Running head: CREATIVITY STUDY 1

Creativity Study

Jacob Sieckman

Arizona State University

April 4, 2016
CREATIVITY STUDY 2

ABSTRACT:

Primarily, this paper is an exegesis of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and E. Weiner’s definitions

of creativity. In the exegesis, an inquiry of these definitions communicates issues in defining

what creativity is. Additionally, the exegesis provides interpretations of creativity that inform

the perspective of analysis concerning audio recordings from a study of junior high

participants.
CREATIVITY STUDY 3

The first portion of this study asks what creativity is. By using definitions of

creativity, it is concluded that sociological and philosophical lenses indicate that knowledge

of creativity as defined by … cannot be measured and might be a reified concept.

The second portion of this study observes whether participants can play the “pulse” of

Jerry Leake’s “Alderbaran.” There were fifteen participants. Six were clarinettists and nine

percussionists. Participants were asked to listen through headphones and “clap the pulse of

the music.” Some participants inquired whether the tester meant a quarter, eighth, or other

pulse before starting. The tester repeated the statement, “Clap the pulse to the music” so the

participant had to decide the meaning of “pulse.” All participants in this portion are in concert

band. The equipmenti used in this study is compiled in the endnotes.

The third portion of this study observes whether participants improvise or imitate.

There were twenty-three participants from a seventh grade concert band and ---from a jazz

band. Of the concert band participants there were twelve percussionists, six clarinettists, and

five saxophonists. Of the jazz band participants there were ------.

The fourth portion of this study observes trained musical professionals assessment of

whether junior high students were playing with the pulse, imitating, improvising or not

playing. With regard to playing a pulse, assessors were asked to circle whether students were

ahead of the pulse, behind the pulse, or on pulse.

The fifth portion of the study uses the second, third, and fourth as examples of the

relativistic nature of decision making. It concludes one cannot be certain about reasons

justifying ones assessment in that they are self-contradictory and …

Defining Creativity

Some scholars have postulated that creativity is a sociological construct. E. Weiner

believes a creative person is, “…only a genius [creative] if we say so” (ibid). (Weiner uses
CREATIVITY STUDY 4

genius and creative synonymously which is a departure from the rules of logic). This

definition stresses the word we, meaning a community of people. Similarly, Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi states, “Creativity cannot be separated from its recognition” (The

Geography of Genius, p. 17). Along these lines, creativity is arbitrarily subjective opinion

about what and who is creative. It seems the study of creativity is a sociological study of

human opinion under Weiner’s definition. However, this does not mean a normative

assessment should not be used, but human opinion is self-contradictory and

Self-contradiction prohibits

Since this study is the observation of participant’s pulse, imitation, and improvisation,

it will be helpful to explain what an English speaking individual might interpret these words

to mean. This will bring to light the plethora of interpretations that could occur in the English

language with regard to creativity. Since the author is not a language scholar and knows no

other languages the author may only speak of the English language.

These interpretations could affect what an assessment/assessor hears as pulse,

imitation, and improvisation because of individual’s arbitrarily subjective judgements about

the output of an individual. In this study, teachers are asked to specify whether participants

are playing the pulse, imitating a clap, or improvising.

A break from precedent is an element in the recognition that another is creative.

Imitation is derived from the Latin imitātus and past participle of imitārī, meaning to copy.

Presumably a frequentative akin to the base of imāgō, meaning image. To imitate is to copy

image(s). This understanding of imitate creates an incongruence since sound is not an image.

Sound is represented by images. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that images could affect

ones interpretation of what it means to copy an image. For example, a scanned image printed

on a sheet of paper uses the medium of ink to print the copied image. Similarly, clapping

could be viewed as the medium, but the scanned “image” is in the brain as an auditory
CREATIVITY STUDY 5

sensation unless the scanned clapping is seen with the eyes. Perhaps the exactness of the

scanned image is transferred as “close as possible to what I heard.”

In light of the discrepancy between image and sound defining creativity, others have

posited different theories. However, the framework used for this study is a combination of the

definitions posited by Csikszentmihalyi and E. Weiner theories of creativity. Creativity

consists of two elements. To do or judgement from an outside observer(s). To do and/or

doing may only be accessed directly by the participant because the observer is a separate

identity than the identity participating in doing.

An outside observer projects/imposes an indirect judgement of how and what the

participant is doing. When one recognizes how and/or what labelling occurs. For example,

The probability of how the participant is doing something is related to the vivid impressions

and sensations (Hume, p. 15) of personal experience during observation of the participant’s

doing. Historian’s realization that their conclusions about events were not based on sufficient

evidence illustrates the issue of non-personal experience because they access the past by

reading about the past and extrapolating about past objects (i.e. boats, churches, carcases,

ect.)

Historians have non-personal experience with the past. An example of non-personal

experience with the past are myths about Galileo. One myth is Galileo was, “…condemned

and imprisoned by the Roman Catholic Church because his work conflicted with the

teachings of the Bible” (Weir, p. 100). The idea that Galileo, “…tried to enlighten the close

minded [Roman Catholic] Church, arguing that reason and science should be given precedent

over faith,” is a myth because “Galileo and his judges believed that science and the Bible

must be reconciled, and that they could not stand in contradiction” (ibid, p. 107). Galileo

being, “confined to a dank jail cell and tortured is […] a myth,” (ibid, 108) because he was

“sentenced to private penance and temporary house arrest” (ibid, pp. 105, 108). Other writers
CREATIVITY STUDY 6

have indicated that autobiographical and biographical information can be a false account of

the past.

Psychologist Steven Pinker indicates information from the past can be false. He

asserts, “...creative people are at their most creative when writing their autobiographies,” and

“the creative genius is more Salieri than Amadeus” (How the Mind Works, p. 361).

However, what is the cut-off point between “to imitate” and “to improvise?” Does it

have to do with the closeness of the clapping to individual notes? Does it have to do with

whether one perceives a “phrase” as one unit instead of multiple sub units?

Is Creativity a Transcendental or Nebulous Concept?

“It’s not reducible to a single finite set of characteristics, but gives an orientation and

a value to those various defining orientations” (David Bentley Hart, 1:08:48 – 1:09:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9HSQZMQYM).
CREATIVITY STUDY 7
 i
This study used a MacBook Pro OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.4 for recording and

spectrogram analysis. The internal microphone of the MacBook was used in conjunction with

Audacity to record each participant clapping. After recording the participants in Audacity the file

(.aup) was exported as a “WAV (Microsoft) signed 16-bit PCM” file to Sonic Visualizer.

Essentially, exporting the Audacity file combined the stereo pre-recording of Jerry Leake with the

recorded clapping of each participant into one WAV file. In Sonic Visualizer the file was relabelled

as a “.sv” file. This relabelling may or may not constitute changes to the file contents.