Creativity is a Label for the Aggregated, Time – Dependent, Subjective Judgments by Creators and by Adopters

• Authors: Seana Moran
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The first premise is that creativity requires a focal perceiver perspective to be determined or assigned. As criteria for perception or judgment, what we currently consider “dimensions” of creativity instead may be “precursors.” Ultimately, creativity shifts meaning for the whole culture. The second premise is that creativity requires a temporal perspective: its assessment is time-dependent on the first instance the perceiver notices. If the perceiver accepts the creative “ it,” then it is shared for others to judge it, creating a diffusion and adaptation process. The strongest form of creativity, then, is when it stands the test of time, goes beyond its own zeitgeist, and is institutionalized for future generations.

Keywords

EN

Creativity judgment; Vygotsky

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 64-69

Dates

published

2015-06-01

received

2014-10-31

revised

2014-12-19

accepted

2014-12-20

online

2015-05-26

Contributors

author

Seana Moran

• Clark University, USA

References

• Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
• Becker, M. (1995). Nineteenth-century foundations of creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 3, 219-229.[Crossref]
• Christensen, C. M. (1997), The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
• Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E., (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1, 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.
• Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 8-26.
• Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Creative Behavior, 4, 3, 149-170.[Crossref]
• Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.[WoS]
• Moran, S. (2009). What role does commitment play among writers with different levels of creativity? Creativity Research Journal,21, 2-3, 243-257.[WoS]
• Moran, S. (2010). Commitment and creativity: Transforming experience into art. In C. Connery, V. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to meaning-making, play, and the arts (pp. 141-160). New York: Peter Lang.
• Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contribution to the dialectic of creativity and development. In K. Sawyer et al., Creativity and development (pp. 61-90). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107-120.
• Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future direction in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 36-39.
• Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.[WoS]
• Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 1, 151-158.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83-100.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 7, 677-688.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/ctra-2015-0009