Creativity is what drives our society forward throughout history (Worall S., 2017).

Hence, it
is vital for educators to nurture and develop creativity while students are still at school.
However, creativity itself is an abstract concept which is very difficult to pin down, and many
theories have been developed in order to define or describe it. Since creative process theory
has been the more accepted view of creativity in education; Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has incorporated this theory and created a
learning continuum which serves as basis for teachers to develop students’ creative thinking.
However, the creative process theory, hence ACARA’s view and approach, faces a lot of
questions and challenges in terms of its validity from other theories, naming creative genius
and creative product theory. This essay will examine this topic by first explain creative
process theory and compare its similarity with the Australia’s curriculum. The clarification
and counterarguments from creative genius and creative product theory will be elaborated
and examined separately.

I. Creative Process Theory:

Creative process theory endorses on a view that the disposition of an individual is the source
of creativity and that this disposition can be observed, measured and identified (Weate, 1990)
Guilford is the leading figure on this theory, as he presented a summary of the unique
abilities required for creative thinking in his 1967’s work - The Nature of Human
Intelligence. According to his findings, these abilities can be grouped into two broad
categories which are divergent-production (DP) abilities and transformation (T) abilities
(Guilford, 1967). DP abilities refer to the capability of generating ideas which is similar to
problem-solving skill essentially, and have the characteristics of fluency, flexibility and
elaboration (Guilford, 1967). While fluency deals with how information is retrieved from
one’s memory, elaboration focuses on how ideas are illustrated in practice.

Flexibility refers to how existing information can be reorganised and reinterpreted, which is
also the main attribute of T abilities. Thus, it can be deduced that T abilities pertain to the
transformation of existing knowledge to produce new ideas and concepts (Guilford, 1967).
Abilities within DP and T category will then vary based on the context of information in
which a person is dealing with. Since Guilford divides the creative complexion into different
kinds of abilities, this signifies that each individual’s mind functions at a different rate, and
hence the creative process for each individual will vary as well (Guilford, 1967). Overall,
Guilford has laid the foundation criteria for creative process as expected and explainable
actions.

Guilford’s findings on creative process are enclosed within the Australian Curriculum as they
can be identified through four interdependent elements in the learning continuum of creativity
outlined by ACARA (n.d.).

The focus is on “how” students can develop their capability in creative thinking which is
essentially addressing the creative process. ACARA’s define creative thinking as students’
abilities to create new ideas by exploring existing situation in new ways or making new links,
which revolve around the DP and T abilities. Moreover, DP and T abilities are explicitly used
as “generating ideas, possibilities and actions” element in the learning continuum. This
element involves constructing new ideas and products by utilising and expanding known
knowledge ACARA (n.d.).

In the same vein of viewing creativity as a process, Wallas is another theorist that sees
creativity as a combination of conscious and unconscious thoughts. Similar to Guilford,
Wallas also pays close attention to describing the features of the creative process, by defining
four stages of creativity. The first stage is preparation where an individual chooses to
encounter a problem consciously. Wallas (1973) points out that any educated individual has
the capability to draw out their existing knowledge and can voluntarily divert one’s attention
to elements of a problem. He referred to this as “regulated thoughts” which may then assist in
narrowing down the solutions in the subsequent steps.

Incubation is the second stage where an individual spends time not voluntarily thinking
about the problem (Wallas, 1973). This can be achieved by either thinking about other
problems or entering a relaxation mode. Even though an individual is consciously not
thinking about the problem during this stage, their mind may still unconsciously work on it.
That sudden moment when the solution or new idea appears unconsciously and unexpectedly,
is the third stage which is illumination (Wallas, 1973). The final stage of verification comes
where an individual consciously applies the solution to solve the problem (Wallas, 1973).
This will ultimately determine the success of the idea or solution and if it fails, then the
process will restart from the first stage.

Wallas’s four stages of creativity can be seen within the Australian curriculum through
“inquiring” and “generating ideas” element of creativity as outlined by ACARA. Even
though these elements develop simultaneously and not in any order, it still poses the
characteristic of the four stages. The preparation stage can be identified within the
“inquiring” element and its sub-elements where students are required to present a question to
analyse, as well as identifying and organising information and ideas (ACARA, n.d.).
Incubation and illumination can be locating in one of the sub-elements of “generating ideas”
where students will imagine different possibilities and speculate on creative options to
connect/modify ideas (ACARA, n.d.). The final sub-element of “generating ideas” is a
resemblance of Wallas’s verification stage, as students will seek solutions and putting ideas
into actions (ACARA, n.d.). Overall, both creative process theory and ACARA concerns with
the measurable, observable traits of creative personality. For ACARA, this matter is
manifested within the four elements of the learning continuum for creative thinking. While
this view is depicted in the outline of DP and T abilities for Guilford, Wallas described it
through the four steps of creativity.

II. Creative Product Theory:

As outlined in introduction, creativity process theory faces criticisms from other school of
thoughts, and one example is creative product theory where the focus lies on the artistic
outcome rather than how it is produced (Weate, 1990). Glickman is one of the theorists
supporting this theory and he strongly argues against creative process theory. Through his
work of Creativity in the Arts in 1976, he presents the evidence to reject the idea that
creativity consists of distinct pattern of thoughts and activities or a set of characteristics. This
was done by examining the three required conditions needed for artistic creation. The first
condition requires the creator not being able to envision the final result of his/her work
(Glickman, 1978). In a case where an artist has formed an idea in mind and need another
person to transform it into a physical product, then this condition doesn’t hold as the artist has
already envisaged the final product.

The second condition is critical control where an artist checks if what he/she has created is
an adequate reflection of what is in his/her mind (Glickman, 1978). The issue with this
condition is that it doesn’t take into account scenarios where an artist produces an
unreflective burst of energy. In this case, only when the product has already finished, the
artist would then reflect on his/her work. Hence, regardless if critical control was conducted
during or after a product has been made, it is still a creative work. Moreover, critical control
essentially means reviewing one’s work, then it becomes questionable if it really
distinguishes a creative from a non-creative person, as everyone would be able to perform it
(Glickman, 1978).

The final condition is inspiration which refers to the guiding spirit that coordinates the
critical control toward the right direction (Glickman, 1978). This condition is questionable
itself as there is no clear definition of what inspiration is. Thus, an artist can be mistake
between having an inspiration and what appears to be an inspiration, which also means that
an artist might think he/she is being creative while he/she is not. Based on these arguments,
Glickman challenges the creative process theory by questioning the validity of the conditions
that define a creative person. Hence, this would also raise doubts in how we are correctly
judging the creativity of our students in the school environment.

Glickman instead focuses on defining what it means to be creating, by classifying “create” as

an achievement verb, while other activities as a task verb, i.e. writing, composing…
(Glickman, 1978) He stated that creating is not “an isolable activity” and that an individual
needs to be doing/making something while creating. Only when he/she has made something
with significant value then it can be said that he/she has created something. Thus, he
criticised creative process theory of not having an explicit classification of activity required
to produce things in value (Glickman, 1978). Moreover, if creating is a process, then an artist
can choose to create voluntarily. But often, this is not the case in reality, as many artists try to
make something, and they fail to create. Moreover, if creating is a process, then errors are
expected to be made at some point which creates an ambiguity, as a person can make errors,
but he/she cannot create errors (Glickman, 1978).

The question now become how a work or the person making that work can be judged as
creative. Kennick, who is also a supporter of creative product theory, suggested that this is
done by reviewing the product and comparing it with previous product in the same or a
closely related field (Glickman, 1978). In reviewing the product, an expert with an extensive
knowledge in the field of the product is required to assess if this product adds a new
understanding or viewpoint to the existing knowledge. Through the notion of “create” as an
achievement verb, Glickman also endorses on this perspective and emphasizes that, to be
creative is to produce something valuably new (Glickman, 1978). This notion of comparison
on the final product would distinguish a creative from a non-creative work, as well as placing
emphasis on a mentor that would help the artist along the way to create the creative product,
by providing feedbacks and insights. Creative process and ACARA neglect this and would
only prioritise the measurable skills which don’t necessarily allow students to be creative.

In additional, Glickman directly questions the needs for judging the creativity of a person
through the his/her skills in creating an artwork. Glickman argues that when talking about a
creative product, one is referring to the ideas and concepts manifested inside the product,
rather than how it is made (Glickman, 1978). Using Danto’s argument on the importance of
theory, Glickman stresses that theory helps connecting an artwork to the world of art
(Glickman, 1978). Instead of seeing a mere readymade object as it is, one should pay
attention to the link between the artistic meaning behind it and the artistic theories. Hence,
students don’t necessarily need the creative skills to produce a creative artwork, which
directly questions the need for ACARA’s four elements/skills of creative thinking.

III. Creative genius theory:

Even though both creative genius and creative process theory share the same focus on
personality accounts, they each poses a significant different view on creativity as creative
genius ascribe the origin of creativity to the individual as the knowing subject (Weate, 1990).
Creative genius theory is exemplified by Immanuel Kant, in which he characterises creative
product as the transcendental subject. He argues that the genius is the active subject with the
capability to make fine arts using the rule of nature, and in order to be a creative work, the
object must be original and exemplary (Kant, 1952). Friedrich Nietzscehe has similar
viewpoint to Kant, but he sees creativity through revolution, in which the individual breaks
down the old value to form the new values (Weate, 1990).

According to Kant, a product of genius must be a work of original, which refers to the ability
of an artist to make a product that no exact rule can define and cannot be learnt by any rule or
theory (Kant, 1952). While scientists can explain and elaborate how their ideas were
formulated based on logical steps and thoughts, it is impossible for artists to do the same as
they can’t simply explain how they get their idea or inspired (Kant, 1952). An idea then
doesn’t necessarily follow any rule, nor it can be a transferable knowledge and/or skill, that
can be passed on to other artists to replicate. If a creative work cannot be reproduced, then it
must then be an original work.

This main characteristic of creativity outlined by Kant, provides a contrasting opinion to

ACARA’s view in which creative thinking can be taught to students through four elements in
the learning continuum. The learning continuum is essentially a learning process, which Kant
would argue as an imitation process of analysing and reflecting according to rules (Kant,
1952). This leads to a question of whether if the outcomes produced by students using
ACARA’s four elements can be categorised as creative work, as they are not original work.
The same argument can be applied to challenge Guildford’s claim, in which having a
problem-solving or DP abilities doesn’t mean that an individual can produce an original
creative work. Hence, as Kant emphasizes, creativity or genius cannot be learned, because it
is natural talent which is an extraordinary ability given to a person by nature.

The non-transferable aspects and talent that Kant points to are spirit, imaginations and
aesthetic ideas (Katz-Buonincontro, 2015). Spirit is the basis for a creative mind, as it grants
an individual an access to his/her creative imagination, as well as allowing an individual to
generate aesthetic ideas for his/her artwork. This is similar to the Nietzsche’s recount of
inspiration in the reflection of his own work, where he describes inspiration as an almighty
power transcending through his mind and body that allows him to see the ideas for his work
(Nietzsche, 1952). The inspiration that he encountered, cannot be explained, predicted and
characterised by any logic or creative process.
Secondly, creative imagination is a distinctive feature of creative mind that employs freedom
of choice (Katz-Buonincontro, 2015). It refers to the mind’s ability that allows an individual
to invoke aesthetic ideas without being limited by any boundaries of rules or rational
concepts. It works in conjunction with the production and reproduction tasks, in which an
individual can deconstruct objects and reconstruct them in different domains of art.
Moreover, Kant emphasizes that the creative imagination cannot be seen as the major factor
in determining the psychological process by which creativity occurs.

An artist cannot create an artwork by learning and following the rules that define the concept
of beauty, because it is impossible for such rules to be specified (Ginsborg, 2014). Thus,
aesthetic ideas are unique because they don’t come from rational ideas and determinate
concepts, but instead they are determined by reflective judgement of each individual (Katz-
Buonincontro, 2015). An artist will employ spirit and creative imagination produce objects
that can be appropriately judge as beautiful. Overall, if a person is not endowed with spirit or
creativity, then he/she cannot obtain it by obeying any rule or theory. Hence, this further
affirms the objection toward ACARA’s view that creativity can be quantified or taught via a
mere description of creative skills.

In additional, ACARA and creative process doesn’t take into account the critical role of the
teacher in fostering students’ creativity. Since each creative work is original and doesn’t
follow any rule, the work itself must serve as rule and/or model for others to follow and use it
as a basis for their own creativity. This refers to Kant’s second property of creative work
which is being exemplary (Kant, 1952). This exemplary works can be creative works
produced by other artists, but it can also be mentors that have similar mindsets and/or mental
powers. In an educational setting, this refers to the teacher in which he/she can nurture
students using the teacher’s own work, as well as modelling through the teacher’s artistic
practice. By exposing students to exemplary work, the teacher can explain to students about
different crucial aspects that governs the procedure of artmaking (Katz-Buonincontro, 2015).
Thus, creative thinking can’t just be confined to a set of observable characteristics and skills,
it also requires the exemplary model or the importance of the teacher in a classroom.

To conclude, this essay has explored creative product and creative genius theory, and how
these theories challenge the creative process theory which is embedded within Australia’s
education. However, in the light of the current discussion regarding the validity of the
learning continuum developed by ACARA, one would also raise the question of whether if
the current model would help teachers to promote or actually to hinder students’ creativity.
Reference:
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.). Critical and creative
thinking. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-
curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/#

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.). Critical and creative
thinking learning continuum. Retrieved from
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/1072/general-capabilities-creative-
and-critical-thinking-learning-continuum.pdf

Ginsborg, H. (2014). Kant's aesthetics and teleology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#2.6

Glickman, J. (1978). Creativity in the arts. In J. Margolis (ed.), Philosophy looks at the arts,
143-162. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Creative

Behaviour, 1 (1), 3 - 14.

Kant, I. (1952). The critique of judgement, pp. 168-172. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2015). Implications of Kant's theories of art for developing creative

identity in students. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 49(4), 1-18. University of
Illinois Press. doi: 10.2307/1320729.

Nietzsche, F. (1952). Composition of thus spake Zarathustra, in B. Ghiselin (ed.), The

Creative process, 208-211. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wallas, G. (1973) The art of thought. In P. E. Vernon (ed.), Creativity selected readings, 91-
97. Harmonsdsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Weate, A. (1990) An analysis of theories of creativity as a matrix of orientations and
components. In An analysis of theories of creativity in philosophy of aesthetics,
psychology and art education, 185 - 212. Unpublished Masters of Art Education
(Honours) thesis, University of New South Wales.

Worall, S. (2017, April 23). How creativity drives human evolution. National Geographic.
Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/creative-spark-augustin-
fuentes-evolution/