![]()
CHAPTER 1
CHILDRENāS CREATIVITY IN ART
A study of types
American Educational Research Journal, 1965, 2(3): 125ā136
Introduction
Through research, the conception of creativity has undergone an important change. Once considered an elusive, almost mystical gift belonging to a special few, creativity is now being seen as a capacity common to all ā one that should be effectively developed by the school. Once considered a rare type of behavior limited to the arts, creativity is now viewed as penetrating, to some degree, almost all kinds of human activity. Even educators who are usually chary of accepting new responsibilities for an already overloaded curriculum are fascinated by the idea of teaching for the development of creativity.
Art education has long been concerned with the development of creativity. Unlocking the creative impulse has been a major function of the teacher of art. Although he may sometimes have confused mere impulsivity with serious creative art, his concern with creativity has been real and sincere. Viktor Lowenfeld (1939, 1957), Herbert Read (1945), and Henry Shaefer-Simmern (1948) are only a few of those who have contributed to both the theory and the practice of developing childrenās creativity in the arts. The recent flow of creativity research by psychologists is beginning to persuade those working in other academic fields that education for creativity is not solely the responsibility of those working in the arts. Thus, research based largely on scientific grounds is providing new and important directions in American education.
Approaches to the study of creativity
Guilford, whose work has been particularly influential, has postulated a set of factors and factorized tests that are theoretically relevant to understanding the structure of the human intellect (Guilford et al., 1952). He sees creativity as a complex of unitary abilities that are displayed singly or in combination in the creative act. His factor-analysis methods have provided a major approach to the study of creativity, and his tests have been widely used by workers in this area.
A second approach, taken by Blatt and Stein (1957) and others, has been to study individuals known to have high creative ability (as evidenced through patents, discoveries, publications, inventions, and the like) in the hope of finding common personality traits.
A third approach has been the identification of process characteristics through examination of the completed product. This method, developed by Beittel and Burkhart (1963), has been especially valuable in the field of art education, where the productās characteristics are indicative of the methods and modes of action employed by the artist. The constructs spontaneous, divergent, and academic have proved useful for analyzing the artistic process, and significant personality correlates have been found for individuals displaying these process-strategies.
The research reported here presents a fourth approach to the study of creativity. It represents an effort to formulate and test a typology of creative behavior in the visual arts.
Types of creativity in the visual arts
The treatment of types of creativity as distinct from that of creativity in general may have advantages. First, kinds of behavior that are now excluded from the conception of creativity in general may be brought into a wider view of creativity. Second, if art works are analyzed with an eye to the different sorts of ācreativenessā that they exhibit, it may be possible to arrive at defensible views about the creative competencies of different individuals and, with this knowledge, encourage these competencies more efficiently.
The conception of types of creativity is based upon the various qualities and characteristics that have historically been considered creative in the visual arts. Analyses of childrenās art works, as well as those of adults, show that their qualities can be classified into a system of types. Some artists make their creative contribution through the treatment of form; others through their selection of subject matter; some in the novel treatment of the conventional; others in the creation of the utterly new. Some children develop unique ways of combining media; others formulate new methods of expression; still others are able to bring aesthetic order to conventional visual elements. Creativity in art does not seem to be a simple unitary trait. Like art itself, creativity has many faces.
The purpose of the present study was to see whether the types of creativity found in the art products of sixth-grade pupils could be systematically identified and, if so, to determine the relationships existing among these types.1
Four types of creativity and two loci constitute the typology. The types are (1) Boundary Pushing, (2) Inventing, (3) Boundary Breaking, and (4) Aesthetic Organizing. They are described in general in the four sections that follow. The loci are (1) content and (2) form. Content is defined as an attempt at representation and is evidenced by the presence of conventional signs. Form is defined as the presence of formal qualities. Thus, every visual art product contains formal qualities but may or may not contain conventional signs.
Boundary Pushing
In every culture, objects are embedded within various mental fields. These fields are bounded in such a way as to enable members of the culture to place an object in some meaningful context, usually that in which the object is normally found. These fields also act as a sort of psychic economy, a slicing up of the world so that objects within it can be meaningfully and efficiently classified. In addition, they provide the culture with a common set of object-field expectations that act to discourage bizarre actions by individuals within that culture. The fields specify and encourage acceptable, stereotyped, and restricted behavior on the part of individuals who act within the limits of the fields. Some individuals, however, are able to extend these limits. The process of extending or redefining the limits of common objects is called Boundary Pushing.
In the area of technology, Boundary Pushing was demonstrated by the individual who first thought of installing electric shaver outlets in automobiles, thus extending the usual limits of both the automobile and the shaver. It was also demonstrated by the person who first thought of using rubber for the blades of electric fans and by the individual who first used nylon for the wheels of roller skates. In the classroom, Boundary Pushing is displayed by the child who uses numerals to create designs or pictures or who uses an inked eraser as a rubber stamp. Boundary Pushing is displayed in the recognition that plywood can be molded into a chair, that a cellophane strip can be used to open a package of cigarettes, and that a key can open a can of coffee. Thus, Boundary Pushing is the ability to attain the possible by extending the given.
Inventing
Inventing is the process of employing the known to create an essentially new object or class of objects. The inventor does not merely extend the usual limits of the conventional; he creates a new object by restructuring the known. Edison, to use a classic case, exemplifies the inventor, for his activities were directed not merely toward the novel implementation of known materials or objects but rather toward their combination and reconstruction. His contributions differ markedly from those produced by Boundary Pushing. The terminus of Inventing is the creation of a new product that may itself be creatively employed, thus being the subject of Boundary Pushing. Gutenberg, Bell, and Marconi are only a few of those who have displayed inventive behavior; and our recognition of their contributions, combined with our general reluctance to call them scientists, is indicative of the distinction we make at the common-sense level regarding the ways in which creativity is displayed.
Boundary Breaking
Boundary Breaking is defined as the rejection or reversal of accepted assumptions, thus making the āgivenā problematic. This type of behavior is probably characterized by the highest level of cognition. In Boundary Breaking, the individual sees gaps and limitations in current theories and proceeds to develop new premises, which contain their own limits. Copernicus, for example, displayed Boundary Breaking in his conceptual (if not theological) rejection of the theory that the earth was the center of the universe. His hypothesis that the earth moves around the sun (and not vice versa) led him to develop a theory that, as far as we know, is valid for the astronomical system. His rejection of the knowledge of the period ā theories and beliefs that were limiting ā allowed him to contribute significantly to manās understanding of the universe. In the present era, Einsteinās notion of simultaneity allowed him to develop new concepts useful for understanding nature through his theory of relativity. His questioning of currently accepted beliefs regarding relationships in time and space led him to propose a theory from which certain natural phenomena can be more accurately predicted.
Another example of Boundary Breaking is found in the work of Binet. āBinetās approach was the direct opposite of that of his predecessors. Instead of trying to find a single index of intelligence, he went to the other extreme and deliberately searched for a multiplicity of indexesā (Stephens, 1951, p. 181). By making the āgivenā problematic and by reversing the approach taken by others, Binet set the pattern for over fifty years of intelligence testing.
Two kinds of behavior characteristically displayed by Boundary Breakers ā insight and imagination ā may function in the following ways. Insight may help the Boundary Breaker grasp relationships among seemingly discrete events. It may also enable him to recognize incongruities or gaps in accepted explanations or descriptions. As he recognizes these gaps, his imagination may come into play and enable him to generate images or ideas (or both) useful for closing the gaps. Through the production of these images and ideas, he is able to reorganize or even reject the accepted in order to formulate a more comprehensive view of the relationships among the elements that gave impetus to the initial insight. Insight into gaps in contemporary theory or actions and visions of the possible are probably insufficient to satisfy the Boundary Breaker; he must be able to establish an order and structure between the gaps he has āseenā and the ideas he has generated.
Aesthetic Organizing
Aesthetic Organizing is characterized by the presence in objects of a high d...
