Popular in Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity
Popular in Psychlogy
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Briana Hughes on Wednesday February 17, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 3100 002 at Temple University taught by Dr. Weisberg in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 22 views. For similar materials see Topics: Brain, Behavior and Cognition: Psychology of Creativity in Psychlogy at Temple University.
Reviews for Week 2
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 02/17/16
Artistic Creativity: Development of Picasso’s Guernica Many preliminary sketches before deciding what to paint o First a studio with model and painter 3 periods of work o May 1-2 Composition studies of the horse (central character physically and psychologically) o May 8-13 Fewer composition studies; other characters appear o May 20-June 4 No composition studies; add peripheral characters o Structured/systematic process; knew structure when he began Deciding on an Idea: Analysis of the Composition Studies o Central characters present early on in most studies; peripherals came later – had structure planned o Guernica closely related to many of his work’s in 1930s Mirror image of Minotauromachy (Minotaur is half man half bull) Link? Bombings took place in Spain; Minotauromachy is representation of a bullfight (very Spanish) Guernica has skeleton of a bullfight: a bull and horse; person with a sword (statue) and spectators overlooking the scene Emotionality of bombing similar to bullfight (significant emotional for spanish) o Innocent victims in bullfight (horse & lancer) just like in war o Picasso worked on one character at a time Horse Head up or down? Mom and child Eyes dry or tearing? Isolated woman and falling person Alone or with baby? When alone, weeping; when holding dead person shows no tears Falling woman in Guernica resembles man in Goya’s painting (Disaster of War); mother resembles woman in (Disaster of War) Structure in Creative Thinking: Conclusions from the Case Studies o Large gap between importance of products and ordinariness of thought processes behind them They don’t “think outside of the box” this is their norm Creative process highly structured, not very different from ordinary thinking o People dismiss certain ideas as not being creative because they’re not extraordinary/magical i.e. scientists conclusions o Big Sea vs Little Sea i.e. Einstein and Leonardo vs. everyday changes/innovations o Support Foundation view of relationship between expertise and creativity o People assume creative products must be completely novel o There are always antecedents to any creative idea; we just are ignorant to it/them o No tension between creativity and conventional knowledge; it builds upon it o Creative thinkers adopt and go beyond the past to produce genuinely novel ideas and objects o Continuity: builds on the past in small steps o Discontinuity: is from outside stimuli/new info Chapter 2 the Study of Creativity Creative Product, Creative Process, and Creative Person: Questions of Definition Two aspects of novelty: novelty for the person v. novelty for the world Creative process/creative thinking: the thought processes that bring about products that are novel for an individual Creative product/innovation: one that is novel for an individual Creative person: one who produces innovations Creativity: made up of the factors that enable a person to produce creative products o Encompasses creative process o Depends on personality characteristics and motivation Creative Accidents? If accidentally spill paint on campus and becomes a masterpiece, no creativity involved If produce novel response during schizophrenic episode, no creativity o However, schizophrenic person making machine to keep CIA from reading their mind is intentional; creativity You are creative only when the novel product is produced intentionally The Question of Value I the Definition of Creativity Some researchers propose the value of a product is important in determining whether it is creative o Must carry out the task for which it was designed o Creative scientific theory must help us understand the domain in question o Must be appreciated by some audience beyond the artist o Creative solution to a problem must actually solve the problem Current dominant view in the field: o Csikszenthmihalyi (1988) proposed 3 components play a role in making any product creative Individual working in some domain that at some point makes a novel contribution to that domain (i.e. painter) Domain (art) Present discovery to the field, make it public Editors and reviewers (gatekeepers of the domain) decide whether new finding is valuable enough to merit being published If so, it becomes part of the domain (when product becomes creative) Creativity Is Novelty, Irrespective of Value o Dr. Weisberg proposes small change to Csiksczentmihalyi’s theory o Cycle determines whether innovation is valued; creativity is the production of the innovation o Problem: Value can change over time (can gain value much later or lose value); person would be creative at one point and not creative at another time o Creates problem in understanding creative thinking Won’t ever be able to say for certain who is and isn’t creative; all about perception/opinion if looking at value of work (some people don’t value Mozart but his compositions, nonetheless were innovative) Won’t ever be able to carry out psychological study of creativity; if creativity has time limit, so does relevance of research o With Weisberg’s theory, only have to worry if it is innovative and intentional Creativity is timeless (unless find plagiarism or discover unreleased work) o Two theories related Anything designated creative according to novelty-plus-value definition is also designated as creative using novelty-plus- intention BUT Whether product is valuable is a totally different discussion than whether or not it is creative Psychological processes involved in producing valuable innovation vs. negatively evaluated innovation are the same (i.e. Watson and Crick’s first model of DNA) External Verification of Creativity o Social factors aren’t completely irrelevant in determining if work is creative o In order to determine if work is creative, we need to have that work available o Need external observers to check for plagiarism/innovation A Working Definition Creative Thinking: occurs when a person intentionally produces a novel product while working on some task, whether it is highly valued by society or not Creative product: a novel product intentionally produced by a person Creative person: person who produces a creative product Different Kinds of Creative Contributions o Not all creative products are equivalent o Some of Picasso’s earlier works much more innovative than Guernica; Cubist went much further than anything he had ever done Are radically new works produced by other processes??? o Different influences on the field Propel the field: change the direction of the field Sternberg et al. Propulsion model of creative contributions: o Innovation can propel the field in some direction, even same direction the field is already moving o Can occur whether or not creator intended to do so o 8 different effects a creative contribution can have on a field Forward incremementation: Creative product builds on what has already been done, without changing basic direction in which field is moving i.e. Guernica Redirection: proposes radical shift away from current direction of field i.e. the Cubist Advance forward incremementation: “ahead of its time” contributes beyond what has been done to a degree of advance that is too much for the field to absorb i.e. Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring Redefinition: individual proposes a new perspective on the current state of the field i.e. 1980s Drs. J.R. Warren and Barry Marshall developed theory that peptic ulcers caused by bacteria in stomach (absurd at the time, now widely accepted) Also, Andy Warhol took things from “low culture” and used them as subject matter for Pop Art