Source: http://www.nancyandreasen.com/id2.html
I'm reading The Creating Brain: The Neuroscience of Genius, by neuroscientist and psychiatrist Nancy C. Andreasen. Even though I only recently started the book, I'm already fired up about some questions she raises: Who gets to say who's creative and who's not, what's creative and what's not?
Frankly, I never thought an outside authority was required to define creativity. I hold a democratic view that we're all capable of being creative, to a lesser or greater extent, to lesser or greater renown. To create is to bring something new or original into existence; to make, invent, or produce rather than to imitate. Does it necessitate, as Andreasen asks, "external confirmation by publishers, critics, and other arbiters in order to judge the presence of genuine creativity?"
She cites psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's argument that if creativity is to have an impact on culture and not simply exist in the mind of an individual, there must be external standards to define "true creativity." Andreasen contends that creativity has to have three essential components. First, originality: "Creativity involves perceiving new relationships, ways of observing, ways of portraying...[and] is not limited to particular domains, such as the arts." Second, utility, which is primarily the "ability to evoke resonant emotions in others, to inspire, or to create a sense of awe at what the human mind/brain can achieve." Third, creativity must lead to creating something. Andreasen groups these three as person, process, and product.
Frankly, I never thought an outside authority was required to define creativity. I hold a democratic view that we're all capable of being creative, to a lesser or greater extent, to lesser or greater renown. To create is to bring something new or original into existence; to make, invent, or produce rather than to imitate. Does it necessitate, as Andreasen asks, "external confirmation by publishers, critics, and other arbiters in order to judge the presence of genuine creativity?"
She cites psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's argument that if creativity is to have an impact on culture and not simply exist in the mind of an individual, there must be external standards to define "true creativity." Andreasen contends that creativity has to have three essential components. First, originality: "Creativity involves perceiving new relationships, ways of observing, ways of portraying...[and] is not limited to particular domains, such as the arts." Second, utility, which is primarily the "ability to evoke resonant emotions in others, to inspire, or to create a sense of awe at what the human mind/brain can achieve." Third, creativity must lead to creating something. Andreasen groups these three as person, process, and product.
Herman Melville (1870). Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Herman_Melville
However, as many of us know, even when the three components are present, an external element might not be. What happens when, for years, you've been writing diligently yet unable to secure a publishing contract? Does that mean you're not truly creative? Or, if you have published but then you lose popularity, are you no longer creative?
Take American novelist, short-story writer, and poet Herman Melville (1819-1891). Between 1845 and 1950, he enjoyed celebrity, especially when Typee became an overnight bestseller in England. However, Moby-Dick did not, when it appeared in 1851. A year later, Pierre fared even worse. For the last thirty years of his life, Melville was virtually ignored. Should we infer that he wasn't creative after all because he lacked critical acclaim at the time? Yet, today, Moby-Dick is considered his greatest work.
Take American novelist, short-story writer, and poet Herman Melville (1819-1891). Between 1845 and 1950, he enjoyed celebrity, especially when Typee became an overnight bestseller in England. However, Moby-Dick did not, when it appeared in 1851. A year later, Pierre fared even worse. For the last thirty years of his life, Melville was virtually ignored. Should we infer that he wasn't creative after all because he lacked critical acclaim at the time? Yet, today, Moby-Dick is considered his greatest work.
For decades, French sculptor Louise Bourgeois (1911-2010) occupied a peripheral rather than prominent position in the art world, receiving admiration from fellow artists more than accolades from the critics. Then, when the Museum of Modern Art in New York held her first retrospective in 1982, she gained recognition for her creativity.
"Maman" (1999-2001), by Louise Bourgeois. Guggenheim Bilbao. Spain. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Louise_Bourgeois
Dutch post-Impressionist Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) painted hundreds of canvases yet died a "failure" because, except for a few friends, no one purchased his artwork. Only after he was gone was his creative genius formally acknowledged. Was he not creative before that? In the second half of the 20th century, his paintings were some of the most expensive in the world. I'm not equating higher creativity with higher prices. That's what the commercial aspects of the art world do. I'm merely noting it.
"Self-Portrait" (1889), by Vincent van Gogh. Musée d'Orsay. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh
So who gets to call the shots about creativity? Do we respect the appraisals offered by judges and critics or question them? Do we let someone else tell us who is or is not creatively accomplished? The fact that one day you're an unappreciated, even starving artist and the next day you're "discovered" as great leaves me uneasy. How many creative individuals have fallen into despair when their artistic expression is not noticed, accepted, and praised? Given the fickleness of opinions and the marketplace, I find it useful to keep in mind the wise counsel attributed to the Buddha about "the eight worldly things":
Gain and loss, fame and infamy,
Blame and praise, happiness and suffering:
These are impermanent, passing,
Having a changeable nature.
Blame and praise, happiness and suffering:
These are impermanent, passing,
Having a changeable nature.
Questions and Comments:
How do you define creativity? Is public recognition crucial?
Who are the individuals you admire as creative yet are not well known?
Are fame and fortune important to your own creativity?
How do you define creativity? Is public recognition crucial?
Who are the individuals you admire as creative yet are not well known?
Are fame and fortune important to your own creativity?
RSS Feed