Dec 11, 2009
The Subjective Nature of Creativity
The Subjective Nature of Creativity
“No person, act or product is creative or uncreative in itself. Judgments of creativity are inherently communal, relying heavily on individuals expert within a domain.” (Gardner, 1994: 145).
Creativity is subjective and based on perceptions (Boden, 1994b, 1997; Slappendel, 1996) and depends on the domain, consensus, judge and method of judgment (Boden, 1997, Stafford, 1998). It is also bound to a historical context (Amabile, 1983; Eysenck, 1994). Consequently, what is novel, has value and is elegant in one context (industrial, cultural, personal, generational) may be commonplace, lack value or be crude (or somewhere in between) in another.
Often the creative act and the creator are not easily understood or accepted (Boden, 1994a, 1997) but theorists have noted that positive valuation within the social group is important for an idea to be accepted as creative (Gigerenzer, 1994; Schaffer, 1994). Outputs may be read as creative not through how they appear in the mind, but how they are defined within a culture (or society, or environment) (Brannigan, 1981, cited in Schaffer, 1994).
Accordingly, the organisation acts a key social and cultural ‘space’ that has a role to play in enabling discovery through acceptance and/or acknowledgement. Note that the ‘discovery’ of a creative act is not the same as the act itself. An act or idea still exists whether or not it has been acknowledged or accredited, but for the act or idea to ‘come to life’ and have any import in the organisation it must be ‘discovered’ or agreed upon as creative by ‘appropriate observers’ (Amabile, 1987). This is a similar concept to ‘idea concretisation’ (Griffiths-Hemans and Grover, 2006) (refer to Section 2.2.3) where the product of “some isolated mind” becomes subject to a judgment (Schaffer, 1994: 35) within the firm and the innovative process.
Furthermore, the group is important due to the fact that accepted practices will in all probability influence and inform the minds of group members, thus impacting on their conceptual spaces (Gigerenzer, 1994). Cultural style and social evaluation have an impact on individual thinking styles (Boden, 1994a; Gigerenzer, 1994), as do the culture of the work communities and the traditions they make for themselves (Schaffer, 1994).
Operational Definition
The above discussion of subjectivity does not mean that judgment on the ‘creativity’ of ‘something’ cannot be definitively made, but it does necessitate subjective assessments and awareness of the relevant context. Much relies on the judgment of actors acting in specific circumstances – such an approach is termed by Amabile (1996) as ‘consensual definition’:
“A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the domain in which the product was created or the response was articulated.” (Amabile, 1987: 230-31).
Summary Definition
For the purposes of this study, the degree to which a product is creative rests on; (1) its nature (novel and valuable), (2) the context it resides or was created in, and (3) who is judging it:
“A product or response is creative to the extent that those familiar with the context in which it was created and/or resides in regard it as being novel and valuable to a suitable degree.”
References:
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.
Amabile, T.M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In Isaksen, S.G. (ed.) Frontiers of creativity research, 223-254. Buffalo: Bearly Ltd.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.
Boden, M.A. (1994a). Introduction. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 1-11. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Boden, M.A. (1994b). What is creativity? In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 75-117. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Boden, M.A. (1997). The constraints of knowledge. In Å.E. Andersson and N.E. Sahlin (eds.) The complexity of creativity, 1-4. Dordrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
Eysenck, H.J. (1994). The measurement of creativity. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 199-242. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gardner, H. (1994). The creator’s patterns. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 143-158. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (1994). Where do new ideas come from? In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 53-74. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Griffiths-Hemans, J. and Grover, R. (2006). Setting the stage for creative new products: investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 27-39.
Schaffer, S. (1994). Making up discovery. In M.A. Boden (ed.) Dimensions of creativity, 13-52. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization Studies, 17(1), 107-129
