A Commentary on the Social Perspective on Creativity

Open access

Abstract

This commentary examines the social perspective on creativity, as presented in the featured article. There are several attractive aspects to the social perspective, but serious limitations as well, which are detailed in this commentary. The assumptions of the social perspective are also discussed. The most questionable of these assumes that social recognition and impact are inherent parts of creativity. The parsimonious alternative is to define creativity such that it includes only what is related to creativity per se and to recognize that social recognition may follow creation and is certainly extricable from it. A defence of this parsimonious view is presented. A brief discussion of possible crises in the field of creativity studies is also presented, with one suggestion being that the diverse approaches used in the field represent a kind of divergent thinking and as such represent progress, even though it is not linear. This commentary concludes with a discussion about creativity being vital for quality of life. That perspective differs dramatically from the product view of creativity which is often tied to a social perspective.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Albert R. S. (1995). Madison Avenue Comes to Academe. Creativity Research Journal 8 427-429.

  • Amabile T. M. (1995). Attributions of Creativity: What Are the Consequences? Creativity Research Journal 8 423-426.

  • Amabile T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 393-399.

  • Amabile T. M. & Kramer S. (2010). What really motivates workers. Harvard Business Review 88 1 44-45.

  • Barron F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press.

  • Eisenberger R. & Shanock L. (2003). Reward intrinsic motivation and creativity: A case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creativity Research Journal 15 121-130.

  • Glăveanu V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications 1 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.

  • Gruber H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal 1 27-51.

  • Kasof J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal 8 311-366.

  • Kharkhurin A. (2014). Creativity four-in-one: Four Criterion Construct of Creativity Creativity Research Journal 26 338–352.

  • Koestler A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.

  • Richards R. (1991). A new aesthetic for environmental awareness: Chaos theory the beauty of nature and our broader humanistic identity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 41 59–95.

  • Richards R. (2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Rogers C. R. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.) Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 69-82). New York: Harper & Row.

  • Rothenberg A. (1999). Janusian processes. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 103-108). San Diego CA: Academic.

  • Runco M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal 19 177-189.

  • Runco M. A. (1995). Insight for creativity expression for impact. Creativity Research Journal 8 377-390.

  • Runco M. A. (1999). Misjudgment of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 235-240). San Diego CA: Academic Press.

  • Runco M. A. (2005). Self-actualization. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human development (pp. 1132-1133). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

  • Runco M. A. (2010). Creative thinking may be simultaneous as well as blind [Comment on Creative thought as blind-variation and selective retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity by Dean Keith Simonton] Physics of Life Reviews 7 184-185.

  • Runco M. A. (2010). Products depend on creative potential: A comment on the productivist industrial model of knowledge production. Gifted and Talented International 25 81-87.

  • Runco M. A. & Jaeger G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24 92-96.

  • Runco M. A. McCarthy K. A. & Svensen E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology 128 23-31.

  • Runco M. A. & Smith W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences 13 295-302.

  • Sternberg R. J. (1995). If You Change Your Name to Mark Twain Will You Be Judged As Creative? Creativity Research Journal 8 367-370.

  • Simonton D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office Criteria Seriously: A Quantitative Three-Criterion Creativity Definition and Its Implications. Creativity Research Journal 24 97-106.

  • Wallach M. A. & Wing C. W. Jr. (1969). The Talent Student: A Validation of the Creativity Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Search
Journal information
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 221 64 5
PDF Downloads 138 60 5