Is creativity an individual human trait? Can only some people tap into the Source? Or can we all be inspired?
Eysenck, one of the most important proponent of trait theory in psychology, evaluated the traits of an individual with the help of quite primitive questionnaires.. By the answers, he thought to be able to place a human being within a scale of four extremes: extroversion, introversion, neurocitism and stability. Basically, he improved Galen’s categorization of humans as melancholics, phlegmatics, cholerics or people of sanguine.temperament. Galen created these categories in 200 AD. Although Eysenck put a lot of stress on measurability, he finally had to admit that his theory could not be proved in a scientific way. (Pervin et al. 2005).
Eysenck wrote: “The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change; he is carefree, easygoing, optimistic, and ‘likes to laugh and be merry’. He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive and loses his temper quickly; altogether his feeling are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reliable person” (Eysenck and Rachman, 1965). Eysenck admits that this sounds like a caricature but he was rock-solid in his belief that he could place individuals within his scale. The idea that neither the persons which developed the questionnaire nor the ones which evaluated the answers might be unbiased, did not occur to him.
G.A. Kelly noticed as early as 1955 that such perceptions could never be objective. They tell us more about the creator of the categories than about the categorized.. If I am in a group of people and someone known to me but unknown to the others goes by and I point to him and claim that he is untrustworthy, then all eyes will be on him. As if my claim could be verified by visual inspection.
In cinemoose.com’s blog it is said about film characters that “character is what a person says or does in any given situation. That’s it. That’s what distinguishes one person from another. The words they say, actions they take and their reactions to events. That’s all character is” (Cinemoose 2008). This is also true for the real world.
So why is one individual a genius and another just an office clerk?. The question is whether this is not just an illusion. Of course, in order to create something you need the guts to take a risk. You need to break some of the rules some of the time but not all of the rules all of the time. To break the rules you must know them in the first place. So, you’re in need of a bit of arrogance and a basic level of intelligence. But most of all, to be treated like an artist you must behave like an artist is supposed to behave. If you go to the office every morning, you can’t be serious about your art. You are categorized as a hobbyist. If you are lucky, that is.
The hegemony of art critics decides what is art and what is not. But they don’t stop at this. They also decide what is a masterpiece and what is inferior – although they might not always agree on this and the valuation is also likely to change over time. But is there an objective criterion for something to be a masterpiece? Of course not! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The art critic Riegl once has claimed “that art is incomplete without the perceptual and emotional involvement of the viewer.” (Kandel, 2012)
So the work of art is not created by the artist but by the recipient. It is them who turn noises into a great symphony. But they need to believe in the idea that what they hear is really a great symphony. It’s the hegemony who tells them so. But even though, sometimes the listeners will not comply. A lot of people refuse to hear anything but noise when they listen to atonal music. And of course, especially for adolescents, music is a way to define what they are. So the music the in-group listens to is cool, other styles are disgusting.
Eastern religions always claimed that there is no such thing as an ego (Kumar, S, 2011). If consciousness is just a delusion caused by biochemical processes in our brain, where can creativity come from? Religious people may say from God, the One, the Source. From my own experience being creative means nothing more than picking randomly some elements which may satisfy the set rules or break them. It is not a process controlled by consciousness. Hence some say it is inspiration. But what says us that the choice we made was an inspired one? Since we are able to see the outcome as great achievement or as mishap alike, the choice we made might as well have been totally random.
If we for one moment accept that creativity is a random process, is it then not possible for a software program to be creative? The random number generator is part of the same world as we, so why can’t it be “inspired” by the Source? If you think that I’m talking utter nonsense than try the opposite. Maybe it’s all just a delusion. There is no music. There is no art which is inspired by a higher realm. If consciousness is a delusion then everything else is too.There is only noise – and it’s only biochemistry that plays us for the fool.
References
Eysenck und Rachman (1965) ‘Dimensions of personality’ in Eysenck, H.J. and Rachman, S. (eds) Causes and Cures of Neurosis, London:Routledge
Kandel, E (2012) The Age Of Insight – the Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, New York:Random House
Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York:Norton
Kumar, S (2011) “Goodbye, Ego” in Times Of India,http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-19/holistic-living/30172374_1_ego-true-knowledge-unhappiness
Pervin/Cervone/John (2005) Persönlichkeitstheorien 5. Aufl. München/Basel:Reinhardt UTB
Semantics and Transference 