The following text is an overview study which defines the basic phenomena and effective factors of Gestalt drama and outlines some of the researches carried out in this area by the author during recent years. Gestalt drama is the name of a specific psychotherapeutic approach applied by the author in his practice, which combines Gestalt therapy with expressive approaches (especially with dramatherapy, theatrotherapy and fairytale-therapy). Linking Gestalt therapy and expressive techniques results in a specific psychotherapeutic approach whose versatility and holistic conception makes it suitable not only for psychotherapy but also for self-development of people with special needs, as it has the potential to meet the higher psychological needs even when the lower needs are not sufficiently saturated. The article further presents the interpretation of the partial results of research focusing on the analysis of integration performance where gestaltdrama techniques have been applied. These performances resulted from one-day dramatherapy workshops with clients suffering from mental retardation and with clients with behavioural disorders. This includes the analysis of differences between dramatical expression within the above target groups.
Artistic personality was interpreted in various ways through the ages. The power of creativity, individual perseverance and imaginative force made the artist a special person, different from most people, being equipped with unique, unrepeatable skills. This paper presents some of the most important approaches to the personality of the creator, from the questionable Freudian theory to the psycho-biological approaches of Peckham. Through his works, the artist expresses not only his personal anxieties or emotional ardent feelings but also, reflects a conscious level of the social group, being himself adapted to human values, characteristic of the era and society to which he belongs. Maybe, sometimes, wrong regarded as deviant personalities or too much exposed to excesses, artists remain, undoubtedly, brave in Creativity, in the cultural and social original development process. Their integration in this ensemble completes the picture we have about development and social evolution, and gives us access to more elevated human values.
Aubra C. Shepard, Elisabeth Morney and Sarah E. Sumners
skapades programkonceptet [Strömsö – This is how the concept was made]. Helsinki: Svenska Yle. Internally published report.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (1), 27-43
Ness, I. J. & Søreide, G. E. (2014). The Room of Opportunity: Understanding phases of creative knowledge processes in innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26 (8), 545-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0077
Oleynick, V. C., Thrash, T. M., LeFew, M. C., Moldovan, E. G
Mental health is one of the potential outcomes of creative behavior deserving of further research, as much of previous anecdotal and scientific evidence has offered conflicting findings on this topic. Integrating the expertise and methods used by scholars in different disciplines (e.g., art therapy, clinical psychology, cognitive psychology, personality psychology) may help clarify the conditions under which creative behavior is or is not helpful for specific aspects of mental health, and generate new insights into the mechanisms that might explain such benefits.
In this commentary, I raise an etiological question, which has been virtually excluded from the horizon of contemporary scholarship. In spite of a long history of philosophical, mystical, and religious approaches considering the transcendent and/or spiritual sources of human creativity, mainstream creativity researchers have become gradually reluctant to acknowledge the supernatural influences in this human endeavour. This account is either disregarded altogether or re-interpreted in a way that substitutes supernatural connections with observable and measurable processes. On the one hand, the latter approach appears to fall within the premises of modern science and thereby earns substantial attention the scientific community. On the other, this could be one of the reasons why creativity research has reached its epistemological cul-de-sac. I argue that by retaining the source of creativity within an individual, one annihilates the whole constellation of personality traits and processes, which have transcendent characteristics. It is important to integrate the study of transcendent experience into the study of cognitive, personality, and environmental underpinnings of creative faculties. A possible direction for this change is offered by transpersonal psychology, which makes an attempt to resurrect an investigation of spiritual reality and integrate it in the study of modern psychology. At the end of the commentary, I sketch a transcendental model of creativity developed along the lines of a transpersonal paradigm.
Based on Glăveanu’s target article, issues raised about the psychometric approach to creativity research are examined. Criticisms of divergent thinking tests, such as the unusual uses of an object test, are examined. Arguments supporting the theoretical and practical utility of divergent thinking tests are presented. It is furthermore suggested that tests are best conceived and used in contextualized ways. The example of measures of divergent thinking which were designed for managers is presented. Finally, the psychometric approach encompasses many aspects of creativity beyond divergent thinking, as illustrated by recent work on the evaluation of creative potential (the EPoC battery). In the EPoC assessment, both divergent-exploratory thinking and convergent-integrative thinking are measured in a range of contextual domains, such as the visual-graphic, verballiterary, social problem solving ones. This work contrasts with the simplistic, and restrictive view of the unusual uses of an object test as the epitome of the psychometric approach to creativity.
Mark A. Runco, Ning Hao, Selcuk Acar, Jing Yang and Mengying Tang
Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist , 30 , 140-151.
Anderson, N. H. (1980). Information integration theory in developmental psychology. In F. Wilkening, J. Beden, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Information integration by children (pp. 1-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In J. Bruner (Ed.), On knowing: Essays for the left hand , (pp. 17-30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975
model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C.W. Taylor, F. Barron (Eds). Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley.
Nęcka, E. (2001). Psychologia twórczości. [Psychology of creativity]. Gdansk: GWP.
O’Neill, C. (1995). Drama Worlds. A Framework for Process Drama, Portsmouth: NH, Heinemann.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity, Phi Delta Kappan 42, 7.
Richards, R. (1999). Four Ps of creativity. In M. A. Runco, S. R. Pritzker
and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116 , 2, 229-240.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
Runco, M. A., & Pagnani, A. (2008). Psychological research on creativity. In J. Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative learning (pp. 63-71). London: Routledge.
Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16 , 36
life: Let’s set a new agenda for positive outcomes. Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 5, 124-137.
Martin, J., & Gillespie, A. (2010). A neo-Meadian approach to human agency: Relating the social and the psychological in the ontogenesis of perspective-coordinating persons. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science , 44 , 252-272.
Moran, S., Cropley, D., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.). (2014). The ethics of creativity . New York, NY: Palgrave.
Sawyer, R. K. (1999). The emergence of creativity. Philosophical Psychology , 12 , 447