Thoughts on Creation

(This came about while reading Emerson and loathing the twisted shadows of truth which he propounds for the real thing. Wishing to right his wrong, I (though if presumptuous, time will tell) endeavored to articulate feebly an aesthetic which is based upon Dorothy Sayers essay, but also, hopefully sheds some light on what creation of art, literature, or music is.
We esteem great men because of their ability to see what is true and to communicate that truth. By learning from them, we also learn to see the truth and hopefully will see more truth. But the truth is not new, it was not created, it always was. The truth did not come from men, but from God. Why then should I seek truth within when it is without? What I say will simply be feebly articulating what has always been and always will be. True, anything I create will have my unmistakable personal stamp, but what I do either conforms to the Good, True, and Beautiful or it does not. A story may have been born of the author’s personal experience, but we esteem it because it is true, good, or beautiful and because it says something that is universal. The very fact that we can recognize it as truth proves that it is saying what already existed in some form. By conforming to these principles, we articulate some aspect of reality in the unifying context of God’s goodness, truth, and beauty. By the mere fact that another man can recognize what I say as being true, I prove that all truth is God’s truth. When we see Rembrandt’s painting or listen to Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto and rightly agree that it is beautiful and admire the author for seeing what we did not see, we come to know and see what the author saw. Art is communication. Proving that by being able to see what he saw, there is an underlying reality of which he is only uncovering our eyes from. Human creation, if good and true is showing others the reality which we glimpse. If art is creation, then creation is a mirror through which we see God, Reality itself, reflected. A mirror because the there are varying degrees of light and truth which are shed from an object.
This whole argument needs clarification in that I still have not made the important distinction between good, true, and beautiful art and just plain bad music, art, literature, etc. This difference does exist, but I will need further reflection to come to an articulation of its cause.
The passage that specifically prompted this barrage of incoherency and muddled thought was this.
“Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession…Where is the master who could have instructed Franklin, or Washington, or Bacon, or Newton? Every great man is a unique.” (Emphasis mine, from the essay Self-Reliance page 199) I apologize for the pompousness of this post. Emerson’s radical individualism is starting to affect me. =] I humbly submit this little kernel of mine to the scrutiny of anyone who happens to read this. Feel free to rip, tear, and batter it to pieces, hopefully we will gain a sliver of silver from all this dross.