I think I agree with Ricardo when he states, "I would like to contend that most studies of creativity fall into the first category in that they endure one or more of the following miscalculations...."
When I consider creativity I always consider the question, what does it mean to be creative? Some models of creativity rely on the idea that the designer/artist is active (i.e. creative) while the medium acted on is passive, and that the audience who receives the work is equally passive. There are those who speak from the other vantage point - that the medium is active and the audience a herd of cattle, swayed by the smooth design (if you are interested I wrote a response to an article by Mark Kingwell http://www.alanmurdock.com/apiculate/archives/000116.html). Kingwell's approach to the designed object often argues in subtext that the designer is not "creative" but rather a master manipulator who uses the lowest common denominator to sway a buying public.
For myself when I address creativity I have to base myself in transactional psychology and a consideration of what it means to be an individual. To simplify for the purpose of this post, transactional concepts state that our environment acts on us just as much as we act on the environment, so it counters traditional dualities between (active) creation and (passive) reception. It also contradicts the conservative neo-Marxist concept that the designed object (active) is oppresses the viewer/user (passive receiver) to mask the means of production (servitude).
In contrast to this approach, the dynamic transactional process is obviously constantly happening with all people, thus all people utilize the activities that are for some people isolated and considered creative (as in artist=creative mathematician=technical not creative) regardless of how the activity is perceived.
There is some interesting information on transactional education models that examine the whole environment of the student. These make adjustments on the educational environment based on whether the instructor wants to enhance test scores or "creativity and independence." One short article is at http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/mdltlp.html
I think some of A.C. Danto's concepts in The Historical Individual may be helpful. He addresses what it means to be an individual and what it means to be a social individual. His ideas can be extrapolated to things like creativity that are ultimately social tools.
For example, look at the difference between a child digging random holes in the earth, a contractor digging a foundation for an apartment building, and Maya Lin designing an earthwork. Which of these activities are identified as creative and which are not?
As an artist, designer and educator I find that it is through a dynamic relationship with the built, natural and social environment that, I know this sounds loopy and may actually fit into one of the categories Ricardo has identified as negative, we (the physical and social environment and myself) create.
By creativity are you focusing on this kind of transaction with the world or are you focusing on the individual and the individual mind?
Best,
Alan Murdock
The Art Institute of Portland
|