comparison or formal and quantitative redistribution of heterogeneous fragments of existence (ontological criterion), which manifests itself in the establishment of an artificial work or product of art practice (aesthetic criterion), which has a certain price for a mass consumer audience due to its superficial "elitism" (axiological criterion).

The source of creativity as an internally free, inspired, selfless, improvisational, measured process (praxeological criterion) is acquired knowledge, spontaneous imagination of the subject and its focus on the disclosure of eternal truths (epistemological criterion).

The source of creativity as a calculating, pragmatic, algorithmic, time-limited process biased by external influences (praxiological aspect) is a successful comparison of heterogeneous information, deliberate fantasy of the subject and its focus on solving momentary problems (epistemological criterion).

A creative subject is an autonomous creator with talent and professional skills (anthropological criterion), possessing spirituality, responsibility and a desire for self-actualization (ethical criterion), as well as aimed at preserving cultural traditions and their innovative reinterpretation, as well as at intersubjective and intercultural dialogue (socio-cultural criterion).

The creative subject is a parasitic imitator, possessing entrepreneurial spirit and craft skills (anthropological criterion), possessing immoralist and infantilist intentions and a desire for self-presentation (ethical criterion), as well as aimed at leveling cultural traditions through the imposition of pseudo-innovations, as well as at building up external communication links and relationships (socio-cultural criterion).

Conclusion

Thus, as follows from the above definitions of creativity and creativity, the latter as a "surrogate of creativity, its transformed and even perverted form" ^{[110, p. 126]} is characterized by the reduction and emasculation of ontological, epistemological, axiological, sociocultural, anthropological, praxiological, ethical and aesthetic components, while in genuine creativity these the components are harmoniously intertwined. In this regard, each developed philosophical basis for the correlation of creativity and creativity can act as a criterion base not so much for identifying a creative (pseudo-creative) process, as for preventing the transformation of creativity into creativity in terms of their sources, process, subject and orientation. This is especially relevant in modern conditions of the ubiquity of the creative approach in various spheres of human, social and cultural existence, when a person either intentionally replaces creativity with a creative act (believing creativity to be an outdated romanticized ideal), or, carrying out the creative process, thinks that he is engaged in creativity.

Anyway, the determinants of creativity and creativity are on different sides of the cultural and philosophical barricades. If creativity brings to life unique meanings and spiritual values and creates new ontological horizons, then creativity, as a result of creativity and hook-creation, creates existing meanings and cultural values. In other words, creativity as a fruitful transformation of being has a beneficial effect on the creative subject himself and on socio-cultural reality, contributing to the creation of various levels of existence, then creativity produces a perishable and morbid effect on the natural, socio-cultural and existential-personal spheres, contributing only to a short-term we are satisfied with the creation of the most creative subject.

It should also be noted that this work leaves room for complementing, expanding and deepening the cultural and philosophical foundations of the correlation of creativity and creativity presented in this article, as well as for developing other cultural and philosophical (for example, epistemological and existential) and cultural and art criticism grounds for distinguishing the desired phenomena. Further development of these foundations is necessary to prevent the transformation of the creative uniqueness of Homo Creans into the short-sighted hedonistic intentions of Homo Consumens and the neurotic addictions of Homo Servus. It is on the basis of a philosophical platform for understanding the true nature of authentic creativity that it becomes possible to return to the creative essence of man, society and culture and prevent creativity from being reduced to the level of creativity as simulacrized creativity.