User talk:VsevolodKrolikov/Creativity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a dumping ground for useful material excised in the process of re-writing of Creativity

Other definitions place less emphasis on the importance of manifestation, instead suggesting creativity to involve the development of new and useful products as determined by the judgement of a defined sociocultural group [1]

In a summary of scientific research into creativity Michael Mumford suggested:

"“Over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products” (Mumford, 2003, p. 110). [2]

History[edit]

This section in the article is currently pretty bloody awful. I'll start rearranging and making sense of it.

Ancient Greece and Rome[edit]

The ancient Greek concept of art (in Greek, τέχνη, téchnē—the root of "technique" and "technology"), with the exception of poetry, involved not freedom of action but subjection to rules. In Rome, this Greek concept was partly shaken, and visual artists were viewed as sharing, with poets, imagination and inspiration.[3]

Although neither the Greeks nor the Romans had a word that directly corresponded to the word "creativity," their art, architecture, music (although no music from this time has been documented), inventions and discoveries provide numerous examples of what today would be described as creative works. The Greek scientist of Syracuse, Archimedes experienced the creative moment in his Eureka experience, finding the answer to a problem he had been wrestling with for a long time. At the time, the concept of an external creative "daemon" (Greek) or "genius" (Latin), linked to the sacred or the divine, probably came closest to describing the creative talents that brought forth such works.[4]

Eastern conceptions of creativity[edit]

The Western view of creativity can be contrasted with the Eastern view. For Hindus, Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists, creation was at most a kind of discovery or mimicry, and the idea of creation "from nothing" had no place in these philosophies and religions.[4]

Early Christian concepts[edit]

Enlightenment[edit]

A shift occurred in modern times. Renaissance men had a sense of their own independence, freedom and creativity, and sought to give voice to this sense. The first to actually apply the word "creativity" was the Polish poet Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, who applied it exclusively to poetry. For over a century and a half, the idea of human creativity met with resistance, due to the fact that the term "creation" was reserved for creation "from nothing." Baltasar Gracián (1601–58) would only venture to write: "Art is the completion of nature, as if it were a second Creator..."[5]

By the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of creativity was appearing more often in art theory, and was linked with the concept of imagination.[6]

(From RuncoAlbert): part of the development of modern conceptions of creativity was the separation of originality, genius and creativity.

The beginning of creativity research[edit]

In the West, by the 19th century, not only had art come to be regarded as creativity, but it alone was so regarded. When later, at the turn of the 20th century, there began to be discussion of creativity in the sciences (e.g., Jan Łukasiewicz, 1878–1956) and in nature (e.g., Henri Bergson), this was generally taken as the transference, to the sciences, of concepts that were proper to art.[6]

Images[edit]

This section for any culled images that might go elsewhere in the article.

Leonardo da Vinci is well known for his creative works.

References[edit]

<references>

  1. ^ (Batey, M. & Furnham. A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, p. 355-429.
  2. ^ Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.
  3. ^ Tatarkiewicz, pp. 244–46.
  4. ^ a b (Albert & Runco, 1999)
  5. ^ Tatarkiewicz, pp. 247–48.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Tatarkiewicz80 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).