An Essay on Romantic Genius, Rorschach Movement, and the Definition of Creativity

Abstract

I have interpreted a recent Saturday Review article ( 1 ) most specifically, as a new variation on the theme of anti-psychometrics, ( 2 ) less specifically, as a new manifestation of humanistic dissatisfaction with scientific psychology, and (3) generally, as a protest h o m Snow's "traditional culture" regarding who in our society shall be called intellectually great. The variation involves atracking aptitude rests of creativity for their failure to measure aptitude for a~tistic creativity. I have s u~~c s t e d that the movement dimension of the Rorschach test does precisely th~s-although it does not measure what the Guilford originality tests measure, namely, aptitude for unusual, remote, and/or clever response. This aptirude is relatively independent of Rorschach's "capacity for 'inner creation'," a capacity which must be well above-average to qualify as a genius in Romantic terms. Because this independence has long been recognized by Romanticism, it is to be expected that an abundance of the Guilford aptitude will nor much impress the Romantically-oriented critic, even if the aptirude is coupled with lofty lQ, and the rwo are confirmed by achievement of the order of a Nobel Prize. The Romantically-oriented critic will call "genius" only someone rich in Rorschach's capacity, i.e., in capacity for "artistic inspiration, religious experience, etc." Only someone, I add (in the phrase of the article's title), who is something more than a "useful genius."

Through Multiple Lenses: Implicit Theories of Creativity Among Indian Children and Adults*

“…Eastern thought is believed to be interested in consciousness itself, whereas the Western mind is interested in the objects of consciousness, on action and accomplishment, leading to a process-centered and product-centered view of creativity, respectively (Raina, 2004). Stark (1965) distinguishes between creativity in its sense of novelty and creativity in its sense of meaning. In the meaning context, it is the quality of the subjective experience as enriching or meaningful that determines the experience of creativity, rather than the judgment of the external world regarding its novelty.…”

“…When approached as a process, the distinction between 'novelty' and 'reproduction' does not lie in the objective assessment of the product as new but in the subjective experiential domain of the doer. Thus the subjective 'meaning context' (Stark, 1965) of creativity pervades the Indian construal and influences the meaning which is given to 'novelty'. While 'novelty' as understood as in Western scholarship is extant in the Indian culture, the study uncovers its other meanings as well.…”

Creativity: Hot and cold

“…We are remmded of the distmction made by Stark (1965) between an experiential context of creativity which is concerned with "consciousness expansion" through the use of imagination, and an action context, concerned with problem-solvmg through the achievement of novelty A person who excels m the former may be descnbed as "origmal" or "spontaneous," while one who excels m the latter is "clever," "competent" or "talented. "…”

“…In order to compare an arts with a science onentation, the subjects were classified accordmg to whether their Faculty was pnmanly hterary (Arts, Economics, Law) or scientific-technical (Science, Medicme, Engmeenng) The arts oriented subjects were very much higher than the science onented on the Guilf ord tests of ongmality, but there were no differences on the two projective measures DISCUSSION Both of the studies have suggested that the distinction between hot and cold creativity lies mainly m the degree of self-control exercised and m the competence shown in copmg vnih reahty Both types of creativity have certam important qualities m common such as the use of mtuition and the ability to break away from conventional ways of thmkmg and actmg It might be expected that hot creativity would be more appropnate m artistic work where self-expression is basic to the activity, and cold creativity m apphed science and administration. We are remmded of the distmction made by Stark (1965) between an experiential context of creativity which is concerned with "consciousness expansion" through the use of imagination, and an action context, concerned with problem-solvmg through the achievement of novelty A person who excels m the former may be descnbed as "origmal" or "spontaneous," while one who excels m the latter is "clever," "competent" or "talented. "…”

Teacher Preparation for Creative Teaching

“…Creativity is seen as a cognitive process with emphasis on divergent thinking and problem solving. This is the novelty context of creativity (Stark, 1965). This can also be viewed as the product approach to creativity as creativity is evaluated with reference to tangible outcomes.…”