In my ongoing research I’ve recently been delving into the idea of creativity by applying Inverse Fractal Concept Analysis and a variation of Kendall Walton’s “Categories of Art” to the ways in which we typically experience and think about the creative process. Let me explain:
Inverse Fractal Concept Analysis is a theory I employ, developed when I did a study of Multilevel Integrative Cognition. My paper on the subject is available elsewhere on this website, but I’ll quote my own abstract in order to give you an idea of what it says.
The Multilevel Integrative Cognition (MIC) model of conceptual analysis, also known as fractal-concept analysis, is an attempt to bridge the gap between objectivity and subjectivity in epistemology, creating a four-dimensional model by which a more comprehensive method of analysis may be utilized (Wilson and Lowndes, 2003). As fractal-concept analysis, these four dimensions take one specific idea and branch out four ways, each of which may also be divided and sub-divided into the four dimensions: static, dynamic, evaluative, and identity (Wilson, Wasserman, and Lowndes, 2007). When applied to the analysis of works of visual art, this method bears significant similarities to Kendall Walton’s theory of artistic categories (Walton, 1970) and also shares properties with Arthur Danto’s process for identifying works of art as belonging to particular types (Danto, 1964). Walton and Danto both begin with a general concept and examine specific aspects of it, whereas MIC/fractal-concept theory begins with a specific seed idea and works outward towards a general concept.
I propose that the fractal model may be turned upside-down: instead of the trunk of a tree growing from a seed and branching out in multiple directions, I see it as the trunk of a tree supported by a large root system, without which the tree will not stand. The trunk of the tree represents the idea “What is a work of Visual Art?” The tree’s roots are all the various manifestations of the ways in which this idea might be expressed, each root ending in a specific work of art. Within this root system, each work of art can be traced back, through shared conceptual paths, to the overall designation as works of visual art. This method of identifying objects as works of art bears similarities to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Family Resemblance” theory (Warburton, 2003) and also to Noel Carroll’s method of “historical narration” of art works (Carroll, 1999).
So, applying the same methods I used in answering the question, “What is a work of art?”, I’ve been thinking about the question, “What is creativity?” We tend to think of creativity as the domain of genius—da Vinci, Edison, O’Keeffe, Jobs, Beethoven, Shakespeare, and so on. But in my opinion, we overlook the fact that creativity is a basic facet of human nature. It is not only the artistic superstars or technological wunderkinds who possess this quality. Creativity is everywhere and all around us. We’re just not aware that each and every one of us has untapped reserves of this elusive commodity and many of us are similarly oblivious about learning how to access our own creative potential and how it can enrich our lives.
Take a look around you right now. The computer to which the screen you’re reading is connected, the programming that allows you to read this little essay on that very screen, the desk it sits upon, the coffee cup sitting near your hand, the desk lamp illuminating the area, the pens, pencils, cluttered in-box…each and every one of these ubiquitous and nearly invisible objects is the product of applied creativity. Indeed, every single item in your immediate environment was at some point or other the product of someone’s creative impulse. “But wait,” you may say, “These flowers from my garden weren’t the product of anyone’s creativity.” I, however, beg to differ. First, you probably purchased the seeds in a little paper package that was designed by someone. The seeds were probably developed by a grower who applied a great deal of science and creativity to producing ideal seeds that would grow into those beautiful flowers. And you likely planted, tended, and selected them carefully, arranging them just so to lend beauty to your environment—a very creative activity.
So why do we think that creativity is the domain of genius rather than something that all of us possess? Part of the answer might lie in the fact that creativity is often employed instrumentally in a goal-oriented, systematic pursuit of an intended outcome. But because our focus is on the outcome, not the process, we miss the steps that allowed us to arrive at that destination. Another reason is that those creative products that surround us are so very ubiquitous. Who notices the logo designs for every product that’s promoted in those blaring, jangling, annoying (creative!) ads? When a product comes around that has the power to transform our daily lives we do sit up and take notice—but primarily of the ways the product benefits us, not its intrinsic design. (After all, how many items do you have in your house right now with a little apple symbol on them? How often, though, do we think about that little glowing apple itself rather than the product to which it’s attached?)
In my ongoing research I’ve identified a defensible set of elements and principles of creativity. These are not mysterious, elusive, or something only granted to the super-gifted among us. Creativity simply means seeing things differently than you have before. It’s making something new or finding a novel way of doing things. It’s seeing many solutions to one problem, some of which are completely crazy and impractical but eventually finding one that does just what you wanted it to do. It’s looking at the solution from another angle and finding another way that’s even better…again, and again, and again. It’s never being satisfied with “good enough” or the status quo. It’s seeing beyond, “This is the way we’ve always done it” to “Why didn’t we think of this before?”
An important facet of creativity is not just problem-solving, but problem-finding. In the business world, it’s in seeing a need nobody else had noticed and then developing a product that meets the heretofore unidentified need. Twenty years ago, I couldn’t have imagined how much I would need an object smaller than a candy bar that could not only make phone calls but take photographs, play games, and keep me from getting lost on the highway, all without any wires at all, from nearly anywhere in the known world. Somebody creative saw that need and—boom!—smart phones were born. The development of these amazing gizmos is rife with creativity, but the truly innovative moment was when someone found the problem, not just the process by which the problem was solved.
I’m certain that others have penned lengthy doctoral dissertations about this very topic, and I freely admit that my research has been undertaken strictly for my own personal edification. But, as an artist, the creative process is dear to my heart, and as an art educator the ways in which students’ creativity can be nurtured and strengthened is among what I believe to be the most essential tasks of those who teach in the arts. So let’s not think of creativity as a mountaintop where only a few may tread. Yes, we should rightfully celebrate and appreciate those who have achieved greatness as innovators. We should also, however, all learn to tap into our own considerable creative powers and stop seeing creativity as a mysterious or exclusive activity. We are all creative, but often differently so. Let’s celebrate that, nurture it, and recognize the greatness that is within and around all of us.
Inverse Fractal Concept Analysis is a theory I employ, developed when I did a study of Multilevel Integrative Cognition. My paper on the subject is available elsewhere on this website, but I’ll quote my own abstract in order to give you an idea of what it says.
The Multilevel Integrative Cognition (MIC) model of conceptual analysis, also known as fractal-concept analysis, is an attempt to bridge the gap between objectivity and subjectivity in epistemology, creating a four-dimensional model by which a more comprehensive method of analysis may be utilized (Wilson and Lowndes, 2003). As fractal-concept analysis, these four dimensions take one specific idea and branch out four ways, each of which may also be divided and sub-divided into the four dimensions: static, dynamic, evaluative, and identity (Wilson, Wasserman, and Lowndes, 2007). When applied to the analysis of works of visual art, this method bears significant similarities to Kendall Walton’s theory of artistic categories (Walton, 1970) and also shares properties with Arthur Danto’s process for identifying works of art as belonging to particular types (Danto, 1964). Walton and Danto both begin with a general concept and examine specific aspects of it, whereas MIC/fractal-concept theory begins with a specific seed idea and works outward towards a general concept.
I propose that the fractal model may be turned upside-down: instead of the trunk of a tree growing from a seed and branching out in multiple directions, I see it as the trunk of a tree supported by a large root system, without which the tree will not stand. The trunk of the tree represents the idea “What is a work of Visual Art?” The tree’s roots are all the various manifestations of the ways in which this idea might be expressed, each root ending in a specific work of art. Within this root system, each work of art can be traced back, through shared conceptual paths, to the overall designation as works of visual art. This method of identifying objects as works of art bears similarities to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Family Resemblance” theory (Warburton, 2003) and also to Noel Carroll’s method of “historical narration” of art works (Carroll, 1999).
So, applying the same methods I used in answering the question, “What is a work of art?”, I’ve been thinking about the question, “What is creativity?” We tend to think of creativity as the domain of genius—da Vinci, Edison, O’Keeffe, Jobs, Beethoven, Shakespeare, and so on. But in my opinion, we overlook the fact that creativity is a basic facet of human nature. It is not only the artistic superstars or technological wunderkinds who possess this quality. Creativity is everywhere and all around us. We’re just not aware that each and every one of us has untapped reserves of this elusive commodity and many of us are similarly oblivious about learning how to access our own creative potential and how it can enrich our lives.
Take a look around you right now. The computer to which the screen you’re reading is connected, the programming that allows you to read this little essay on that very screen, the desk it sits upon, the coffee cup sitting near your hand, the desk lamp illuminating the area, the pens, pencils, cluttered in-box…each and every one of these ubiquitous and nearly invisible objects is the product of applied creativity. Indeed, every single item in your immediate environment was at some point or other the product of someone’s creative impulse. “But wait,” you may say, “These flowers from my garden weren’t the product of anyone’s creativity.” I, however, beg to differ. First, you probably purchased the seeds in a little paper package that was designed by someone. The seeds were probably developed by a grower who applied a great deal of science and creativity to producing ideal seeds that would grow into those beautiful flowers. And you likely planted, tended, and selected them carefully, arranging them just so to lend beauty to your environment—a very creative activity.
So why do we think that creativity is the domain of genius rather than something that all of us possess? Part of the answer might lie in the fact that creativity is often employed instrumentally in a goal-oriented, systematic pursuit of an intended outcome. But because our focus is on the outcome, not the process, we miss the steps that allowed us to arrive at that destination. Another reason is that those creative products that surround us are so very ubiquitous. Who notices the logo designs for every product that’s promoted in those blaring, jangling, annoying (creative!) ads? When a product comes around that has the power to transform our daily lives we do sit up and take notice—but primarily of the ways the product benefits us, not its intrinsic design. (After all, how many items do you have in your house right now with a little apple symbol on them? How often, though, do we think about that little glowing apple itself rather than the product to which it’s attached?)
In my ongoing research I’ve identified a defensible set of elements and principles of creativity. These are not mysterious, elusive, or something only granted to the super-gifted among us. Creativity simply means seeing things differently than you have before. It’s making something new or finding a novel way of doing things. It’s seeing many solutions to one problem, some of which are completely crazy and impractical but eventually finding one that does just what you wanted it to do. It’s looking at the solution from another angle and finding another way that’s even better…again, and again, and again. It’s never being satisfied with “good enough” or the status quo. It’s seeing beyond, “This is the way we’ve always done it” to “Why didn’t we think of this before?”
An important facet of creativity is not just problem-solving, but problem-finding. In the business world, it’s in seeing a need nobody else had noticed and then developing a product that meets the heretofore unidentified need. Twenty years ago, I couldn’t have imagined how much I would need an object smaller than a candy bar that could not only make phone calls but take photographs, play games, and keep me from getting lost on the highway, all without any wires at all, from nearly anywhere in the known world. Somebody creative saw that need and—boom!—smart phones were born. The development of these amazing gizmos is rife with creativity, but the truly innovative moment was when someone found the problem, not just the process by which the problem was solved.
I’m certain that others have penned lengthy doctoral dissertations about this very topic, and I freely admit that my research has been undertaken strictly for my own personal edification. But, as an artist, the creative process is dear to my heart, and as an art educator the ways in which students’ creativity can be nurtured and strengthened is among what I believe to be the most essential tasks of those who teach in the arts. So let’s not think of creativity as a mountaintop where only a few may tread. Yes, we should rightfully celebrate and appreciate those who have achieved greatness as innovators. We should also, however, all learn to tap into our own considerable creative powers and stop seeing creativity as a mysterious or exclusive activity. We are all creative, but often differently so. Let’s celebrate that, nurture it, and recognize the greatness that is within and around all of us.