|
|
Perspective
Dimensions of Creativity
by
V. Sundaram
 Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his masterpiece of a book titled 'Creativity'
starts with the question: 'What is creativity?' According to him
creativity is some sort of mental activity, an insight that occurs
inside the heads of some special people.
But this assumption is
misleading.
If he means by creativity any new idea or action that is
valuable, then we cannot simply accept without scrutiny or question a
person's own account of the criterion for its existence. There is no way
of knowing whether a thought is new or a concept is new except with
reference to some known and accepted standards and there is no way of
declaring whether it is valuable until it passes the test of social
evaluation.
 Therefore, creativity does not happen inside people's heads,
but in the interaction between a person's thoughts and the
socio-cultural context. It is a systemic rather than an individual
phenomenon. Creativity brings into existence something genuinely new
that is valued or becomes valuable enough to be added to the culture of
a nation and its society.
The term 'creativity' is a very generic term and covers a very vast
ground. It refers to very different entities, thus causing a great deal
of confusion.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi says that there are at least three
different types of phenomena that can legitimately be called by the name
of creativity.
-
The first usage, widespread in day to day conversation,
refers to persons who are interesting and stimulating - in short, to
people who seem to be extraordinarily clever or agile or bright. One
noted for his brilliant conversation, a man with varied interests and a
swooping mind, may be called 'creative' in this sense. The point to be
noted is that unless they contribute something of permanent
significance, it is better to refer to people of this kind as
'brilliant' rather than 'creative'.
-
In the second usage, the term 'creativity' can be used to refer to
individuals who experience the world in new, original, novel and untrodden ways. Their perceptions are fresh, judgements are insightful,
who may make important discoveries that only they know about. In view of
the highly subjective nature of this form of creativity, it becomes
difficult to deal with it in a methodical manner for communication no
matter how important it is for those who experience it.
-
The third use of the term refers to great men of destiny like Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931), Pablo Picasso
(1881-1973) or Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who have changed our culture
in some important or vital respect. They are the creative ones without
qualifications. By virtue of the fact that their achievements are by
definition 'Public', it is easier to record or write about them.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi declares with conviction that whereas some of
the people who have had the greatest impact on history did not show any
originality or brilliance in their behaviour, except for the
accomplishments they left behind. He says that Leonardo da Vinci, one of
the most creative persons in the third sense of the term outlined above,
was apparently reclusive and almost compulsive in his behaviour. If you
had met him at a cocktail party, you would have thought that he was a
tiresome bore and would have left him standing in a corner as soon as
possible. To quote the clinching words of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in
this context: 'Neither Isaac Newton nor Thomas Alva Edison would have
been considered assets at a party either, and outside of their
scientific concerns they appeared colourless and driven. The biographers
of outstanding creators struggle valiantly to make their subjects
interesting and brilliant, yet more often than not their efforts are in
vain. The accomplishments of a Michelangelo (1475-1564), a Beethoven
(1770-1827), a Picasso (1881-1973), or an Einstein (1879-1955) are
awesome in their respective fields - but their private lives, their
every day ideas and actions, would seldom warrant another thought were
it not that their specialised accomplishments made everything they said
or did of interest'.
What are the traits that distinguish 'creative people'? If we have to
put it in one word, what makes their creative personalities different
from others, we have to call it 'Complexity'. By this I mean they show
tendencies of thought and action that in most people are segregated.
They contain contrary extremes - instead of being an 'Individual', each
of them is a 'Multitude'. Like the colour white that includes all the
hues in the spectrum, they tend to bring together the entire range of
human possibilities within themselves. The great American biographer
Carl Sandburg's (1878-1967) description of the personality of Abraham
Lincoln (1809-1865) becomes very relevant in this context: 'Not often in
the story of mankind does a man like Abraham Lincoln arrive on earth,
who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and soft as
drifting fog, who holds in his heart and mind the paradox of terrible
storm and peace unspeakable and perfect'. We can say the same thing
about all great 'creative individuals' who have influenced world
history, world culture and world civilization.
We can illustrate in terms of ten pairs of antithetical traits that are
often present in creative individuals. In such human beings these
opposing traits are seen integrated with each other in a dialectical
tension.
- Firstly, creative individuals have a great deal of tireless physical
energy, but they are also often quiet and at rest. They work for
long hours with great concentration, while projecting an aura of
freshness and enthusiasm.
- Secondly, creative individuals tend to be smart and also naïve at the
same time.
- Thirdly, we notice in creative individuals the extraordinary combination
of playfulness and discipline, or responsibility and irresponsibility.
- Fourthly, creative individuals alternate between imagination and fantasy
at one end and a rooted sense of reality at the other. Both are
necessary to break away from the present without losing touch with the
past. Albert Einstein wrote an essay in which he said that art and
science are two of the greatest forms of escape from reality that humans
have devised. Great art and science involve a leap of imagination into a
world that is different from the present. The rest of society often
views these ideas as fantasies without relevance to current reality. The
whole purpose of art and science is to go beyond what we now consider as
real, and create a new reality.
- Fifthly, creative people seem to harbour opposite tendencies on the
continuum between extroversion and introversion.
- Sixthly, creative individuals are remarkably humble and proud at the
same time. They are aware of the fact that they stand, in Isaac Newton's
words: 'On the shoulders of giants'.
- Seventhly, creative individuals to a great extent escape the rigid Male
and Female gender stereotyping. When tests of masculinity/ femininity
are given to young people, over and over again it has been noticed that
creative and talented girls are 'more dominant' and 'tough' than other
girls; and creative boys are 'more sensitive' and ''less aggressive'
than their male peers.
- Eighthly, creative people are often found to be both 'traditional' and
'conservative' on the one hand and at the same time 'rebellious' and
'iconoclastic' on the other.
- Ninthly, most creative persons are capable of being both 'passionate'
about their work and at the same time being extremely 'objective' about
it as well.
- Lastly, the 'openness' and 'sensitivity' of creative individuals exposes
them to 'suffering and pain' yet also a great deal of 'enjoyment'.
These ten pairs of contrasting personality traits seem to be the most
telling characteristics of creative people. All great creative people
often describe the auto telic aspects of their work in terms of
exhilaration that comes from the pursuit of truth and of beauty. They
seem to describe the joy of discovery, of solving a problem, of being
able to express an observed relationship in a simple and elegant form.
For them, it is the 'pursuit' that counts, not the 'attainment'. Of
course, this distinction may seem to be misleading because without
occasional successes, any scientist can also get discouraged.
According to Nobel Laureate Physist Subramanyan Chandrasekar
(1910-1995), what makes science intrinsically rewarding is the everyday
practice, not the rare or uncertain success. To quote his brilliant
words describing his own motivation:
'There are two things about me
which people generally don't know. I have never worked in anything which
is glamorous in any sense. That is point number one. Point number two: I
have always worked in areas which, during the time I have worked on
them, did not attract attention. The word 'success' is an ambiguous
word. 'Success' with respect to the outside? Of success with respect to
oneself? And if it is a success with respect to the outside, then how do
you evaluate it? Very often outside success is irrelevant, wrong and
misplaced. So, how can one think about it? Externally you may think I am
successful because people write about some aspects of my work. But that
is an external judgement. And I have no idea as to how to value that
judgement. Success is not one of my motives. Because success stands in
contrast to failure. But no worthwhile effort in one's life is either a
success or a failure. What do you mean by success? You take a problem
and you want to solve it. Well, if you solve it, in a limited sense it
is success. But it may be a trivial problem. So, a judgement about
success is not something about which I have ever been serious about in
any sense whatsoever.'
A great and creative scientist like Chandrasekar does not study nature
only because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes
pleasure in it, and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If
nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would
not be worth living. Such men seek the intimate beauty which comes from
the harmonious order of its parts and which a pure intelligence can
grasp.
February
14, 2007
Top
|
Perspective
|
|
