a survey of creativity. an object relations perspective

A Survey of Creativity

Running Head: A Survey of Creativity

A Survey of Creativity:

An Object Relations Perspective

Wm. Alex Webb

Westminster College

2007

1


What is art? In seeking a cohesive definition one quickly realizes that the term art

can and has been applied to basically every human behavior. Arguably, art has been

applied to too many human behaviors, hence the phrase, ‘the art of…’ (The handshake or

whatever) But what makes something artistic and what is our fascination with deeming

something artistic? Anyone can buy paint by numbers kits and recreate the works of Van

Gogh or Monet but is that art? Whether or not it is, what could be easily agreed upon is

that it is not interesting. The most interesting part of art, the component which keeps us in

such deep fascination, is creativity. Painting by numbers is not creative; therefore it is not

interesting. But that begs the question, what is creativity?

There is no unilateral definition of creativity and in fact the concept has been

debated since Ancient Greece. Likewise, the labeling of creativity as a skill or a trait has

been argued since psychologists began studying it. This controversy is rooted in the

origin of creativity. Where does creativity come from? Is it a socially constructed skill

that can be learned and improved, or is it an innate ability? There is no clear answer and

there most likely never will be. Regardless, it is the nature of creativity to stimulate. No

advancement, artistic or otherwise, can be claimed to have been made without the

presence of creativity. In fact, like art, innovation requires creativity the way plants

require sunlight. This paper will discuss the evolution of the concept of creativity, the

modern science and theory regarding creativity, specifically the elements and traits that

are associated with creativity, and suggested methods to create and encourage those

elements and traits through object relations theory.

2


Object-Relations Theory

Mark Freeman in Finding Your Muse: a sociopsychological look at art, states that

an individual’s sense of creativity must be informed by his culture, societal norms, and

immediate environment as well as their genetic or personality traits. (Freeman, 1993)

This follows the object relations theory that all individuals internalize the external world

to the extent that the individual places value on it. This is a supremely compatible theory

with that of creativity on the basis that creativity is a vague process that relies primarily

on the individual more than on a medium. Unlike other developmental theories, object

relations accounts for both internal activity and external stimuli. Object Relations has

been criticized for being overly complicated due it’s extensive detail but is mainly

defined by several basic concepts. (Kee, 2007)

Object Relations is closely related to the psychoanalytic school of thought

founded by Freud. But, rather than place all motivational emphasis on sexual and

aggressive drives, the emphasis is placed on human relationships and relationship

seeking. Whereas Freud often described ‘objects’ as items of desire or on which to

project our aggression, object relations believes an ‘object’ can refer to an individual with

whom we strive to maintain a relationship. This is important in terms of creativity as

individuals often describe their ‘relationship’ with the object of their creation. The other

more primary benefit of object relations is that it includes a model for the development of

the self that includes both the genetic component as well as the environmental

components of the individual’s experience. (Kee, 2007)

3


There is a specific and formal language used when discussing object relations that

consist of the following terms:

Object: The object is what the individual relates to. These can be both inanimate objects

and/or people. Generally in object relations the emphasis is put on a child’s early

relationship with his mother and father as well as transitional objects. The term object can

also be applied to personality traits or symbols as well.

Representation: Representation refers to the perceived relationship of the individual

with the object.

External Object: An external object can be a person, place or item in which the

individual is emotionally invested.

Internal Object: An internal object is the idea or concept of the external object that has

been internalized by the individual.

The self and self-representation: The self is an individuals mental image of them self

and the self-representation is that mental image of ones self in relation to others.

Self Object: The self object is a loss of distinction between the self and the external

object. This is the case in all infants before they are cognitively aware that they are

autonomous and the relationship between the caretaker and the infant is as if they were

one. It is a type of maladjustment that may occur in adulthood, based on a variety of

factors. This type of behavior is often called ‘confluence.’

Part Object: Part objects are elements of a person or place that are internalized but never

wholly. Part objects can be physical, such as body parts and parts of places, or traits of a

person. A great example of this would be a child’s mother’s breast which is experienced

as a part object due to the child’s inability to distinguish them self from his mother.

4


Whole Object: A whole object is when an individual recognizes another individual as

having the same rights and mental and emotional functioning as one self. Essentially

recognizing a whole object demonstrates the ability to empathize while not maintaining

enough of an emotional investment to consider them an external object.

Object Constancy: Object constancy is the ability to maintain and accept a variation of

emotions and responses from an object. The best illustration of this is the parent child

relationship when children reach adolescence and eventually have to accept their parent’s

flaws and hostility as well as caretaking.

Splitting: Splitting is an instance when an individual can’t maintain two contradicting

thoughts at the same time and therefore must only concentrate on one.

Self-Psychology: The type and extent of emotional investment in one self.

(Daniels, 2007)

There are several facets of Object Relations Theory but the school of thought this

paper will focus on proceeds as follows:

Object Relations concerns itself with the psychological development of an

individual, with an emphasis on the first three, considered most crucial, years. Over the

first three years all psychological development occurs within a social context (which

includes inanimate objects). The primary developmental issues that need to be addressed

during those first three years are the establishment of a close confluent relationship with

the caretaker and the eventual separation from that relationship (where the child

recognizes that she is different from her caretaker) through individuation. (Where the

child recognizes their own traits and personality) One of the most important factors in

this development is that of assigning gender. Contrary to Freud, Object Relations

5


Theorists don’t believe that gender is assigned based on the child recognizing their

sexuality or reproductive abilities but rather is a social constructed role the child

internalizes. Therefore, the child will at birth, internalize the social power imbalance or

attitudes that accompany the gender they have identified themselves with, based on how

they are treated. (Quigley, 1998) This is a great example to illustrate genetics and theory

working in sync. The child will have predisposed inclinations to various behavior based

on their sex (with variations) but the freedom with which to express those behaviors and

the values ascribed to those behaviors (as well as their particular gender) are all social

constructs that are internalized by the child.

There is a dramatic emphasis put on caretaking for this reason. Within the first six

months the child is engaged in a confluent relationship and therefore cannot tell the

difference between them self and their caretaker. So it is imperative that the caretaker

provide what Winnicott termed ‘good enough care.’ The stress at this particular time is

put on the family unit (mother, father, child or any combination of caring adults for the

child) living together and coming into constant contact via holding and touching.

(Daniels, 2007) The caretaker must be consistently available and be able to acknowledge

their own separation even though the infant cannot. The caretaker must be sensitive to the

child’s needs on a very specific level. All children are born with various genetically

predisposed temperaments and inclinations and the caretaker must be a good enough fit

with the child to provide good enough care and attention to those inclinations. After six

months and into the next two years the child and caretaker slowly separate, where the

child will often explore and return to the caretaker for emotional nurturing. Eventually

separation occurs completely and the child develops a sense of self and self

6


representation in relation to the caretaker. The acceptance of a mutual non-symbiotic

bond is the most telling factor as to whether the child will be able to engage in object

consistency (i.e. healthy relationships) with others. (Quigley, 1998)

During this phase a child may also seek a transitional object or engage in

transitional phenomena. A transitional object is an object (usually in the form a stuffed

animal or toy) that the child grows an attachment to as a ‘non me’ object and which

soothes him while he grows towards autonomy. Transitional phenomena are behaviors

that are done in repetition to soothe the child, such as sucking their thumb, or rocking

back and forth.(Daniels, 2007) The transitional object is important in terms of ‘potential

space’ or the space that the child is allowed to engage creatively within them self, or with

the transition object, by their caretaker. This potential space is one of the most important

factors to decide a child’s ability to confidently use their imagination. A classic example

of the transitional object is Lynus’s blanket in the cartoon Peanuts. Lynus is never seen

without his blanket as he uses it as source of constant comfort. He is possessive of the

blanket and becomes upset when he is separated from it. Although the comic strip

focuses on the blanket primarily as a comforting object, transitional objects typically

create ‘potential space’ for the child by acting as a stand in for the caretaker. By doing

this the child is allowed to comfortably project her internal fantasies and imagination on

the object. (Glover, 2005, Ch. 6)

The concept of ‘potential space’ also coincides with Winnicott’s theory of the

‘true’ and ‘false’ self. If a child is adequately satisfied, engages in imagination and isn’t

heavily impressed upon by their caretaker, the child will develop a ‘true self’ which is to

say their actions and desires will mirror those of their internal self. If the caretaker proves

7


overbearing, does not satisfy the needs of the child, or doesn’t allow the child to

confidently engage creatively the child will develop a ‘false self’ that is complacent, and

does not react creatively or freely within them self but conforms to and mirrors his

environment. (Daniels, 2007)

These are the primary developmental concerns of Object Relations Theorists

which are definitive in determining healthy ways for children to separate and become

independent which, as will be shown later, are instrumental in helping develop one into a

creative individual.

Object relations is a comprehensive theory with which to analyze individuals in

the context of creativity because it allows for genetic material (e.g. intelligence,

temperament) but stresses that interactions from birth shape the avenues for those genetic

attributes, ultimately deciding factors that determine the extent to which the child will be

creative. Object relations theory will not only help to explain the details of shaping

behavior to be more creative but also may help to explain, in the event of a trauma or

arrested development, the compulsion for some individuals to create.

Creativity

Shoham (2002), in Art, Crime and Madness argues that in order for something to

be considered authentically creative the creation must include the artist’s inner self.

Therefore the creation should consist of the blueprints designed throughout childhood, as

laid out in object relations theory, which is why imitation via paint by numbers is

generally not considered creative. The creative process is therefore an internal dialogue

between the artist and the object of their creativity. Through this dialogue they may

8


express a myriad of desires, thoughts, or emotions via their artistic product. Shoman

further states that creativity is the expression of longing and/or need. Artists are

compelled to express those needs and in doing so insert themselves into a specific

medium. This simplistic definition of creativity has some merit, in that although mediums

intrinsically provide structure for an individual to work within; it is the sense of self that

the author projects into her art that makes the work creative.

Once vaguely defined the difficulty becomes evaluating creativity.

Freeman (1993) argues that there must be a tradition to express creativity for it to actually

exist. He states further that an artist must fully develop his craft in order to be creative.

Freeman (1993) even goes so far as to state that although Mozart had been creating music

since he was three it wasn’t until he was fifteen (twelve years later) that he created a

masterpiece and therefore was creative. (Freeman, 1993) But to say that only

masterpieces are creative would be like saying that since a speaker’s speech was not

engaging they, in fact, were not talking at all. There is a tendency for theorists to only

study the ‘very great’ when analyzing art work and creativity. This is problematic in that

masterpieces are only defined by the other half of the creative process which is the

perception of the recipient. Great art and art styles are defined by academia because they

are popular not because they are more creative. For instance, Picasso’s Cubist style

initially had no tradition with which to fully analyze it so one was made up to

accommodate the growing interest in the style.

Another important example of the complicated process of evaluating creativity is

that of the two basic modes of art in modern society, they are: conceptual (traditional) art

and experimental non conceptual art. Freeman states that since experimental art is

9


difficult to analyze from an academic viewpoint, it lacks identifiable creativity. (Freeman,

1993) But a more agreeable truth would be that there are different degrees to which an

individual can be creative whether working in the context of a society or tradition, or

within the context of their inner structure; which is defined within the context of society

but is not bound by it. There does not need to be an academic categorization for a work to

be regarded as creative.

These are all just examples of the layered and complicated nature of creativity. In

fact, even though the concept has been documented since Ancient Greece and has been

thoroughly studied in present day, the issues surrounding the debates on creativity have

remained much the same. It is precisely this conundrum that makes it so interesting; it is

describable yet undefinable, visible yet immeasurable. It has been considered a result of

cognitive processes, social environment, personality traits, chance, and, on occasion,

divine intervention. It is almost always considered in respect to the arts but has

applications throughout every aspect of our lives. The best way to begin to understand a

concept is to understand where it came from.

A brief description of the evolution of Creativity (Limited to Western Civilization):

with some current considerations.

"The problem of creativity is beset with mysticism, confused definitions, value judgments,

psychoanalytic admonitions, and the crushing weight of philosophical speculation dating from

ancient times." Albert Rothenberg

Ancient Greece is considered a Classic culture, in that it laid many of the

foundations from which we have built and judged our own society. (Strong, 2006) That

10


includes the concept of creativity. The Ancient Greeks had no formal word for creativity

and in many ways found it threatening. To the Ancient Greeks, the concept of creator or

creativity implied freedom of actions which was contradictory to the natural world which

was perfect and had many laws with which it followed. The term art or ‘techne’ literally

meant the ‘making of things, according to rules’ and artists were generally considered

imitators of life rather than creators. An example illustrating Ancient Greece’s Attitude

toward art was the function of music. All melodies were pre dictated and had to be played

in accordance with what was written, in fact the melodies were called, ‘nomoi’ which

meant ‘laws’. The authoring of the melodies was considered to have been a result of a

muse or divine intervention. (Tatarkiwicz, 1980) In fact scientists at the time believed

that the brain was separated into two chambers in what was later coined the ‘bicameral’

mind. They believed that the gods put thoughts directly into the chamber that generated

new ideas and the other chamber contained the personality of the individual and the

ability to execute the new ideas. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998) The only exception to the creator

rule was given exclusively to poets. Poets were considered to “poiein” or ‘to make’.

Artists were considered to imitate but poets created realms of existence that as Aristotle

put it, ‘were neither true nor false’ and were not bound by any structural, content

oriented, or expressive laws. The poets of that day defined experimental art.

(Tatarkiwixcz, 1980)

With the rise of Roman civilization the old Greek concepts were expanded.

Horace, essentially the poet laureate to the Roman Republic, stated that the ability and

privilege ‘to make’ rather than imitate was extended to the painters just as much as the

poets. And the Latin term ‘creatio’ from which we get the English word Create was

11


coined. Ironically Horace later authored the Ars Poetica which consisted of rules for

writing poetry. This is was the first time that one could still be seen as creative even

though they were working within a set of rules. Although both the Ancient Greeks and

Romans had very limited scope of what was allowed to be described as creative, their

inventions, military prowess, architecture, music and visual arts are brilliant examples of

what is now considered creativity. (Tatarkiwicz, 1980)

The next transition in the evolution of creativity was within the realm of

Christianity. The term ‘creatio’ was applied to God’s creation of the earth, that he made it

from nothing. In this new interpretation of the word the ability to create something out of

nothing could have been more widely recognized. However; this also corresponded with

the ‘medieval times’ which, developmentally speaking ceased to evolve, both artistically

and technologically. And although many prolific Christians saw this new interpretation of

creativity as a means to progress and gave a license for man to create, most European

societies deemed that even poetry had rules (ala Horace) and therefore was no longer a

means to create but merely a craft within which to work. Most art and music was funded

by Churches and had to be done within the rules of the church and individual freedom or

freedom of action was nearly non existent as the Catholic Church firmly dictated societal

actions. A great example of the effect on art is the mandatory style of polyphonic music

for religious ceremonies that was written during that period. Although beautiful there is

very little variation from piece to piece. So unlike Ancient Greece and Rome, this may

have been the least creative time period in history according to our modern interpretation

of the concept. (Tatarkiwicz, 1980)

12


The renaissance took place between 1400 and the beginning of 1600 A.D. and

marked the revival of creative productivity in all forms including the arts, architecture

and general cultural development. Society took a dramatic shift towards individual

freedom, basically a humanistic revolution, and consequently people were allowed to

create art however they wished. Music became more and more secular and new

instruments were created as well as venues for which to express it. In this new found

freedom all arts were seen as invented, shaped or transformed from nature rather than

imitating it. New painting styles were developed as well as experimental acting and

writing. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

But it wasn’t until the 17th century that a poet officially used the term creation.

Madiej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, a Polish Latin Poet, referred to a poet’s accomplishment as

creating something new. From that, a refined version of the two old separate views,

which in many ways still linger, about creativity emerged. The biggest part of the

argument is rooted in the interpretation of the word creation. (Tatarkiwicz, 1980)

The word creation’s literally meaning is ‘to create from nothing’ which many

people argued is not possible and is logically true from that definition. That is to say, that

no one can create anything new; only rearrange what has already been created. This

belief is best summed up by Charles Batteux, an 18th century French writer, who wrote

"The human mind cannot create, strictly speaking; all its products bear the stigmata of

their model; even monsters invented by an imagination unhampered by laws can only be

composed of parts taken from nature." (Tatarkiwicz, 1980) In large part this belief was

applied mainly to visual arts but the thinking is still sound. Most psychologists would

agree that we are only capable of engaging what has been encountered by us and are

13


fundamentally reactionary in this regard. Proponents of this perspective also argued that

creativity could not be accomplished because it would have to be within a set of rules but

that was and can be easily argued once one realized that rules regarding art are man made

and not part of nature.

An alternative view of creativity saw imagination and creativity as being linked

and often applied it to art theory. This usually secular view on creativity focused on the

manipulation of rules, the invention of emotions and alterations of nature. They would

argue that even though a painting has elements of nature, it’s representation of nature is

so far removed that it could be considered invented. From a modern scientific perspective

one could easily state that since all of nature is basically made of the same material

(energy) then it is the organization of that material that is in fact creativity. Eventually

creativity was seen primarily within this context but was limited to art. In fact in the 19th

century creativity was exclusively recognized within the arts, and in many ways it still is.

It wasn’t until the turn of the 20th century, with the industrial revolution, that the concept

of creativity was applied to business, science and nature. Although it was usually

considered within concepts that were familiar to art and it leaned on the definition of

creative as working within a structure of logic or rules. As Arthur L. Miller put it,

“research (on creativity) was carried out at the common frontier of art and science.”

(Miller, 2001)

The most interesting part of this early history is that the concept oscillated

between two definitions. In Ancient Greece creativity was seen as freedom of action,

although not recognized outside of poetry, which is interesting when you consider that

the renaissance was defined by individual freedom and is considered one of most creative

14


periods in history. Whereas the other definition of creativity also reflected in Ancient

Greek culture, that stated that man can only imitate and cannot create, was intensified

during the middle ages and consequently basically all cultural advancements came to a

standstill. There were more practical inventions during the renaissance (only a short two

hundred years) than the whole of the middle ages (nearly fifteen hundred years).

So although societies have had different beliefs in regards to what creativity truly

is and even though they didn’t agree on what creativity officially was, the societies that

allowed for the most individual freedom and what is commonly thought of today as

creativity flourished the most in their peak years. This is indicative of a relationship

between an individual’s freedom to create and the overall good of the society.

The modfern definitions of creativity are still rooted in the evolution of the

concept. Several argue that creativity must be the result of talent and understanding of a

craft, others that it is genetic (divinely inspired inclusively tied in with IQ), and yet others

believe that the act of expressing oneself is intrinsically creative. Either way, most can

agree that creativity is related to the general success and quality of life of the society that

partakes of it.

1950 - Present

There are some inherent difficulties when studying creativity that go beyond the

philosophical and historical dilemmas described. There was no significant study or

empirical research on the subject until the 1950’s for this reason. In 1950 J.P Gilford

addressed the American Psychological Association and cited the primary reasons

creativity has not been successfully studied as: 1) that there was an excessive emphasis

15


put on I.Q tests. Many theorists believed that IQ and creativity were intrinsically related,

which as we will see later, they are, but only to a minimizing effect. 2) Researchers often

used unnecessarily rigid and methodical test measures. This is very problematic once one

considers that since creativity in some way involves either originality or deviance, a

methodological or rigid test measure would most likely be incapable of testing creativity

which would require great freedom within the test. 3) There was, and is, a general

disagreement on criteria to be measured for study. (Arons, 1972) These are problems that

still persist today and are instrumental in demonstrating the need for theory to illustrate a

process rather than a laboratory measure to test creativity which will ultimately have an

insecure validity based on the incongruence of the views on the topic.

The first model of the creative process was presented by Graham Wallas in 1926.

He proposed that the creative process comprised of four fundamental stages.

Preparation – An individual must decide what field and for what purpose they

intend to apply their creativity. It is often thought that an individual must be

knowledgeable in order to engage in the preparation stage, although it is interesting to

note that creativity often comes from individuals who are not necessarily an expert in

their field. It may be that in order to become an expert one must fully understand and

follow the rules of the field therefore making it more difficult to think creatively about it.

Incubation – An individual will internalize their desire to create into their

subconscious and all external evidence of their desire will be nonexistent. This stage was

later empirically shown to improve an individual’s creativity, asserting that by incubating

the desire and ideas relating to creativity the individual will unintentionally forget the

16


unnecessary elements. This stage also features a sub stage of ‘intimation’ in which the

individual begins to intuit that creativity is on the way.

Illumination – The light bulb effect, when the individual is suddenly hit with

inspiration.

Verification – In the final stage the individual verifies that the idea is plausible

and then applies it to the intended field.

(Herrman, 1989)

Although an important and fascinating model, Wallas’s theory has its limitations.

Reducing the process of creativity to these four basic behavioral steps does not fully

address the various motivations and complex nature that comprise creativity. Wallas’s

process functions best a simplified, broad statement of a complicated process. However;

Wallas’s model was revolutionary in that it laid out two very important considerations in

creativity. The first, that creativity has to be consciously motivated by a desire to create

in a given field and second, that one must be adequately knowledgable in the specified

field in order to function creatively within it. (Cave, 2000)

The Compulsion to Create

As stated above, the first step that Wallas outlined is one of great importance,

preparation. Preparation intrinsically implies a desire to create and the motivation for that

desire has been dubiously speculated upon since psychology’s founding father, Sigmund

Freud, first attempted to tackle the subject. Freud had a number of very controversial yet

insightful views on creativity. Initially he proposed that creativity was just the

sublimation of various internal drives ranging from sexual desires to ego ideation and

fantasies of fame and success. He then began using artists work to dissect their internal

17


life to gain insight into their inner structure (essentially laying the foundation for

projective tests and the Rorschach Inkblot test). One of the problems with this theory is

that Freud assumes that art is always an outcome of an inner conflict. The other and

major problem with this theory is that it does not account for the interpreter’s bias and he

never proposed a formal method for the creative process itself. (Glover, 2005, ch.1)

However; Freud was the first psychologist to acknowledge that art, or any creation,

instinctively is comprised of psychological elements of its author’s interior. As creativity

is a subjective endeavor, it follows that an individual can only create from experiences,

thoughts, materials and techniques that they have experienced or learned. From this, the

reciprocal nature of creativity can be established. This serves as the key issue in the

problem of creativity as well as it’s most unique attribute. As Mike Arons, Professor of

Psychology at West Virginia University Stated, “It seems a just irony that the greatest

service that creativity can render is an heuristic one. It helps us to understand things

other than itself.” (Arons, 1972) This has led to a social preoccupation of Freud’s initial

assumption that creative work is the result of pathology.

In fact a great deal of research on creativity has focused on recognized artists and

their interpersonal lives and/or pathology. And in truth, there is a parallel between the

two on a philosophical level. As has been demonstrated through this paper creativity does

not have a universal definition, but it does have characteristics that are generally agreed

upon. Creativity, in order to be creativity, must deviate in some way from the traditional

model or medium that it is applied to. Likewise Mental Illness is by definition an

abnormal or maladaptive mental condition that causes personal or social distress. There

are several theories regarding this relationship and many argue that since individuals

18


essentially implement their own consciousness into the product, a deviant individual is

more likely to create deviant (creative) work. (Shoham, 2002, pg. 10) In fact, according

to Shoham pathology may be caused by creativity itself. In that individuals who are

exceptionally creative are subjugated by society and taught to think of themselves as ill

based on the eccentricities of their behavior and thoughts.

Artaud, the French playwright and poet wrote when discussing Van Gogh that,

“Society invented psychiatry in order to fight the rebellious creator who has a deeper, yet

different, insight than the pacesetters in the power structure”…“ Van Gogh was not mad,

but his ideas and paintings threatened the accepted academic institutions and dominant

tastes ordained by the leading arbiteri elegantiari.” It would be easy to brush off

statements like those by comparing Artaud to the pleasant homeless men ranting on the

corners of every major city but there must be some degree of truth to those statements.

The truly creative often act outside the context of society and become or are considered

pathological for that very reason. Artaud wrote that since Van Gogh wished to paint at

night the only logical thing to do was to put candles on his hat and go out and paint. His

behavior was unusual but not insane. Yet, as Artaud ardently argues, it was society that

deemed Van Gogh insane, and he eventually believed them. (Shoham, 2002, pg. 143-

145) Artaud’s theory does not claim that all pathologic individuals are creative. Therefore

it would be unreasonable to conclude that all creative people are pathological or even that

all the pathological and creative individuals became pathological based on this theory.

Some could make the argument that, as Shoham stated, creativity is the need to express

longing or need and pathological individuals would have that need perhaps in a greater

intensity than those who are not.

19


Taken from an object relations perspective, which believes that mental illness,

although often genetically pre determined, is the result of unmet expectations within

relationships and/or the result of arrested stage development and there is a subsequent

need to express relational maladjustment or internal conflict. However; it is popular

opinion that the act of expressing oneself creatively intuitively has healing results. In

some contexts this has proven to be fruitful. A recent RAND study claimed that creative

expression, specifically in collective art activities, can help to create unique bonds while

maintaining identity formation in children resulting in improved cultural transmission.

There is currently a working hypothesis that creativity helps support empathy (which is

mirrored in object relations theory). (Ishaq, 2006) But even though creativity can provide

normal individuals with a better sense of self and cultural identity as well as empathy it

can prove ultimately harmful to those with pathological conditions.

Very few behaviors have a guaranteed psychological result. Creativity is no

exception. Susan Kavaler-Adler in a study of four famous female artists noted the

possibility of individuals with pathological conditions to become ‘trapped’ in their

‘mourning’ state. The act of creating can be seen as an addiction to an internal object that

constitutes and maintains a pathological state. This compulsion to create can and often is

the result of an obsession with an internal object and the constant attention disrupts the

individual’s ability to deem the internal object ‘good-enough’ and regain healthy

functioning. The constant indulging and refusal to integrate these objects can cause

severe distress to the interrelationships of the artists. Adler argues that this well-held

social belief that creativity is healing in and of it self without psychotherapeutic

considerations causes many artists to hide their pathologies and ultimately trap

20


themselves inside their mental prison practicing as Susan Kavaler-Adler puts it, ‘demon

love’. This creates an ethical dilemma, from the perspective of us as consumers of art, as

some of our most fascinating artists such as Emily Dickenson, Virginia Wolfe and

Vincent Van Gogh are birthed out of this predicament. Although most of these artists did

not become famous until after their death our society’s deep appreciation of their art may

encourage others to engage in that type of unhealthy artistic process. The unanswerable

argument always exists, however, that perhaps these fascinating artists would have been

even greater had they dealt with their pathologies in a healthy manner. It is the opinion of

this author that as members of this society we adore and are obsessed with those

individuals who seek respite and salvation through art with a desperation that announces

that it is a matter of life or death. The desperation that these artists convey due to their

pathologies is an exaggerated form of desperation and yearning that is mirrored within us.

So although the work may have been technically better had they been healthier, the

desperation would have been muted and they may have in fact not captured the pop

culture arena the way they did.

Winnicott proposed a theory that can also be applied to pathology and creativity.

Winnicott theorizes that children who do not get ‘good enough’ care from their caretaker

in the beginning six months, when the child does not recognize their individuality, go into

a ‘basic default.’ Rather than being creative within the ‘potential space’ between the child

and their caretaker, the child will engage in self-creativity. The child will creatively

attempt to discover ways to meet its own needs within itself. Although this type of self-

creativity is unique and in many ways may motivate later creative behavior in an attempt

to satisfy the self, it will ultimately result in an individual with poor object consistency

21


and self representation. (Scharff and Scharff, 1987, Ch. 3) A good theoretical example of

this is Emily Dickenson. Her mother was extremely depressive and distant by all

accounts even before Emily’s birth and was not nurturing to Emily. Emily subsequently

did not fully identify her gender with that of her mother and sought her father as a role

model. The often physically distant father became what Emily later termed an ‘absent

presence’ in her life. Following Winnicott’s theory Emily would have reverted to the

‘basic default’ when her mother did not satisfy her needs and attempted to find creative

ways to satisfy them. She consistently used her work as an attempt to feel whole or

healthy. There are also references throughout her career that demonstrate her detachment

from her gender. Winnicott’s theory would also collaborate with Adler’s theory of

‘demon love.’ Emily Dickenson constantly sought ways, which were creative, to meet her

needs that both her mother and father could not. Her constant obsession with satisfying

her needs with the written word caused her interpersonal life to suffer to the extent that

she eventually died alone, having never married or loved. It is likely, that most

pathological individuals feel elation when creating, the sort of reward that warrants the

word addiction. So in this scenario writing poetry for Emily Dickenson would have been

like gambling with a slot machine. She did not receive enough reward (need satisfaction)

to allow her to healthily interact with other individuals but she did receive enough of a

reward to continue her addiction which resulted in her subsequent withdrawal from

others. (Kavalar-Adler, Ch. 1)

Other theorists have contended that creative work can be used as a ‘self object.’

Artists can use their artistic product to recreate potential space thereby creating a

dialogue within them self. This can mirror the environment intended in therapy, to

22


recreate potential space and resolve the conflicts within it, and allow the artist reparation.

From this perspective, creative endeavors can be considered intrinsically healing.

An easy illustration of this concept would be a poem titled ‘The Alabaster

Woman’ written by Doug Wright, Professor at Westminster College.

“I remember my birth long agoFrom a ragged, uncomfortable rock. The man who set me free was odd…As I waited to be released, I could hear him out there muttering,Swearing doubt and begging subtlety.Daily I felt the chisel and raspRemoving the ageless stone.As he circled me, he would groan,Sounding eager, discordant, strange,And as the instruments grew closer, I admit I was afraid.He seemed anxious and unhappy,And caressed my graceful neckAnd opulent wave of hair,Troubled by an unusual love.At last my face was free of stone,Except for a little on my lips and eyes.He paused forever, it seemed to me,Then breathed, and swiftly, certainly,Revealed my features in minutes.When he finally saw me he stopped again,Whispered something, and leaning forward, With gentle anguish kissed meTenderly on the lips.It was the sweetest possible greeting,But something gave way inside himAnd he wept, shuddering fiercely.I could do nothing to console him,Not even offer him the softnessOf my alabaster skin.”

It is evident in this poem that the artist is expressing his own doubts as well as adulations

about creating. He expresses his insecurities while affirming that his creation (himself)

appreciates his work. He is also expressing his longing for love through the object but

23


also realizes that the creation itself is just a mirror of a fantasy and is not the fantasy

itself. This is to say it is not the real woman for which he wishes to love. This is a

particularly good example because he addresses the objects point of view looking at him

self which is a very clear demonstration of an artist engaging in self-representation within

his own work. This concept is illustrated through several artist’s work and functions in a

similar way as that of the transitional object. Winnicott surmises that the child must be in

control of its transitional object and only they can alter it. The child does not recognize

the object as being different from itself and does not interact with the object as if it were a

fantasy. The object recreates the role of the ‘good enough’ caretaker within those first

confluent months. This is important in that it essentially recreates the environment

intended by a therapist. Therefore it is plausible that creation in and of itself can be

holistically and psychologically healing. (Adams, 1993, pg. 178)

As artistic products can be described literally as a transitional object, that is, it is

between reality and illusion, the need for artists to use it could be considered with varying

degrees of pathology. However; the determining factor in regards to the mental health

benefits of creating appears to be the degree and nature of the pathology motivating it

more so than the act of creating itself. One could easily support the notion however, that

creating with psychological considerations and supervision may prove very fruitful in

allowing individuals to externalize their maladjusted internalizations thereby allowing

them to reshape them. (Adams, 1993, Pg. 180)

The Study of Creativity

24


“The key question isn’t "What fosters creativity?" But it is why in God’s name

isn’t everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I

think therefore a good question might be not why do people create? But why do people

not create or innovate? We have got to abandon that sense of amazement in the face of

creativity, as if it were a miracle if anybody created anything.”

- Abraham Maslow

Two prominent theorists, Schank and Cleary, stated that “just getting through the

day in our modern society, one must be creative.” (Dancy, Lennon, 1998) This speaks to

heart of the problem of only studying the ‘very great’ or even just studying artists.

Creativity can and does exist with varying degrees of social impact. To study only great

artists removes the emphasis from general creativity which can enrich the internal

landscape of the individual. It is the belief of this author that it would be beneficial for all

individuals to be creative in their personal lives, regardless of talent or medium. In a

modern society that often does not provide simple questions nor answers it has become

necessary for individuals to be creative.

When considering the implications of Schank and Cleary’s statement the

characteristics of creativity and the conditions that promote creativity become paramount

rather than a novelty. If creativity has become a necessity due to the complicated nature

of our modern life then discovering methods of promoting creativity become essential.

Using object relations theory a relationship between the traits of creative individuals and

the conditions that foster those traits can be established. This will lay a foundation for

methods of encouraging creativity in individuals.

25


There are two distinctions that must be clarified in order to understand the

quantitative definitions of creativity within the realm of psychological research. As stated

earlier, studying only very great artists is problematic because ultimately their fame is

due to more than just their creativity. Therefore the ‘very great’ artists and thinkers

cannot necessarily be considered more creative than others, only more successfully

creative than others. Empirical research has attempted to isolate the creative component

to better understand the conditions, correlations and individual personality traits that

surround creativity.

The first distinction that should be made is between talent and creativity.

Although often thought of as synonymous they are in fact very different. An artist, for

example, may be able to paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa, which would definitely

showcase their talent, but does not demonstrate creativity. Great artists are therefore

typically a combination of both talent and creativity. But creativity alone is rarely enough

to accomplish success.

The second distinction is the difference between innovation and creativity.

Although innovation, by definition requires creativity, creativity alone is not enough to

produce innovative work. In order for a work to be innovative it must not only be creative

but must be widely applicable and practical within a specific field. This creates similar

problems to those of only studying the very great. If we only study innovative thinkers,

artists and scientists, we are not in fact studying creativity in isolation. This oversight is

doubtlessly still rooted in the dubious definitions of creativity. This distinction also lends

itself to the theory that creativity is more of an adjective to a structure rather than a

process of self expression; that creativity exists differently depending on the discipline to

26


which it is applied. Therefore creativity would then be a socially constructed definition

and only comprised of self expression by default. For something to be creative it must

only be deviant from the specific medium to which it is applied, thus it would present it

self differently to that of a writer as opposed to an architect.

These are considerations psychologists must make when attempting to define

creativity in isolation. Subsequently there have been several types of creativity identified.

One of the most popular types of creativity studied within the last ten years has been

emotional creativity. In a study done in 1996, two groups of participants were chosen

based on their self report regarding emotional creativity. The first group wrote narratives

involving emotionally challenging events and the second group made collages integrating

three incompatible emotions. The participants who scored high on emotional creativity

also proved to be more emotionally creative within their respective tasks. The test

measure used was the Emotional Creativity Inventory (ECI), which consists of a 30 item

questionnaire. (Gutbezahl, Averill, 1996) Recently in a follow up group of studies

(Ivcevuc, Brackett, Mayer, 2007) the relationship between emotional intelligence and

emotional creativity was examined. The study found several very interesting results.

Using factor analysis they first discovered that emotional creativity and emotional

intelligence were in fact two separate traits. The two traits had no significant correlation

with each other. The study hypothesized that emotional creativity would be significantly

correlated with behavioral creativity. The study found that self reported creativity

correlated with laboratory creative measures but creative ability was only correlated with

those who reported artistic activity. These results illustrate the distinction between

creativity and talent. Those individuals who were considered and tested high on

27


emotional creativity were not intrinsically able or likely to engage in behavioral

creativity. In fact the considered ability to create was not related to emotional creativity at

all, it was the prior engagement in artistic activity that was required. There were several

limitations to this study, the biggest being that they did not make the distinction between

creative ability and artistic ability which ultimately invalidates the study on the basis that

artistic ability and creative ability are not necessarily interrelated. A criticism of the

concept of emotional creativity, as well as emotional intelligence, is that it has no

benchmark with which to compare itself against. For instance, IQ tests are designed to

collaborate and predict academic and problem solving achievement. Whereas there is no

basis for comparison for the other two test measures. In fact the ECI’s validity is based

primarily on the interpretation of the researchers as well as self report from participants

and those who know the participants. This does not mean that emotional creativity is not

a valid concept, only that there is no standard against which to predict creative behavior.

This has proven to be the most difficult aspect of defining creativity and demonstrates

that it is necessary to have an existing structure with which to define creativity against in

order to measure it. This leads us to the more practical creativity tests founded by the

grandfather of creativity E. Paul Torrence.

Torrence established the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) which is

primarily used in the arenas of business and education to test the creative capacity of

individuals. Torrence took a more practical approach towards creativity considering it to

be

“a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies:

28


testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the results.” (Kim, 2006)

This process is similar to Wallas’s in that it supposes individuals have intent to be

creative. Therefore creativity is a behavior more so than a trait. When discussing the

limitations of his testing measure he cited that creative motivation and skills in

cooperation with creative ability are required for “adult creative achievement.” This

returns to a reoccurring theme with creativity, achievement. Torrance contends that in

order to be creative the adult must be motivated and capable in order to solve a problem

thereby engaging in creativity. (Kim, 2006)

Similar to theories within the arts, creative thought is considered only to be

achieved if an individual can think critically. A recent essay in the Journal of

Developmental Education (Paul, Elder, 2006) considers the nature of critical and creative

thought. It claims that to separate the two is impossible by their definition, which is why

intelligence and creativity are so frequently considered interdependent. They consider the

relationship to be as follows: the human mind consists of generative power (creativity)

and judiciousness (criticality). An individual must be motivated to interpret and critically

asses a problem and then apply their problem solving generative power to the issue. The

conclusion being that, “critical thinking without creativity reduces to mere skepticism and

negativity, and creativity without critical thought reduces to mere novelty.” (Paul, Elder,

2006) However; a massive study by Gretzels and Jackson (1993) found that normal

intelligence was sufficient for high creativity. In fact there was no correlation between

creativity and intelligence with individuals who scored above 120 on IQ. So although

some intelligence is necessary for creativity, which coincides with the assertion that

29


creativity must involve a degree of criticality, is it not a predictor of creativity. (Dacey,

Lennon, 1998)

From the relationship of criticality, creativity and problem solving, ten

fundamental traits have been described as being associated with most creative people.

Tolerance of Ambiguity - Tolerance of ambiguity implies an individual’s ability

to function in unfamiliar or unsure circumstances. The best example of this would be a

young child’s first day of kindergarten. Once the child arrives they will, as we’ve all

experienced, be uncomfortable because there is no precedent set on how to act. Creative

people have a tendency to cope with these situations better than a less creative person.

This trait speaks mainly to an individual’s ability to infer a workable structure when none

is supplied and the confidence to execute the structure. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Stimulus Freedom – Stimulus freedom involves an individual’s ability to use

stimulus as a stepping stone to further their imagination rather than a confining or rule

setting source. The general test of stimulus freedom, created by Torrance, involves a

story writing test. In one instance, children were asked to look at a picture of a cat and a

rectangle with the title ‘curiosity killed the cat’. The children were then asked to write a

short story about the picture within eight to ten minutes. Seventy percent of the children

wrote a variation of the same story involving the cat getting tricked by a mouse and killed

by the box. The other thirty percent showed no similarities other than they all used the

rectangle as a window into very elaborate and imaginative stories rather than a

confinement with which to work. The rectangle is never stated as being anything in

particular and the less creative children inferred rules when there were none whereas the

creative children made their own rules based on their creative desires. Researchers have

30


found that the when asked the children often cited the fear of being wrong was the major

inhibitor of inventing a more imaginative story. This is interesting considering that the

test had no stated right or wrong answer. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Functional Freedom – Functional freedom, like stimulus freedom, demonstrates

an individual’s ability to deviate from the familiar. The typical test used to illustrate

functional freedom is called the two string test. A participant is placed in a room with two

nine foot strings hanging from the ceiling fourteen feet apart. They are given a mousetrap

or a clothespin and asked to stand next to one of the strings and tie the two strings

together without walking to other side of the room. Creative individuals were more likely

to find alternate uses for the mousetrap or clothespin, like using them as weights to weigh

one string down and then swing it across the room to get the other string. This displays an

ability to consider multiple applications to objects, or ideas, with one intended purpose.

(Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Flexibility – Flexibility tests usually comprise of a question asking test.

Participants are given a picture of a clown looking at his own reflection in a pool of

water. They then ask as many questions about the picture as possible. There is a possible

23 categories that questions can fit into. Creative individuals are more likely to ask

questions pertaining to the ‘bigger picture’, such as questions regarding the clown’s

family, past history, etc. rather than questions that are reactionary to the illustration such

as what the clown is feeling, etc. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Risk Taking – Risk taking is related to stimulus freedom in that it demonstrates a

lack of fear of failure. This was best demonstrated by a test measure which consisted of

three pegs set at three different distances away from a participant. The participant had to

31


hit the pegs with a ball to earn a set amount of points with the closest peg yielding the

least amount of points and the furthest yielding the most. The participants were told that

they were statistically more likely to get the most amount of point if they attempted to hit

the middle peg each time. However; creative individuals were more likely to attempt to

hit the furthest peg each time resulting in a generally low score of ten, the same for

hitting the closest peg every time which is easy to do. The estimated score incurred by an

individual attempting to hit the middle peg was twenty five. This implies that creative

individuals are more concerned with possibility and task rather than reward, which relates

to the next trait. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Delay of Gratification – This trait is somewhat complicated. Researchers argue

that since artists can paint for years with no monetary rewards that they are delaying

gratification. However; when one considers the risk taking peg game, perhaps it is not

that creative people delay gratification but perhaps they define their own rewards system

and find gratification absent of social validation. For instance the act of attempting to hit

the furthest peg each time was more rewarding to the creative individual than totaling the

highest point score, just as the act of painting can be rewarding regardless of social praise

or monetary reward. This also relates to a common trait of creative individuals to not be

the ‘best student’ in school as they typically follow their interests rather than concerning

them self with academic rewards. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

Preference for Disorder – This is best represented through what is called the

‘line test’. A group of participants were asked to choose their favorite picture from a

series of pictures. The pictures were either characterized by very straight lines and

centered composition or very complex design on lines with off center compositions. The

32


creative individuals were more likely choose the complex off center pictures. This

implies a desire for chaos as well as the ability to navigate through it. (Dacey, Lennon,

1998)

Freedom from Sex-Role Stereotyping – This trait involves an individual’s

disregard for the socially perceived gender role. This is not necessarily related to sexual

preference but more the freedom of the individual to define them self with androgynous

characteristics. For instance creative males often exhibit many feminine characteristics

and creative females often exhibit many masculine characteristics. (Dacey, Lennon,

1998)

Perseverance – It has been demonstrated throughout history that creative

individuals are more likely to make multiple attempts at a specific task. (Dacey, Lennon,

1998)

Courage - Courage can be related to all of these traits but is given its own

category because of the nature of the definition of creativity. An individual who engages

creativity must always have the courage to be a minority of one. If an individual has

created a new method, idea, avenue of expression than there must be by definition

nothing to relate it to. (Dacey, Lennon, 1998)

If one considers the interrelationship between all of these traits a particular type of

individual begins to emerge. An individual that, perhaps due to their lack of fear of

failure, is willing to look at an object in context of his ultimate goal rather than the

objects intended purpose. A person that finds intrinsic reward in the act of problem

solving and in fact seeks out environments that require complex problem solving. A

person that has the courage and confidence to define them self based on characteristics

33


that suit them rather than socially constructed ones. And lastly an individual who is so

fearless when facing failure they are willing to attempt success as many times as

necessary.

The type of person who fits all those characteristic most likely does not exist. And

these traits, by definition, are only associated with creative people, it is doubtful that

someone would exhibit all these traits. However; many of the core characteristics of these

traits can be related to object relations, more specifically to Winnicott’s ‘true self’.

Based on the traits outlined above, creativity requires a combination of ‘adequate

intelligence, imagination, confidence, internal trust and a strong sense of self. As stated

before, if the caretaker supplies ‘good enough’ care to adequately meet the child’s needs,

the child is then given a sense of control within her own life. The nature of the confluent

relationship between the caretaker and child results in the child identifying ‘itself’ as the

entity satisfying its needs. This coincides with the ‘potential space’ and allows the child

to gain autonomy at its own pace. The child who is allowed freedom of expression of

desire for autonomy and is accommodated completely by the caretaker then develops a

sense of ‘true self.’

There are three central concepts in regard to the caretaker meeting the needs of

the child, they are physical holding, handling and object presentation. If when holding

and handling the caretaker always ‘set ups’ or prepares the child to be moved or let down

the child develops a sense of anticipation and then a sense of control. This is to say if the

caretaker gives a cue to the child, for instance saying, “Up we go” rather than just picking

her up, she will feel included in the process and thereby assert a degree of control. The

presentation of objects also must be regulated by the child’s desire, thereby establishing a

34


sense of control. For instance if a parent forces a child to play with an object in a certain

fashion or removes the child’s desired object for any number of reasons the child will

begin to feel helpless even when at play. However, if the parent engages with the child in

‘good enough’ fashion, using the concepts outlined above, the child will ultimately

develop a sense of control and internal security, resulting in the ego strength to actively

explore within them self and have less dependence on the rules and structures of a culture

or their environment. This may present itself simply by playing with toys in unorthodox

manners and generally using their environment to satisfy their needs rather than relying

on it to do so, which is a fundamental component of creativity as was demonstrated

through functional and stimulus freedom. This type of behavior in adult life can be

illustrated through a myriad of examples on multiple levels from Picasso inventing

cubism because he wished to draw with the innocence he did as a child, to Martin Luther

King Jr. standing against injustice, to someone who enjoys cooking but uses their own

recipes to satisfy their tastes rather than a cookbook. All exhibit a sense of true self and

the confidence to execute the desire of that self.

If these needs are not met, if the child is consistently regulated by external rules

they will develop a ‘false self’ which is to say, a muted personality that complies

complacently to rules and regulations even if unnecessary. The false self in many ways is

considered healthy in small doses when reacting to social graces. For instance, if an

individual is having a particularly bad day and someone asks how they are doing the

response will generally be ‘I’m fine.’ But in those situations the individual should not

feel as though they were being false to them self, merely that they were being polite for

convenience or in respect of others recognized autonomy. However, the extent to which

35


an individual should exhibit their false self in minimal. Ultimately the individual should

feel the confidence, control and right to express them self freely when engaged in any

activity. This coupled with an understanding of the activity should aid in creativity.

However, as discussed earlier in this paper, artists such as Emily Dickinson, who

did not appear to get ‘adequate care’, were still very creative. It would then be

unreasonable to make the assertion that a sense of one’s ‘true self’ is requirement for

creativity. However, an argument could be made, based on the traits outlined by research,

that an individual’s sense of ‘true self’ could increase the likelihood of them being more

creative.

The limitations of the ‘true self’ in regards to creativity can be mediated by the

concept of ‘potential space’. As described above, ‘potential space’ is intrinsically tied in

with the concept of one’s ‘true self’. Winnicott considered ‘potential space’ to be the

basis of creativity. Potential space is essentially an area of experience that conciliates

between an individual’s internal psychic structure and their external world. In this

potential space we are primarily motivated to satisfy our own needs. It is within this

space that we organize concepts of the outside world as well as compartmentalize our

experiences in ways that satisfy our illusions, fantasies and needs. Since we create these

organizational structures within our ‘potential space’ it follows that we also alter those

structures based on changing needs or goals. This is why Emily Dickenson was still able

to be creative regardless of parenting or interpersonal health. (Poulin, Diamond,?)

As described earlier, Winnicott’s concept of the ‘basic default’ consists of a child

attempting to satisfy her own needs due to lack of compatible child caretaker relationship.

To satisfy those needs the child must engage in ‘potential space’ and rely on her own

36


internal structure as well as elements of the outside world. So although she may not get

her needs completely satisfied by her caretaker, she may still engage in ‘potential space’

allowing her to be creative, and in many instances more creative than most, in attempting

to satisfy her needs. However, lack of an adequate child-caretaker relationship can be

debilitating in that the child most likely won’t clearly understand what his needs are

because they were never fully met. A pathological motivation behind creativity could

then be the result of misunderstood needs and the motivation for recreating ‘potential

space’ would be a reparative measure to attempt to discover what those needs are and

how to satisfy them. This model could be extended to creative individuals in general. If

as children we enter our ‘potential space’ to explore and satisfy our needs creatively, than

as adults, creativity would consist of recreating that ‘potential space’ in the pursuit of

problem solving.

Discussion

The ultimate implications when comparing the common traits associated with

creativity, Torrance’s definition of creativity and the relationship between pathology and

self expression is profound.

If the definition proposed by Torrance is applied to artists and pathology one

realizes that creativity, in general, is a problem solving measure. Artists often engage

with their product with the intention of exploring their needs in an attempt to satisfy

them. Within this definition creative artists would be more sensitive to internal conflicts

that could be resolved through art. Artists then aren’t necessarily more pathological than

the average individual; their motivation to solve internal conflict may be due to their

37


creativity more so than the degree of pathology. It is also likely that, when considering

the preference for disorder often exhibited by creative people, that their pathology is a

result of their creativity as was described earlier in this paper.

The assertion that creativity is a problem solving measure is further validated by

Winnicott’s theory of ‘potential space’ being the basis of creativity.

Conclusion

Creativity is a frustrating concept. In many ways it is contrary to the human spirit.

As human beings we have adapted and evolved to understand, categorize and manipulate

all that we can learn, see, touch or use. We cannot however, uniformly discover a method

to standardize or engage in creativity. This is ironic when one considers that it is

creativity that has allowed us to manipulate and understand the world around us.

One has to wonder if, considering the evidence, we are all born creative

individuals. That is to say, that we are born thinking only of the problems that face us and

how to solve them. We do not yet understand that we have received or can receive

assistance in any manner. We see the world with fresh untaught eyes and only perceive

objects in terms of their relationship to our unmet goals. But it is the nature of our

organization that we form societies that accommodate and homogenize us by creating a

structure that ultimately leave us dependent and complacent. Our true self washed out as

we grind against the ‘right ways’ and ‘appropriate behavior’ in our youth. It is our

psychological nature to be creative set against our sociological need to be understood so

we can feel safe. Our potential space is traded for security. This may not be a bad trade,

38


no need to be idealistic. But when one studies topics like these, you can’t help but

wonder, what if…

Bibliography –

Adams, L. S. (1993) Art and Psychoanalysis New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publishers

Arons, M. (1972) Creativity, Humanistic Psychology, and the Emerging

American Consciousness Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~psydept/arons-

creativity.html

Daniels, V. (2007) Object Relations Theory (Sonoma State University)

Retrieved from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html

Dacey, J. S., Lennon, K. H. (1998) Understanding Creativity: The interplay of

Biological, Psychological and Social Factors San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishing

Eysenck, H. (1995) Genius: The Natural History of Creativity

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press

Freeman, M. (1993) Finding the Muse: A Sociopsychological Inquiry into the conditions

Of Artistic creativity Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press

Glover, N. (2005) Psychoanalytic Aesthetics: The British School.

The Human Nature Review Retrieved from http://human-nature.com/free-

associations/glover/chap1.html

Grove, C. (2000) The Creativity Web

Retrieved from http://members.optusnet.com.au/~charles57/Creative/index2.html

Gutbezahl, J., Averill, J. R. (1996) Individual Differences in Emotional Creativity as

39

ttp://human-nature.com/free-a

ttp://human-nature.com/free-a

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html

http://www.westga.edu/~psydept/arons-%20%20creativity.html

http://www.westga.edu/~psydept/arons-%20%20creativity.html


Manifested in Words and Pictures. Creativity Research Journal vol. 9, No. 4,

Pages 327-337 Retrieved from EBSCO host

Haussman, C.R. (1984) A Discourse on Novelty and Creation

New York, NY: State University of New York Press

Herrman, N. (1989) The Creative Brain

The Ned Herrman Group

Ishaq, A. (2006) Essay Development of Children’s Creativity to Foster Peace

Medicine and creativity, vol. 368 December 2006 Retrieved from EBSCO Host

Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D. (2007) Emotional Intelligence and Emotional

Creativity Journal of Personality, April2007, Vol. 75 Issue 2, Pages 199-236

Retrieved from EBSCO host

Paul, R., Elder, L. (2006) Critical Thinking: The Nature of Critical and Creative Thought

Journal of Developmental Education Winter2006 Vol. 30, Issue 2 Retrieved from

EBSCO host

Poulin, K. L., Diamond, M. A. (?) Adapting to the Speed of Organizational

Change: Maintaining the Dialectical Interplay Between Destructive and Creative

Processes University of Missouri-Columbia

Kim, K. H. (2006) Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of

Creative Thinking (TTCT) Creativity Research Journal, 2006, vol. 18, no.

1, (3-14) Retrieved from EBSCO Host

Klee, T. (2007) Object Relations Theory and Therapy

Retrieved from http://www.objectrelations.org/introduction.htm

40

http://www.objectrelations.org/introduction.htm


Osche, A. (1991) Why There Were Relatively Few Eminent Woman Creators

Journal of Creative Behavior, Issue 25 vol. 4 pgs. 334 - 343

Miller, A. I. (2001) Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time, and the Beauty that Causes Havoc

New York, NY: Basic Books

Quigley, T.R. (1998) Freudian, Lacanian, and Object Relations Theory

Retrieved from http://cepa.newschool.edu/~quigleyt/vcs/psychoanalysis.html

Scharff, J.S. Projective and Introjective Identification and the use of the therapist’s self

Scharff, J.S., Scharff, D. E. (1987) Object Relations Family Therapy Library of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Shoham, S.G. (2002) Art, Crime and Madness

Great Britain: Sussex Academic Press

Sternberg, R. T. (1999) Handbook of Creativity

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press

Tatarkiwicz, W. (1980) A History of Six [Aesthetic] Ideas

Translated from the Polish by Christopher Kasparek, The Hague: Martinus

Nijhoff. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creativity

Wright, D. (2006) ‘The Alabaster Woman’

41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creativity

a survey of creativity. an object relations perspective

Documents