Embedded Files
Riley Barta seeks out an answer as to why the "Creation V. Creator" trope is so common.
Creation V. creator
Creation V. creator
By Riley Barta
By Riley Barta
In art, there are consistent tropes. Every civilization has utilized tropes to try to explain the human experience. Scholars since the classical era have taken it upon themselves to study these tropes. Tropes in art can assist in exploring the morals of previous societies. However, what moral is gained from the destruction of creation? Throughout art, the battle between creation and creator is portrayed.
When talking about historical art, it is crucial to recognize the societies that procured it. This may lead some into thinking that the creation v. creator motif evolves from Abrahamic religions. Many forms of art were made to depict stories directly from the Bible. In the case that they were not directly picked from the Bible, they followed similar plots. Creation v. creator is shown in the form of consequences from defying one's creator, such as when Satan defied God, or when Eve ate the apple. After wronging their creator, they are punished severely. However, this is not where this trope began. Abrahamic faiths only existed after “the early 30s of the Common Era,” according to the American Humanist Association, a non-religious philosophical organization. Disproving this theory are the Greeks, who have several tales revolving around creation v. creator.
The Greeks are commonly known for their myths and epic poems. The myth of Cronus details the struggle between the Titans and the Gods. Cronus was fated to be overthrown by his children. He devoured all of his offspring until his wife Rhea tricked him. According to World History, “Rhea pretended to give birth and handed Cronus the baby. In reality, the baby was the special stone that she had swaddled in blankets. Cronus swallowed this stone without hesitation.” She gave birth to Zeus without his knowledge. Zeus then destroyed his father and freed his siblings. Knowing that the Bible is not the first to display this trope only makes it more confusing to understand. Other tropes can be melted down into morals or common societal trends. The “damsel in distress” comes from the patriarchal belief that women are fragile and need saving. The “chosen one” tells people not to be afraid of daunting tasks, because they are meant to accomplish them. What is meant to be taken from creation v. creator?
Cronus Devouring His Son by Francisco de Goya. Part of his Black Painting series
Do humans have a natural need to secede from their parents? In other mammals, it is common for the offspring to detach themselves from their parent. According to National Park Service, “Cubs will remain with their mother for about 18 months.” After these 18 months, they go off and begin the circle of life again. This is not always the case, however. Wolves, for example, are social animals and will stay in a pack their entire lives. Seeing as humans have consciousness, it is not simple to see if they have an innate response to abandon their parents. Instead, one can analyze the animal with the closest DNA structure to a human’s. This animal would be the chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are highly social animals. According to National Geographic, “they live in communities of several dozen animals.” If chimpanzees do not abandon their parents, then humans are not naturally driven to abandon their parents.
This raises the question: why is the motif of creation v. creator so common if it is not a natural occurrence? It is hard to imagine betraying one's creator or creation as morally acceptable. The creation v. creator motif is a lot deeper than it appears on the surface. One of the best books to be written with the trope is Frankenstein, formerly known as The Modern Prometheus. This novel by Mary Shelley details the creation v. creator trope with heavy influences from Paradise Lost. Dr. Victor Frankenstein is a scientist who discovers what makes life. After animating an eight-foot-tall amalgamation of corpses, he realizes what a grave mistake he made. Frankenstein then abandons the beast. The beast goes on to gain consciousness and learns how to be a civilized creature. However, because of how terrifying it looks, the beast is never welcomed into society. This turns the beast to despise its creator; it does everything in its power to make Frankenstein feel how it feels. The main conflict is between Frankenstein and his monster, although Frankenstein differs from the usage of this trope previously. The maker of the conflict was the creator and the victim was the creation. Previously, usage of this trope depicted betrayal towards creators. A story where the creation is instead seeking revenge on its creator shows a different aspect of the trope.
Creation v. creator can be seen in two lights. The creator gave life to a being, but the being goes against its rules. Thus, the creator must show their authority over the creation. However, the creation was brought into the world at a whim. What if the creator only created the creation out of ignorance? Is being created enough to cause a spark of hatred in creations? In the case of Frankenstein, yes. Life, the greatest gift, can also be the worst curse. Without a creator granting a creation access to life, joy would never be known to that creation. However, that creation would also never know strife. Ultimately, the creation v. creator trope is used to express thoughts that cannot be accurately represented by definitions. Instead, stories are told to express the turmoil that comes from being conscious of one's existence. Being created is both a blessing and a curse.
Page updated
Report abuse