See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260383579

Creativity: What Are We Talking About?

Article  in  Art Education · January 2011

DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2011.11519105

CITATIONS READS

20 671

2 authors, including:

Melody K. Milbrandt
Georgia State University
17 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Melody K. Milbrandt on 28 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Creativity:
What Are We Talking About?
MELODY MILBRANDT AND LANNY MILBRANDT

I
n the United States, our collective definitions, perceptions, and myths about creativity
have, at best, produced an uneven understanding of what it means to be a creative
person. A primary goal of this article is to help clarify meanings associated with the broad
term creativity and identify some observable processes associated with it. Part of the problem
in our current educational context is that the term creativity is so ill-defined, ambiguous, and
fuzzy so that no common agreement exists on its meaning. Creativity remains an elusive
concept where discussion, definitions, procedures, and expressions of the term may be
regarded superficially unless broad understandings about creativity can be broken down to
manageable and assessable specific operations.

Depending on the context, creativity may be presented
as the brilliant spark of inspiration residing in the
talented genius, an essential ingredient of American
resourcefulness and inventiveness, or a deviant person-
ality trait manifest in unstable behavior with little
social value. Our country's Constitution and protection
of personal freedom laid the foundation for creative
endeavors, yet one has only to watch the yearly extrava-
ganza of Super Bowl commercials to know that the most
popular public connotation and focus of creativity in
this country has shifted from the expectation of thrilling
innovative breakthroughs in scientific or artistic thought
to the frivolity and innovation of rampant commer-
cialism. For many in Western cultures, novelty often
is sought through goods and experiences that can be
purchased in marketplaces of every sort, rather than
through internal thinking processes and application
of creative effort. There is little evidence in the current
educational system to suggest that schools teach students
how to selectively discuss or use creative thinking
processes for personal or collective benefit or openly
support students' sustained creative involvement.
As a result of the lack of understanding of creativity
and a general agreement on meaning, research in
art education has generally been dismissive of the
topic for at least the latest generation of art educa-
tors (Zimmerman, 2009). In the wake of No Child
Left Behind (2001) there is growing concern that the
convergent, one correct answer' mentality that our
educational system is encouraging in students results
in an inability of students to seek, confront, and solve
non-linear, divergent, open-ended problems. This unbal-
ance in educational experiences and competencies is
leaving a gap in the preparation of future citizens and
leaders. In his forecast of our collective future, Daniel
Pink (2006) speculates, "We've progressed from a society
of farmers to a society of factory workers to a society
of knowledge workers. And now weVe progressing yet
again to a society of creators and empathizers, of pattern
recognizers, and meaning makers" (p. 58). Without the
practice and aptitude for engaging in creative thinking,
our citizenry may not be prepared to meet a world in
continual flux (Liu & Noppe-Brandon, 2009).
Although it is impossible to consider all definitions or
aspects of creativity, it is important to acknowledge the
complexity of multiple definitions or theories to begin to
construct a useful understanding. Some creative defini-
tions and theories contradict or negate one another while
others easily coexist or overlap in practice.
As Zimmerman (2009) notes:
Researchers and practitioners need to conceive of
creativity as multidimensional with consideration
of how cognitive complexity, affective intensity,
technical skills, and interest and motivation all play
major roles, (p. 394)
Talking about creativity or making judgments about
creative products might be more fruitful if we under-
stood and used creative theories as we understand and
use aesthetic theories. Art educators often have discussed
merits of art based on understanding of traditional
aesthetic views or artistic intentions of mimetic, expres-
sive, instrumentalist, or formalist aesthetics. Aesthetic
theories did not develop as clear independent theories
simultaneously. Numerous philosophers and aestheti-
cians developed their aesthetic theories independently or

ART EDUCATION / January 2011

 The domain-changer definition
of creativity may seem highly
constrained as it necessitates
in-depth understandings and skills
within a field in order for creative acts
or products to be recognized. In her
pastel drawing, The Rock Collector,
Susan Kang demonstrates the kind
of strong technical artistic skills
some deem necessary for domain-
changing creativity.

or move the field are successful. According

in response to each other with some redun-
dancy and often with controversy. Eventually
history gave us a vantage point for clustering
these writings into similar conceptual
content or categories. In Becoming Human
tiiroiigh Art, Feldman (1970) offered a model
i)f art criticism utilizing traditional aesthetic
theories that became widely used with the
advent of Discipline-Based Art Education.
New frameworks have emerged for
addressing postmodern or contemporary art
in the art classroom, as those suggested by
Ciude (2004), but the majority of art educa-
tors continue to blend their understanding of
traditional aesthetic theories and production
alongside contemporary artistic practice.
A similar understanding and clustering of
the numerous definitions of creativity might
offer a means for art educators to consider
definitions of creativity from a variety of
diverse, observable viewpoints and purposes.
and provide a range of opportunities for
engaging students in creative thought in
more overt and coherent ways. In looking
at a wide range of traditional research about
creativity, categories of Domain-Changing,
Self-Expression/Search for Meaning, and
Creative Problem Solving may offer a foun-
dation and initial framework for discussing
and facilitating creative activities in art
classrooms.
Domain-Changing Creativity
In the systems model developed by Mihaly
Csikszentmihaiyi (1996), creativity is defined
as "any act, idea, or product that changes
an existing domain, or that transforms an
existing domain into a new one" (p. 27).
Foundational to Csikszentmihalyi's theories
of creativity impacting a domain is the
assumption that experts or gatekeepers
will determine whether efforts to change
to Csikszentmihaiyi, a domain cannot be
changed without the implicit or explicit
consent of the field, as defined by the gate-
keepers, experts, critics, and others who have
capacity to accept or reject the value of a
creative product in a domain in which they
have expertise.
Stein (1984) similarly presents a common
view of creativity from the domain of
psychology. He suggests that, "Creativity
is a process that results in novelty which is
accepted as useful, tenable, or satisfying by a
significant group of others at the same point
in time" (p. 1). The definition of a creative
person, according to Stein, is someone whose
thoughts or actions change a domain or
establish a new domain. Based on the literal
reading of these Western domain theories of
creativity, children and youth would not be
considered creative because they will not be
likely to nor expected to change any domain
or discipline such as art, math, biology,
etc. In the history of art, artists such as
Picasso, Kiefer, and Kahio would be viewed
as domain changers and according to Stein
(1984) and Csikszentmihaiyi (1996), would
earn the title of'creative individual.'
While the domain-changer definition of
creativity may seem highly constrained, it
necessitates in-depth understandings and
skills within a field in order for creative
acts or products to be recognized. Many art
teachers subscribe (consciously or not) to
the domain criteria for creativity when they
plan a scope and sequence in curriculum
that relies on acquisition of basic technical
skills and concepts that must be attained and
demonstrated prior to execution of more

NOTE: The authors wish to thank the following high school student artists and their art teachers for the use of the images accompanying
this article: Susan Kang, Mill Creek High School, Gwinnett County, Atlanta (Mike Lassiter, art teacher); Izabelle Garcia, Milton IHigh School,
Fulton County (Marea Haslett, art teacher); Shauna Fannin, Savannah Arts Academy (Steve Schetski, art teacher); David White, Chamblee High
School, Dekalb County Public Schools (Lisa Guyton, art teacher); Melody Hanson, North Atlanta High School, Atlanta Public Schools (Natalie
Brandhorst, art teacher); Alex Lievens, North Atlanta High School, Atlanta Public Schools (Natalie Brandhorst, art teacher).

January 2011 / ART EDUCATION


In the tradition of Surrealist painter Rene Magrite, Izabelle Gardas Se/f/'i
unexpected relationships, metaphorically challenging the viewer's perspective of reality.
expressive or open-ended a.ssignments. In
traditional societies, artists often replicated
imagery and symbols to make rituals and
ceremonies special. In this context, the
instrumental value of art lies in its ability
to solidify and enhance the social cohesion
(Anderson & Milbrandt, 2005; Dissanayake,
1988), and the creative genius of the artist
lies in her or his ability to master materials
and techniques important for satisfying
social and cultural needs. Often in an art
classroom teachers give assignments that
require students to replicate technical
processes that take place in an artist's studio
with the expectation of a solution that is
plausible and satisfying for the problem
and appropriate to the development, artistic
tradition, and social context of a learner.
Bruner's (1960) educational theories
suggest that students of a particular disci-
pline be engaged in discovery learning
through involvement in 'real world' processes
that are parallel to creative successful
models in a field. His problem-solving
approach within a discipline is similar to
Art educators need to consider the degree to which their understanding of creativity is domain dependent and
how rethinking domain-change as classroom-change can guide their teaching, curriculum, and evaluation.
10 ART EDUCATION / January 2011
alistic images in
much traditional curriculum development
in art education, including DBAE, which
focuses teaching practice on four disci-
plines of art professionals (art historians,
art critics, aestheticians, and studio artists).
Although participation in artistic processes
and problem solving by P-12 students may
not result in transforming or extending the
body of knowledge in the adult level domain
of art, it is developmentally and perhaps
socially valuable for students to engage in
artistic thinking and learning within the
context of artistic traditions. Dewey (1934)
observes, "New ideas come leisurely yet
promptly to consciousness only when work
has previously been done in forming the
right doors by which they may gain entrance.
Subconscious maturation precedes creative
production in every line of human endeavor"
(p. 37). Pames (1988) observes that one of
the necessary ingredients for creative expres-
sion is a fund of knowledge and experiences
related to the problem.
As Hetland, Winner, Veenema, and
Sheridan (2007) suggest, students engage in
activities that teach them about an artist's
world; students see connections between
their artwork and work by artists in the past.
Looking at artwork by other artists helps
students solve their own visual problems.
Relevance of the Domain-Changing defini-
tion of creativity for art education lies in
developing creative artistic habits of mind,
acquiring skills and knowledge of the content
area, and producing a product that is novel
and recognized as significant in the context
of students and classrooms. Art educators
need to consider the degree to which their
understanding of creativity i.s domain depen-
dent and how rethinking domain-change as
classroom-change can guide their teaching,
curriculum, and evaluation.
Self Expression and the
Search for Meaning
Anthropologist Dissanayake's 1988 book.
What is Art For?, made the electrifying
claim that creativity and art are biological
necessities for homo sapiens. She suggests
that art and other creative enterprises have
survival value; otherwise we would not
have continued to create artworks. Ihis
anthropological point of view is only one
good reason to believe that all humans have
some creative capacity and that creativity is
a valuable attribute, because it helps us to
adapt to change and celebrate life. Numerous
educational philosophers have written about
creativity and .self-expression in art educa-
tion, but among the more influential, and
often the most misinterpreted, have been
Dewey (1934) and Lowenfeld (1947). Asa
pioneer of progressive education in the early
1900s, Dewey saw the need for centering
the child in the educational proce.ss and
tapping imagination and art as a viable
means for transforming society. He views
emotional discharge (in art) as a necessary,
but not sufficient condition of expression.
Burton (2009) observes, "Within Lowenfeld's
theory of creative and mental growth not all
children and adolescents became profes-
sional artists, but they all develop flexible
and free minds able to construct and
express personal meaning" (p. 33.S). Much
of Lowenfeld's writing suggests the need for
children to develop a sense of self-identifi-
cation through expression of their personal
experience, which later translates into an
ability to empathize and identify with others
(Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1988).
 Although Lowenfeld does not emphasize dialogue in the social
construction of learning as does Vygotsky (1962), like Vygotsky, he
envisions creative practice as a vehicle for development of autonomous
individuals, who are living in the moment, reflecting critically on their
own experience, and engaging responsively with others. Rather than
self-expression as a solitary act, Lowenfeld sees relationships to others
as central (Burton, 2009). Lowenteld's process-oriented perspectives
of creativity seem to be echoed in a 2005 Rand Corporation Report
(McCarty, Ondaatje, Brooks, & Szanto, 2005) that suggests that the
visual arts do more than simply embellish an individuals life experi-
L-nce. According to the report, the arts connect and engage people
more tieeply in new ways of seeing, which often elicits social bonds
and encourages community cohesion. The arts engage students' affec-
tive, intuitive, and emotional sides, which Lowenfeld believed were
Important to balancing the overload of cognitive and intellectual expe-
riences in educational institutions. In a similar educational movement
today, supporters of'whole child' education advocate for educational
experiences that engage students through a variety of modalities,
learning styles, and possibilities for creative outcomes (Scherer, 2009).
Even a short discussion of self-expression would not be complete
without discussing the role of meaning in creative expression. Peter
London (1989) suggests that in our efforts to produce art that is
highly original, beautiful, and technically proficient, artists may lose
their personal relationship with the work. He views creative activity
as "inquiry, the expansion of emotional depth and range, the tuning
of the spirit, and the quest for meaning" (p. 18). London observes
that art may be used as a vehicle for personal transformation by
treeing individuals from their secondhand beliefs and conditioned
behaviors. While there is not space in this article for an in-depth look
at all publications connecting creativity to personal transformation,
it is important to note that there has been a sustained interest in the
construction of personal meaning as a critical goal of art education
in a variety of contexts, as evidenced in the work of numerous art
educators such as Anderson and Milbrandt (2005), Carpenter and
Taylor (2006), Gnezda (2009), Lowenteld and Brittain (1988), Sandell
(2006), Sullivan (1993), Szekely (1988), and Walker (2001), to name
only a few.
In the art classroom the most essential quality of self-expression
and the construction of meaning is that students view their processes
and/or products as a meaningful representation of their personal
experiences. When guiding art students, a teacher may look tor
evidence of strong internal, personal references, and students' focus on
personal experiences rather than established knowledge as indicative
of performance that is consonant with self-expressive creativity.

top
The arts can engage students'affective, intuitive, and emotional sides.
The most essential quality of self-expression and construction of
meaning is that students view their processes and/or products as a
meaningful representation of their personal experiences. The imperfect
Self, by Shauna Fannin, conveys strong emotions that arouse an
empathetic response in the viewer.
bottom
When guiding art students, a teacher may look for evidence of
strong internal, personal references and students'focus on personal
experiences rather than established knowledge as indicative of
performance that is consonant with self-expressive creativity. In
Maiaise, David White incorporated contemporary popular culture
imagery and personal symbols in his highly expressive work.

January 2 0 1 1 / A R T EDUCATION 11

In a summer assignment for her International Baccalaureate high
school art teacher Natalie Bandhorst asked her students to do a
series of 50 sketchbook drawings of hands or feet. When students
returned to school in the fall they were asked to create another
drawing using only multiple hands or feet in an interesting and
unified composition. Alex Lievens solved the creative challenge
by combining his hand drawings into a new piano-like instrument
entitled Pihando.
bottom
Creative problem solving offers an opportunity for students to
engage in a wide variety of discreet processes that may enhance
their potential for more divergent and unusual responses. Meiody
Hanson responded to Bandhorst's creative problem solving
assignment to create an artwork of only hands with an elegant
abstract composition entitled Love.
12 ART EDUCATION / January 2011
Creative Problem Solving
If multiple possible solutions to a problem are probable then
creative problem-solving processes are appropriate. The Creative
Problem-Solving Model developed by Parnés (1988) generates
multiple solutions that are neither right nor wrong, but may be
more or less successful depending on the context and solution
criteria. In this model, the process may move in a divergent-
convergent cycle of problem and fact-finding, analysis, idea
generation, and judgment.
Often a creative problem-solving process involves an initial
proactive phase of problem (or opportunity) finding and probletn
definition. The expectation for multiple solutions in a creative
problem-solving process is based on a broad range of alterna-
tives possible, because knowledge or ideas can be re-combined
and manipulated multiple times through a problem solver's use
of personal and established knowledge and relevant experience.
The structures for creative problem-solving processes determine
pathways a problem solver may elect to follow. 'ITiese structures
include many processes or strategies familiar to visual problem
solving in the art classroom. Brainstorming (Osborne, 1957),
analogical thinking (using analogy and metaphor), transforma-
tional thinking (Eberle, 1977), and visualization and forced or
remote associations (Roukes, 1982, 1988) are but a few examples of
strategies for generating new ideas. Roukes provides a number of
additional approaches to stimulating creative ideation in his book,
Art Synectics, including a checklist of adaptations such as magni-
fication, reversal, distortion, atid metamorphosis, which may be
used to push visual solutions in unexpected, less mundane and
teacher-anticipated directions.
Creative problem solving offers an opportunity for students to
engage in a wide variety of discreet processes that may enhance
their potential for more divergent and unusual responses. With
the acquisition of a depth and breadth of creative problem-
solving strategies, teachers and students could develop a more
sophisticated understanding of creative behavior. If teachers and
students are cognizant of their own creative thinking strategies,
they are more likely to use them as a tool for creative thinking in
other contexts beyond the art classroom.
Conclusion
The three broad categories for theories of creativity, (a) Domain-
Altering, (b) Self-Expression and Meaning Making, and (c)
Creative Problem Solving, are not meant to serve as a model for
all creative theories. It is hoped that this clustering might serve
to generate further discussion regarding specific definitions of
creativity and the implications of those definitions for art teaching
and learning. In his well-known open concept of art, Morris Weitz
(1959) proposes that art cannot be characterized by a singular
definition because creative thought, at the core of artistic pursuit,
continues to evolve, reflecting multiple changes and needs of
society. As Parsons (2004) notes, much creative work occurs on the
borderland of disciplines; in the 21st century discipline borders
are permeable and continue to shift. In his 2001 text. Information
Arts: Intersection of Arts, Science and Technology, Wilson points to
the convergence of artistic and scientific thinking as an emerging
approach to innovation. One only has to look at the November
2009 issue oí Popular Mechanics to see the integrative relationship
of art and science in creative thought. The work of Dean Kamen,
inventor of the Segway personal transporter and holder of over 400
patents, is highlighted in the issue because of
his robotics competition for students. Kamen
believes that students need hands-on experi-
ences to use technology, science, and math
in concrete ways. Building a robot to assist
in curing cancer, landing an expedition on
Mars, or building a 40()-mpg roadster engages
students in solving real-world problems,
while inspiring the creative potential ot young
inventors (Ward, 2009). Similar visualiza-
tion and innovative thinking with real-world
relevance drives art students to create anima-
tions, digital imagery. Web designs, and other
product designs. As Liu and Noppe-Brandon
(2009) point out, unlocking the power of
possibility first requires imagination and
treating an ecosystem where good ideas can
emerge from anywhere" (p. 203). Numerous
economists, psychologists, sociologists, media
experts, artists, and educators are calling
across all disciplines and organizations for
heightened imagination and a synthesis of
complex understandings to construct a more
successful and satisfying collective future
(Gauntlett, 2007; Liu & Noppe-Brandon,
2009; Perkins, 1992; Pink, 2006).
This article is focused on definitions of
traditional Western concepts of creativity,
but the topic is of growing concern among
educational theorists and researchers around
the world. In Kaufman and Sternberg's
International Handbook of Creativity (2006),
descriptions and functions of creativity in
research from at least 15 countries around
the world are reported. To engage in a
global conversation about the importance of
creativity, art educators must be prepared to
define, as well as speak clearly about our aims
and strategies for motivating and nurturing
creative behavior and the implications of
growing numbers of cross-disciplinary
intersections. Art educators are endowed with
a rich history and passion for the value of
creativity that seems to have been lost in the
past two decades and must again be embraced
in our ever-changing global contexts. Our
profession and our students will benefit from
a renewed locus on creativity and innova-
tion, as we offer greater clarity of meanings,
processes, and purposes.
Melody K. Milbrandt is Professor of Art
Education at Georgia State University.
E-mail: artmkm@langate.gsu.edu
Lanny Milbrandt is Professor Emeritus and
former Dean, College of the Arts, Valdosta
State University. E-mail: lmilbraiidt(S>
earthlink.net

REFERENCES
Anderson, T, & Milbrandt, M. (2005). Art for life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uruner, 1. (1960). liie process oj education. New York: Vintage Books.
Burton, ). (2009). Creative intelligence, creative practice: Lowenfeld redux. Studies
in Art Education, 50(4), 323-337.
c;arpenter, S. B., & Taylor, P. (2006). Making meaningful connections: Interactive
computer hypertext in art education. Computers in the School, 23(1-2), 49-61.
I sikszcntmihalyi. M. ( 1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Dewey, I. {\9i4). Art as experience. New York: Putnam,
nissanayake, E. ( 1988). What is art for? Seattle, WA: University of Washington
Pres.s.
Kberle, R. F. (1977). SCAMPER Games. Buffalo, NY: DOK Publications,
l-eldman, E. B. (1970). Becoming human through art: Aesthetic experience in the
school. Englewood ClifTs, NI: Prentice-Hall.
c iauntlett, D. (2007). Creative Explorations: New approaches to identities and audi-
ences. New York: Routledge.
Cinezda, N. (2009). 'Ilie potential tor meaning in student art. Art Education. 62(4),
48-52.
elude, O. (2004). Po.stmodern principles: In search of a 21st century art education.
Art Education. 57( I ), 6-10.
I letland, I.., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking:
Vie real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
Kaufman, I. C , & Sternberg, R. I. (Eds.) (2006). The international handbook of
creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
I iu, E., & Noppe-Brandon, S. (2009). Imagination first: Unlocking the power of
possibility. San Francisco, CA: lohn Wiley & Sons.
I ondon, P. (1989). No more secondhand art. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
l.Dwcnfeld. V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. New York: Wiley and Sons.
lowenleld, V., & Brittain, W L. (1988). Creative and mentalgrowth (8th ed.) New
York: Macniillian.
McCarty, K. F, Ondaatje, E. H., Brooks, A., & Szanto, A. (2005). A portrait of the
visual arts: Meeting the challenges of a new era. (Rand Corporation Report
MCi-290-PCT). Retrieved August, 24,2009, from www.rand.org/pubs/
monographs/MG290/
Osborne, A. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner's.
Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In. E. Eisner & M. Day (Eds.),
Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 775 -794). Mahwah, NI:
Erlbaum.
Pames, S. J. (1988). Visionizing: State-of-the-art processes for encouraging innovative
excellence. East Aurora, NY: DOK Publishers.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New
York: The Eree Press.
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New
York: Riverhead Books.
Roukes, N. (1982, 1988). Art synectics: Stimulating creativity in art. Calgary,
Canada: luniro Arts.
Sandell, R. (2006). Eorm -i- theme + context: Balancing considerations for mean-
ingful art learning. Art Education. 59{I ), 33-38.
Scherer, M. (2009). Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning,
teaching, and leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Stein, M. I. (1984). Anecdotes, poems and illustrations for the creativity process:
Making the point. Delray Beach, EL: Winslow Press.
Sullivan, G. (1993). Art-based art education: Learning that is meaningful, authentic,
critical and plurali.stic. Studies in Art Education. ^5{ 1 ), 5-21.
Szekely, G. ( 1988). Encouraging creativity in art lessons. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Vygotsky, L. ( 1962). Thoughts and language. Cambridge, M A: MIT Press.
Walker, S. (2001 ). Teaching meaning and artmaking. Worcester, MA: Davis.
Ward, L. (2009). The 2009 breakthrough awards. Popular Mechanics, JS6( 11 ), 70-73.
Weitz, M. (1959). The role of theory and aesthetics. In M. Weitz (Ed.), Problems in
aesthetics (pp. 27-35). New York: Macmillan.
Wilson, S. (2001). Information arts: Intersection of art. science and technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role ot creativity in art education
theory and practice. Studies in Art Education. 5(){4). 382-399.

January 2011 /ART EDUCATION 13

Copyright of Art Education is the property of National Art Education Association and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats