Artistic Creativity

Author(s): John Hospers

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Spring, 1985), pp. 243-
255
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/430638
Accessed: 25-03-2018 14:13 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/430638?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN HOSPERS

Artistic Creativity

THERE ARE SOME philosophical problems by why works of art have the enormous impact
which become more intractable the longer one that they do: why a few colored splotches of
thinks about them; and just as one becomes paint on a canvas have the power to keep an
convinced that he has it right, some new observer fascinated to the point of an enduring
consideration descends upon him to uncon- obsession; or why violin-playing-which as
vince him again. I would give a great deal, for Irwin Edman used to say is nothing but the
example, to come across a totally satisfying hair of a horse scraping over the intestines of a
solution to the free-will problem, or an cat-can transport listeners into mystical rap-
account of the mind-body problem at least tures or the paralyzing conviction that they
definitive enough to relegate all competing now know the meaning of life. More than that,
views to the status of phlogiston theory. I am mystified that a certain combination of
Such issues also occur in the philosophy of tones has the power to do this, while another
art; but the most interesting issues are those combination of tones almost identical to it falls
which it is unfortunately most difficult to talk utterly flat and induces only boredom. I am
about clearly. It is not terribly difficult, for still amazed that the experience of certain
example, to be clear about the ways in which works of art is so powerfully moving that for
something would count as a work of art in one the moment at least the destiny of the world
sense of the term but not in another, or to seems insignificant by comparison. While
distinguish the ways in which words like grateful that it is so, I see no convincing
"form" and "feeling" are used. Doing these reason why it should be so.
things is useful and important, especially for One such problem is the problem of artistic
those whose discourse exhibits the need for creativity. It is in fact a cluster of problems,
such clarifications. But they fail to touch on including such questions as: What are the
the things that seem, especially to most springs of artistic creativity? Why is it that
students in aesthetics classes, to make the some persons are highly creative and others are
pursuit of the arts worthwhile. It is easy to not? What is it that enables some artists to
specify in what ways literature is and in what create works of enduring value, to which one
ways it is not like a performing art-an issue can be repeatedly exposed without tiring of
introduced by Urmson a few years ago-but them, whereas others, highly similar to them,
much more difficult to explicate what is are felt to be trite or derivative or superficial or
involved in calling a work of music profound. contrived? And what is the process of artistic
I confess to being puzzled and amazed even creativity itself? In spite of many wise words
from the time of my first interest in aesthetics devoted to the subject,' the actual process
seems, to coin a phrase, like a mystery
The Presidential Address, 1984; The American
wrapped inside an enigma.
Society for Aesthetics.
I cannot pretend to offer much in the way of
JOHN HOSPERS is professor of philosophy at the answers to these questions. All I can hope to
University of Southern California. do is offer a few observations, perhaps instill a

? 1985 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
244 HO S P E R S

feeling for the problems, and help to explode a with the pedestrian task of defining it, or at
few theories. least distinguishing it from other activities with
which it is likely to be confused.
I.
Creation is a kind of activity. But not all
kinds of activity are creative. (1) New-born
"When we look over the studies and chicks "play dead" at a sign of danger;
writings on creativity," writes psychologist salmon swim upstream to their original
Rollo May, "the first thing that strikes us is spawning grounds. But these activities, we
the paucity and inadequacy of the work. In say, are genetically programmed, and for that
academic psychology after the time of Williamreason we do not call them creative. (2) Some
James and during the first half of this century,activities are simply "mechanical." A man
the subject has been generally avoided as places ten identical billiard balls into ten slots
unscientific, mysterious, disturbing, and too designed to fit them. A child uses colored
corruptive of the scientific training of graduate paints to color a visual design already outlined
students. Or, when some studies of creativity in ink on the paper, with printed numbers
were actually made, they were in peripheral indicating which color is to be used to fill each
areas which creative people themselves felt space. Such activity is not held to be creative,
really had next to nothing to do with as it would be if the child drew a design on a
creativity."2 blank sheet, using his own imagination. And
Some years ago a professor of journalism why not? Because the child is proceeding
at U.C.L.A. came to his colleague, psy- according to a precise set of instructions: it is
chology professor J. P. Guilford, and asked specified in advance what the boundary-line of
him what psychologists knew about creativity. each color will be, and which colors are to go
He had a strong desire, he said, to develop where. All the child has to do is carry out
talents for creativity among his students. instructions to achieve an end which is
Guilford told him, with considerable regret, precisely known in advance of his activities.
that there was really nothing that psychologists Thus we arrive at one feature at the outset:
knew about the subject.3 in creative activity you do not know when you
Neither can physiologists or neurologists begin the activity what the end-product will be
tell us much about it. They can locate the like. You "do not know the end in the
capacity for creativity in brain hemispheres, beginning." You do not even know whether
but that tells us only what one necessary you will be able or willing to finish the job.
condition for creativity is; it tells us something You work your way gradually, "intuitively,"
about that without which creativity cannot toward that end-product without knowing what
occur, but nothing about the specific condi- final form it will take.
tions under which it does occur. Nor is anyone In his essay "On the Creation of Art,"4
able to predict its occurrence. Who is there Monroe Beardsley distinguishes two theories
who could have foretold when Mozart was of artistic creation. The first, which he calls
born that he would be able from a very early the propulsive theory, holds that the artist
age to create works so memorable that they begins with a few words that occur to him (if
would be performed constantly for centuries to he is a poet) or a few tones of melody (if he is
come, whereas his siblings and cousins, raised a composer), and when these occur to him he
in a virtually identical environment, were is then propelled forward to the completion of
unable even with great effort to generate as a poem or song whose details he could not
much as a single memorable melody? What foresee in the beginning. He begins with what
mysterious ingredient was there in Mozart's William James called a "big blooming buzzing
nature that was not present in the others? To confusion" and gradually orders his material
such questions we have no more of even the until he has it as he wants it. This theory has
hint of an answer than there was in Mozart's been set forth, in various versions, by Croce,
own day. Dewey, Collingwood, and others.5
What, then, as philosophers of art, can we According to the second theory, which
say about creativity? We can at least begin Beardsley calls the finalistic theory, the artist

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity 245

begins with some idea of what he wants the scious) guiding criteria in mind, else he would
completed work to be, and the creative process not be able to reject certain words and phrases
consists of working toward that goal. The that come to him as inappropriate from his
purpose and accept others, and thus (it could
completed artwork acts as a kind of Aristotelian
final cause of the process that leads to its be alleged) the process illustrates the finalistic
realization. When the artist has finished the theory. The two allegedly distinct theories
tunnel from different directions to reach the
work guided by that initial concept, his artistic
goal has been realized. same point.
I confess to not seeing any real difference
between these two theories. According to the II.
propulsive theory, the artist begins with very
little, a fragment of melody perhaps. He There are other suggested characteristics
doesn't know exactly where he's going from of the process of creation, to which we now
there, but he must have some idea of what he turn.
wants, for he is able to accept some alternative 1. Creating, says one writer after another
possible developments and reject others, andin the Aristotelian tradition, is a kind of
how can he do this if he has no conception of making: not every kind of making, as we have
what he is aiming at? Alternatively, one could seen, is creating, but all creating involves
say, in accordance with the finalistic theory, making. Making what? Some kind of product
that he knows what he wants all along, he justwhich is made. This is typically and most
develops a fuller realization of his initial obviously true in the visual arts: here is the
concept (Beardsley calls it an "incept") as he product of the artist's efforts, the painting or
proceeds. Of course, he doesn't have a very statue standing before us. But when one tries
complete idea; if he envisaged at the outset to apply it to the performing arts one has to
exactly what the poem would be like, with extend one's idea of a product in order to make
every word in its proper order, then he would the theory fit: it is even disputable what the
already have created the poem: the creative product is. In music and drama, is the product
process would already be complete. Thus, the a written score, or a performance, or an ideal
idea of an end-product that he has at the performance, or a set or class of such
beginning can't be all that detailed; perhaps it performances, or certain features which all
is just a kind of potentiality, as the acorn is to performances have in common, or what? There
the oak tree. Perhaps it is only, in Henry is no product in the clear and easy sense we
James's words, "the germ of an idea." But in encounter in the visual arts.
that case, how is this theory different from the But let's grant that in art there is always a
first one? product of some sort. When we turn to creative
If you read a poet's account of how a activity outside the arts, however, there would
poem was created, how would you tell which seem often to be no product at all, no thing
of these two theories the poet's account that is made. A person can be highly creative
confirms? I suggest that you couldn't tell at in disturbing others, nagging them, scaring
all-that every account of artistic creation can them, shocking them, calming them down; but
be accommodated to either theory. Even when no object results from these activities. There is
the poet has a fairly detailed idea of what he certainly nothing we can look at or listen to
wants the poem to be, as Poe did when he time and again, as in the case of art products.
wrote "The Raven" (as he explains in his Thus creative activity may, but need not, result
essay "The Philosophy of Composition"), one in the existence of a product which is made.
could still say that he was feeling his way from 2. Creation, it is said, is always out of
a tentative and inchoate idea to a more specific pre-existent materials, from which the created
and detailed one as he went along, and thus product is made, and creation consists not in
that the process he described exemplifies the bringing these materials into existence but in
propulsion theory. And even when the poet has arranging them in an order which did not exist
very little idea what final shape his product before. The sculptor requires clay or stone, the
will assume, he has some (perhaps uncon- painter uses paints and canvas, and so on. He

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 246 HOS PERS

creates by changing the form which these existed before, other than in his mind alone. If
materials take on, but for this he needs the contents of his mind constitutes "mater-
pre-existing matter whose form is changed ials,"
by then so be it, but this is not "materials"
his creative activity. in any usual sense of that term. To insist that
The usual exception given to this account artistic creation always requires materials is
of creation is God's creation of the universe, one of countless examples of taking certain
which at least according to St. Augustine arts as paradigms, such as painting and
(whether it is so in Genesis I and II is architecture, and conceiving of all the other
somewhat controversial) took place ex nihilo. arts as if they followed the same pattern.
Out of nothing God made something. God, 3. It is also tempting, and indeed quite
the creator, was already present, but not any customary, to say that when creation occurs
physical materials out of which to fashion thesomething is brought into being that never
universe. (The Greek gods, by contrast, existed before, something unique, something
always had pre-existing materials.) But this that differs, even if only slightly, from every
idea is, to say the least, a very troublesome other thing that has ever existed in history.
one. Would it be creation if there was nothing "The creative process," writes Carl Rogers,
out of which to create? What would such "is the emergence in action of a novel product,
"creating" be but finding that somethinggrowingjust out of the uniqueness of the individual
popped into existence? Perhaps one could on the one hand, and the materials, events,
conclude, through repeated trials, that it people, or circumstances of his life on the
popped into existence as a result of one's other."5 "The word 'creation'," writes
command: one says "Let there be light" and psychologist Henry Murray, "points either to a
there is light; one says "Let there be a moon" process which results in something new, or to
and lo, there is a moon. But what did such a the resultant of this process, a new composi-
creator do except give a command? Has he tion, regardless of its value, destiny, or
really created anything, or has he simply consequences.''6 It is tempting to say, then,
found, perhaps to his surprise, that when he that in art-creation one must combine certain
gives a command, what he commands always elements in a new way, such as never yet
happens? And is this creation? existed in the world. Thus creation has been
At any rate, we are told, nothing like this defined partially in terms of some degree of
occurs in the arts, or for that matter in any originality on the part of the creating artist.
human (as opposed to divine) creation: in the But none of this is obvious either.
arts all creation is out of something that existed Suppose that poet A writes a sonnet, and that
before the creative activity took place. But let later poet B, not knowing of A's existence and
us not be too hasty in assuming even this. A entirely uninfluenced by him, composes an
poet, let us say, finds that some words identical sonnet-the same words in the same
suddenly pop into his mind, much as the order. This may be highly improbable, but it is
universe popped into existence in the Augus- surely not impossible. Wasn't B just as
tinian story. Then he thinks of some more creative in his labors as A was? He worked at
words, combines them, selects, rejects, adds, it just as hard, he had an initial inspiration
and so on, all this without ever setting pen to which he followed through, he went through
paper. But when he has finished this process to the same "divine agonies" of creation, until at
his satisfaction, hasn't he created a poem? And last he felt that he had it "just right." As far
what did he create it out of? Certainly out of as the creative process is concerned, both poets
nothing material. Out of nothing but his own were creative, even though their poems turned
thoughts and feelings and words floating out to be identical. This sort of thing happens
through his mind he created a poem. But this all the time in technological creation, when an
could be equally true of the Augustinian God, invention by A is independently conceived of
who preceded the universe, and who presum- by B thousands of miles away. It is less likely
ably also underwent mental processes before to happen in art, where the number of elements
his fiat produced the world. In neither case did to be combined is so much greater (what are
the creator fashion something out of what the chances that two people would indepen-

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity 247

dently write the same novel, the same 300,000 like them occur again, but the same event
words in the same order?), but surely it could doesn't occur again. The same flame doesn't
happen. arise from friction a second time any more
The works of A and B were identical. than the same work is created a second time; at
Both A's and B's activities were creative. The most, a work like it may be created.
copyright would go to A, who created it first. Secondly, there is a difference between
As conceived by the creators, although not by "repeatable" and "unique." Doubtless every
the Copyright Office, both works were existing work of art is unique in that it isn't
original. Whether a work of art is original isexactly like any other. But isn't this true of
"objectively" determined, not by making anypractically everything? No two grains of sand,
investigation of the creative process, but by no two drops of water, are exactly alike.
examining the work of art in relation to its Uniqueness is par for the course in nature.
predecessors in the same medium. If two There is nothing very special about unique-
works are not identical but even extremely ness. Works of art that are trivial, dull,
similar, the Copyright Office may decide that ponderous, and trite are also unique, each in
the second one was copied from the first and its own inimitable way. It isn't uniqueness, but
not grant the copyright. The Copyright Office memorable or worthwhile uniqueness, that we
has the unenviable task of deciding whether a want.
second song is "too similar" to a first song There is, however, an important idea
that has already appeared-unenviable because underlying such remarks: that works of art
there is no "mechanical" way in which such somehow defy all causal explanation, and that
similarity can be determined. A melody that this is why they are intrinsically mysterious, or
differs in only one note from another one may forever unexplainable. If this is the thrust of
yet be startlingly original; one that differs from the comment, any proponent of philosophical
it in numerous notes may yet be so derivative determinism will feel his hackles rise at
from it as to be denied a copyright, even hearing it; he will insist that artistic creation
though the creative labors expended on the just as totally immersed in the causal stream of
second were greater and the artist thought he events as any other activity, just as explainabl
was creating something quite new under the in principle as any others, and just as
sun. predictable too, if we but know all the
A work of art is not usually called conditions on which the creation depends.
"original" unless it is highly original, oneYet I have considerable sympathy with
that
differs from all preceding works in a wide such assertions of inexplicability. I am
variety of ways-one that breaks sharply with constantly struck by how blithely the pro-
tradition, one that initiates a new style or a ponents of deterministic views say things like
new way of looking at the world, etc. All "If we repeated the conditions exactly a
works of art are without doubt slightly second time, exactly the same outcome would
original, in that none just like it has hitherto occur the second time as the first." Such a
been created. When Shakespeare wrote "To view, of course, is forever protected against
the last syllable of recorded time," this wasdisconfirmation, because if the same outcome
original; and when in the eighteenth century didn't occur, they would say without any
Sir William Davenant altered it to make it less further investigation that one or more of the
"far-out," so as to read "To the last moment conditions must have been different. Or: "If
of recorded time," that too was original if no we knew all the laws and all the initial
one had written that line before. A work can conditions, we could predict all future events
be original and yet a total bore. This view had its home base in physics and
4. "Creative achievements are unique astronomy, where the laws involved were
events, they cannot be explained because comparatively few. And there was consider-
explanatory progress is made only with able success in predicting events like eclipses.
repeatable events."7 There is surely some The principle was then assumed to be
confusion here. For one thing, individual applicable to all the other sciences, though the
events in nature aren't repeatable either; events laws had not yet been worked out and would

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 248 HOS PERS

have been virtually infinite in number even

dies hard. We if to take it for granted. I
all tend
they had; but philosophers, quite shall probably do so myself in some of what
undisturbed
by this, attributed the difference solely to follows.
human ignorance. But consider what is
III.
involved in saying something like this regard-
ing such an intricately complex activity as
artistic creation. We would have to be able to But let us turn to considerations more
predict, not only who would engage in a germane to our subject. What exactly is it that
creative act at a given time; we would have to goes on in artistic creation? Can we describe it
know not only the fact that a work of art would in any general way?
be created, but the exact details of this 1. For a long time it has been fashionable
creation. The predictor would have to be able to try to describe artistic creation by reference
to predict not only that at a certain time ato the artist's unconscious drives. Andre Gide
man
named William Shakespeare would write a once said, "The creative act is a cooperative
certain sonnet, but also that it would include venture between God and the artist, and God
the line "Bare ruin'd choirs, where late the has more to do with it than the artist." If for
sweet birds sang." The predictor would have the word "God" we substitute the phrase "the
unconscious," this may very well be true. You
to predict the occurrence of that line before the
poet ever thought of it, and in so doing hework at it, you try to get the thing right, one
would himself become the creator, creating itattempt after another fails; in frustration you
before the artist himself did. put it aside, you get a night's sleep, and in the
Nowhere is the principle of determinism morning suddenly it's all clear and you can
so futile-I do not say false, only futile-as it is complete your work without a single alteration.
here. One can still repeat the slogan, "If we Apparently there has been considerable activity
knew all, we could predict all." Indeed, it is in the unconscious mind going on during the
tautological to say so; if we didn't succeed in night. But of course nobody knows exactly
predicting all, we would immediately conclude how this works. Apparently, however, so
that we didn't know all. The principle is much of this unconscious activity goes on
immune to refutation by experience. Adopting without the artist's conscious cooperation that
such a principle to cover every event in the it has seemed to many creative artists that they
universe is a matter of blind faith, or as I were mere copyists, that they were passive
would prefer to suggest, of adopting a certain vessels in the grip of a superior power who
procedural rule.8 One can accept it, of course, dictated their creative activities. When Haydn
empty and unfruitful though it is, to cover first heard his oratorio The Creation performed,
anything and everything, though from it we he burst into tears and cried, "I have not
learn exactly nothing. One could just as well written this."
say that acts of artistic creation are in principle Freud's first theory about art-creation was
unpredictable, not so much that they will occur that the work of art expresses the artist's
as exactly what they will consist of. And this deeply repressed unconscious wishes.'0 There
thesis of inherent unpredictability of creative are indeed a few works of art that seem to be
acts is just as immune to empirical refutation made to order for such an interpretation, but
as the other one. The adoption of the one or most of them would require considerable
the other is a choice between competing faiths, forcing to conform to this theory. At any rate,
or competing visions of the universe, not most critics in the Freudian tradition, instead
something that has any empirical warrant one of discovering through independent sources
way or the other. what the artist's unconscious wishes were and
As Nancy Cartwright says in her essay then confirming them via the work of art (a
"The Truth Doesn't Explain Much," "God rather difficult task if the artist is already
may have written just a few laws and then dead), examine the work of art and then try to
grown tired. We do not know whether we are infer from it what the unconscious wishes must
in a tidy universe or an untidy one.'9 have been-not quite the way to conduct an
Nevertheless, the model of universal causality inquiry. Even so, a few such critics have come

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity 249

up with a rather plausible hypotheses, such as was present considered it important enough to
Ernest Jones's "A Psychoanalytic Study of remember at all. It would be like trying to
Hamlet," which at least presents a solution solve a murder that occurred a century ago
to "the Hamlet problem" (why didn't Hamlet when all the tracks are cold and the clues have
kill his uncle earlier?) where most attempts vanished. Any account of the artist's creative
fail. activity that is specific enough to be enlighten-
Later creative acts came to be viewed, ing, I am inclined to think, would have to
make the same impossible demand. The data
parallelling similar theories on the interpreta-
tion of dreams, as manifestations not of would have to be staggeringly detailed, and are
id-wishes but of super-ego strictures on these simply not available. (Nor could one take
id-wishes; and later still, as ego-protestations
accounts of the unconscious springs of
against the validity of these super-ego accu- creativity in Leonardo da Vinci, even if you
sations." All these went out of fashion when know what they were, and even if Freud was
talk about id, super-ego, and ego itself went outright about them, and assume that the same
of fashion. Then other accounts, such as the ones were operative in Bach or Shakespeare.)
creator as supreme voyeur, replaced them and Nor do psychoanalytic accounts address
were replaced in turn. Most recent among such themselves to the most pressing question: not
accounts is the recent "discovery" that artistic what makes him create, but what enables him
creativity is a manifestation of a manic- to create works of enduring value? I want a
depressive personality,12 and that creativitytheory of unconscious motivation to explain
Occurs during the "high" that follows the why some persons are highly creative and
"low." What can one say of such theories? In others seem utterly to lack this ability. I would
the first place, a correlation has been traced for like, further, for such a theory to explain why
only a very limited number of artists-by whatartists do the very specific things that they do,
principle of selection we do not know, and in e.g., why a composer places a B-flat at a
the case of artists long dead the psychological certain point in the score rather than a
evidence is surely inadequate. Second, the B-natural. No theory of the unconscious, of
correlation is far from perfect, less than 50%. course, is able to do this.
Third, a correlation is not yet a causal It's not that theories of unconscious
connection. Fourth, if there is a causal motivation have nothing going for them;
connection, which way does it go? Does the rather, it's that they are not at present specific
manic-depressive condition cause the creativ- enough to be helpful in explaining what we
ity or vice versa? Or does each, perhaps, help want explained. It may be that Freud himself
to reinforce the other? Fifth, even if the gave the best assessment of explanations of
manic-depressive condition caused the cre- artistic creativity in terms of the unconscious
ativity, why does it not do so always? The when he wrote, in the introduction to his essay
vast majority of manic-depressives simply "Dostoyevsky," "Before the problem of the
have the personality trait without artistic creative artist analysis must, alas, lay down its
ability. The artistic ability must first be there, arms."
and that is the factor that remains unexplained. 2. A somewhat less ambitious theory is
We should simply draw the curtain of charity the classical expression theory of art. "Poetry,"
over such attempts to explain artistic creativity. wrote Wordsworth, "is the spontaneous
Psychoanalytic theories of creativity might overflow of powerful feelings." The con-
well take their cue from theories of dreams. To nection of art-creation with the release of
interpret a dream with any plausibility is a task feelings (not primarily unconscious) was swept
of the most mind-boggling complexity. You up into Romantic aesthetic theory as the
would have to know everything that has ever expression theory of art. The theory is, I
happened to the patient, including many events believe, more a product of that aesthetic than it
the patient himself doesn't remember, such as is of any serious attempt to discover what
a conversation around the dinner table when he artists really are doing when they create. In
was six years old, of which he himself has most ages of the world's history, artists would
suppressed the memory, and nobody else who not only not have assented to it, they would

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 250 HOS PERS

not have comprehended it: "I am combining Wordsworth, have recollected them in tran-
musical tones in new and complex ways," quility; his emotions may have been, as T. S.
they might have said, "but what has that to do
Eliot said in "Tradition and the Individual
with expressing feelings?" Talents," "simple, crude, and flat"; or he
We are all familiar with accounts of the may have had no discernible emotions at all.
act of expression such as are given by Dewey, Much can be said for the view that during the
Ducasse, and Collingwood'3-how an initial act of creation the artist must be as cold as ice:
perturbation or excitement, in which the artisthe must be so completely the master of the
"doesn't know what he feels," jells into a complex, intricate, and recalcitrant medium in
state of mind in which he feels relief or which he is working that he cannot allow any
release, and his feelings become clear and disturbance, not grief, not distress or worry,
articulated. not sadness, not even joy, to disturb his efforts
There are many questions to ask about at total mastery. The statement "Artistic
such accounts. What is it to clarify an emotioncreation is sometimes accompanied by ex-
to oneself? If one didn't know what it was to pression of feeling" is probably sometimes
begin with, how can one recognize it as the true and sometimes false, depending on the
same emotion after the process has been artist and the occasion. But this tells us no
completed? But the main question I want to more about the nature of artistic creation than
raise about it is: what has all this to do with we learn about the process of using a
artistic creation? Doubtless a person can let off
jackhammer when we are told that the use of it
steam by painting on canvas, or work off is generally accompanied by a low irritation-
tension by writing a story, just as a person can threshold in its user.
express anger by directing sarcastic remarks to There is cultural lag in aesthetics as in
those around him. But what has this to do with other areas. When one asks students what they
the kind of thing he creates, or even explain are doing when they paint, they often reply
his ability to create in that medium?'4 almost automatically that they are engaged in
There seems to be an elementary con- expressing themselves. They respond verbally
fusion here, between what the expression in the language of the Romantic aesthetic
theory says- "Art-creation is the expression of which they have learned. Yet an analogous
feeling" -and "Art-creation is accompanied, theory in a sister discipline, psychoanalysis, is
sometimes, by the artist expressing his already somewhat passe. The Primal Scream
feelings," or "The artist can express his theory, so recently fashionable, is already
feelings when he creates art, just as others can almost dead. On more current theories, you
express theirs by playing darts or jogging." feel the pain intensely, you concentrate on it
But creating is one thing, and expressing is like putting salt on a wound, and through
another. The test of whether creation has experiencing it and understanding its sources
occurred is not the same as the test of whether you (hopefully) gradually dissolve it. Nor are
expression has occurred. Whether a person's you necessarily expressing feelings when you
activity was creative is decided by whether he create art: you work at it, you put it aside and
engaged in the sort of thing we have been work at it again, and let the emotions come
describing; but whether, in doing that, he and go as they may, rather like clouds
expressed his feelings, whether he was scudding across the sky. Would that the theory
disturbed first and calm afterwards, whether he as expression would self-destruct
of creation
released tensions by creating what he did, with as much dignity as its analogue in
whether his mind was clearer than before, and psychoanalysis has been able to do.
so on, are different questions. If we know only It will be said, by way of reply, that we
that he created, we do not yet know anything have missed the point, which is not that the
about his state of feeling; to know that he creative artist expresses feeling, but that he
created, we examine what he did, whereas to objectifies feeling in the art-object that he
know whether he expressed his feelings, we creates. This, of course, shifts the controversy
must look to his biography. He may have been away from the creative process to the thing
consumed by emotions; or he may, like created, which is not our subject today. Yet a

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity 251

word or two about it may be in order. It so, in my view, no more plausibly than the
doesn't matter here whether we have in mind prtcess of human deliberation and choice, or
specifically L. A. Reid's theory of art as the for that matter, creativity, can be made to fit
embodiment of feeling in his Meaning in the the Laplacean model of physics. If we are to
Arts, or Langer's theory as set forth in Feeling proceed with aesthetic theory, we must unhook
and Form, or Ducasse's, or more recent this unhappy connection between creation and
theories. The claim is that the artist implants expression.
feeling into his work (not necessarily his In any case, I can see no general feature of
feeling), and that the feeling is there, in theartistic creation on the expression-theory
work, for viewers and listeners to recognize account that doesn't cover countless other
whether or not they feel it themselves in cases. A creative scientist, as well as the
response to the work. author of an undergraduate term paper, can
I do not want to deny that music can be feel an oppression, a confusion, a weight
joyous or that a poem can be despairing. But ifhanging over him, something inchoate waiting
I am told that all art is an objectification of to be born, his feelings become more intense
some feeling-state, I must say that I find this as the ideas become organized and approach
no more plausible than is the expression theorytheir fruition, and when this occurs the
of creation. Let me pursue briefly just one line oppression is lifted and he feels release from
of thought among many: consider the differ- tension, calm and peaceful now that his work
ence between "warm art" and "cool art." has had a successful outcome. "There is no
Emotionless music may seem tepid, but fundamental difference in the creative pro-
emotionless sculpture not at all. Music may cess," wrote psychologist Carl Rogers, "as it
make the heart beat faster; the sculpture is evidenced in painting a picture, composing a
arouses instead what Kant called "pleasure in symphony, devising new instruments of
the mere contemplation." I do not find in killing, developing a scientific theory, dis-
"cool art" (as a rule) anything I could call an covering new procedures in human relation-
"objectification of feeling." I can view with ships, or creating new formings of one's own
pleasure a marble statue, but cannot think of personality as in psychotherapy."'5 It looks
any feeling-state that it objectifies. Or con- as if we are back to Square One.
sider any of the many works of "minimal art" 3. Let us turn, then, to an apparently more
in the 1960s: here is a simple shape, a common-sensical, no-nonsense view, namely
rhomboid, or an uncomplicated shiny object, that artistic creation is a kind of problem-
or a precious stone. What feeling-states do solving. The creator sets himself a problem,
these objectify? None at all that I can think of. and the creative activity is a series of attempts
There are many works of art that tease the to solve it. John Dewey's famous "five steps
eye but not the feelings: our response to in solving problems" have sometimes been
them is primarily perceptual, with little affect. applied to the arts, and variants of these have
And there are others, e.g., sonnets by John sometimes been employed as accounts of what
Donne or De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, to goes on in artistic creation.'6
which our response is in large measure It does often happen that an artist begins
intellectual. And there are still others, such as by setting himself a problem, or encountering
Tolstoy's War and Peace, which appeal to the one, which he then endeavors to solve.
senses and the feelings and the intellect, in Undoubtedly this often occurs as well at
about equal measure. numerous stages toward the completion of a
In the house of art there are many work of art. But of course this doesn't tell us
mansions; those who do not care for one can how an artist gets from the problem to its
choose another. The theory of art as an solution, or what factors determine how he
objectification of feeling takes its paradigm decides which of various possible avenues to
from "warm art" and then, as usual in pursue, much less why some artists are able to
aesthetics, by making square pegs fit round solve the problem elegantly, brilliantly, and
holes, constructs a theory designed to cover allmemorably, whereas others take the wrong
cases in terms of one type of case. And it doessteps and botch up the job. In fact the

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 252 HOSPERS

problem-solving model gives us very little which I have already had occasion to mention, the pit
of the stomach. . . 8
specific information: while not empty like
most formulations of determinism, it is just
Whenever he attempted consciously to
rather unhelpful, rather like a physician saying
create, Housman adds, he seldom succeeded,
you have a cold because you're run down.
and when he did it took many months. The
In any case, as a general account of
only good poems were those that came to him
artistic creation, the problem-solving theory is
spontaneously. He did not know the source of
false, for often no problem presents itself at
this inspiration, and he had no conscious
all. In a letter to a friend Mozart wrote:
control over it.
One might object, quite plausibly, that
When I am, as it were, completely myself, entirely
alone, and of good cheer-say, travelling in a carriage,
such accounts as these apply to artistic
or walking after a good meal, or during the night when creation, at least some of the time, but that it is
I cannot sleep; it is often on such occasions that my in scientific and philosophical creation that we
ideas flow best and most abundantly. Whence and how find the real paradigms of problem-solving.
they come, I know not; nor can I force them. ..
But I suspect that even this is not always true.
The committing to paper is done quickly enough,
for everything is already finished; and it rarely differs In an instructive passage in his Autobiography,
on paper from what it was in my imagination. .. .Why Herbert Spencer writes:
my productions take from my hand that particular form
and style that makes them Mozartish, and different
from the works of other composers, is probably owing It has never been my way to set before myself a
to the same cause which renders my nose so large or so problem and puzzle out an answer. The conclusions at
aquiline, or, in short, makes it Mozart's and different which I have from time to time arrived, have not been
from those of other people. . .'7 arrived at as solutions to problems raised; but have
been arrived at unawares-each as the ultimate outcome
of a body of thoughts which slowly grew from a germ.
In all of this there is no trace of problems
Some direct observation, or some fact met with in
to be solved. The notes "swim into his ken"
reading, would dwell with me: apparently because I
unpredictably and for no assignable cause, the had a sense of its significance. It was not that there
succeeding developmental ones as much as the arose a distinct consciousness of its general meaning;
original ones which came to him without his but rather that there was a kind of instinctive interest in
those facts which have general meanings. For
knowing whence or how. Mozart was admit-
example, the detailed structure of this or that species of
tedly unusual even among composers in the mammal, though I might willingly read about it, would
easy facility with which he created; so let us leave little impression; but when I met with the
take another case, from the poet A. E. statement that, almost without exception, mammals,
even as unlike as the whale and the giraffe, have seven
Housman's little book The Name and Nature
cervical vertebrae, this would strike me and be
of Poetry:
remembered as suggestive. Apt as I thus was to lay
hold of cardinal truths, it would happen occasionally
I think that the production of poetry is less an active that one, most likely brought to mind by an
than a passive and involuntary process; and if I were illustration, and gaining from the illustration fresh
obliged, not to define poetry, but to name the class of distinctiveness, would be contemplated by me for a
things to which it beings, I should call it a secretion; while, and its bearings observed. A week afterwards,
whether a natural secretion, like turpentine in the fir, possibly, the matter would be remembered; and with
or a morbid secretion, like the pearl in the oyster. . . further thought about it, might occur a recognition of
Having drunk a pint of beer at luncheon-beer is a some wider application than I had before perceived;
sedative to the brain, and my afternoons are the least new instances being aggregated with those already
intellectual portion of my life-I would go out for a noted. Again after an interval, perhaps of a month,
walk of two or three hours. As I went along, thinking perhaps of half a year. something would remind me of
of nothing in particular, only looking at things around that which I had before remarked; and mentally
me and following the progress of the seasons, there running over the facts might be followed by some
would flow into my mind, with sudden and unac- further extension of the idea. . .Eventually the growing
countable emotion, sometimes a line or two of verse, generalization, thus far inductive, might take a
sometimes a whole stanza at once, accompanied, not deductive form: being all at once recognized as a
preceded, by a vague notion of the poem which they necessary consequence of some physical prin-
were destined to form a part of. Then there would ciple-some established law. And thus, little by little,
usually be a lull of an hour or so, then perhaps the in unobstrusive ways, without conscious intention or
spring would bubble up again. I say bubble up, appreciable efforti there would grow up a coherent and
because, so far as I could make out, the source of the organized theory. . .
suggestions thus proffered to the brain was an abyss George Eliot said to me that, considering how

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity 253

much thinking I must have done, she was surprised to receptive mood. Instead they
blunder ahead
see no lines on my forehead. "I suppose,"' I said, "it and end up doing more harm
than good. We
is because I am never puzzled."'9
say of such people that although they have the
"The idea just comes to me, I know not requisite knowledge and motivation, they lack
judgment.
whence." This is one of the most constantly
recurring themes in the testimony of creative Much of the creative process in art also
artists. Unfortunately, however, it gives us no
involves this ineluctable quality of judgment,
which seems to be more a matter of instinct
handle for understanding the creative process.
than of training. Whether to repeat this passage
Let me add, however, that though these
or let one presentation of it suffice; whether to
bursts of creative inspiration that come from
let the theme recur at once or wait until the
"'I know not where" are the most dramatic
feature of artistic creativity, they are notend,
the when the hearer will nearly have
whole of the creative process. There is alsoforgotten
the it and its repetition will come as a
surprise, instantly connecting what was initially
long and usually laborious kind of activity that
presented with the present recurrence; whether
psychotherapists call "working through," to
describe the contrast between the sudden to save one's heaviest artillery for the climax
insight and the detailed application of it.atInthe
artprice of making previous parts appear
this involves organizing the work in such a somewhat rambling, as Chaplin apparently did
in Limelight so as to make the final scene
way as to flesh out and provide a setting for
texturally dense and more powerfully effect-
these creative inspirations.
ive-all these involve artistic judgment. I know
Suppose a composer has thought of some
of no way to describe this in general, nor can I
stunning combination of tones, like Mozart in
give rules for its application. When William
one of the arias from The Magic Flute. Neither
Faulkner was considering writing the story of
the artist nor anyone else knows where the
the life of a rather undistinguished old woman,
inspiration came from-I mean not some
he hit upon the device of starting the story with
general experience of life, but the inspiration
her funeral and then piecing together the bits
to write just this particular set of notes rather
of her life like a patchwork quilt throughout
than some other. But the problem doesn't end
the story, ending again with her funeral, which
there. The artist now has to consider where to
now acquires a new significance. The result is
place his inspiration in the broader context of
his memorable story, A Rose for Emily. Harold
the work-whether to place his inspired couplet
Pinter adopted the same general device in his
at the start and let the rest of the work be felt
play (and film) Betrayal, where for my money
in the shadow of it, or whether to save it till
at least it fell flat. The difference lies in a
the end for maximum impact. Such problems
thousand and one acts of artistic judgment
are matters of judgment.
occurring at every step along the creative way.
We often speak of judgment in ethical
But these are the steps that count. On the
situations. Generosity, said Aristotle, is a
aggregate impact of innumerable such acts of
virtue, but to be generous to the right persons,
judgment depends whether the result will be a
at the right place, at the right time, in the right
success or a failure.
circumstances, is an art at which one often
improves through trial and error, but for which
some persons seem to have an unfailing IV.
instinct, and others an instinct that always
fails. We all know people who know well In the light of all this, the classical criteria
enough what kind of thing they ought to do, for assessing artistic merit seem to me
but when it comes to actually doing good increasingly peripheral, sometimes even irrel-
works, the knowledge of general principles evant. What is the secret of very popular
plus the facts of the particular situation plus works which we never tire of hearing, such as
the motivation to do good, not all of these Bach's Brandenberg Concertos? We are told
together suffice, somehow they always botch that they are eminently singable, mellifluous,
up the job. They lack the knack of timing, or inevitable in their unfolding, and so on. But so
fail to consider whether the other person is in a are thousands of other melodies singable, even

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 254 HOSPERS

though boredom sets in quickly ifinwe

lingers long sing so that I, as one
the memory
them often; the same with mellifluousness, and but have never
who can respond intellectually
the same with a thousand otherbeen descriptions. It
able to respond emotionally to per-
isn't that the concertos lack these
formances qualities,
of classicalbut
Greek tragedies, am
the descriptions are simply inane: they
seized with noofmore
a surge affect that leads me to
touch the secret of their creator's genius
reflect, "'This is howthan,
it must have felt to the
in Gurney's words, a heap of scattered
Greeks clothes
as they sat in the amphitheater and
on the floor reveal the living beauty
experienced of face
a catharsis of fear and pity." But
and form.20 If you wanted theto pick
source out
of the magicthe
cannot be encapsulated
creations of artistic genius and separate
into any them
general set of rules, nor anything
from the dross on the basis of such
whatever descrip-
that could be seized upon by other
tions, even very detailed and artists sophisticated
to guide them in the creation of
descriptions, I submit that you wouldn't
something have
of enduring value. Dare we say that
the slightest idea how to proceed with
any and all general the
rules for creating good art
process of separation. must be relegated to the trash-heap of aesthetic
The magic of Mahler is in no way theory?'2
accounted for by reference to the usual canons
like organic unity. If unity is what you want,After all this, I am afraid I still haven't
the work of countless hacks, and of many
succeeded in saying much about creativity. I
freshman composition students, would fulfill
have tried to make some general remarks about
the requirement as well. What distinguishes
it, to expose certain confusions, and to render
Mahler most of all are those bursts of creative
suspect some popular views about what it is or
inspiration that occur with startling suddenness
is not. It is a subject about which all-
in his work and seem to come from nowhere encompassing theories are eternally temptin
(though always against a certain background ofand eternally unsuccessful. But about artistic
preparation, since a different background creativity itself I have succeeded in saying
wouldn't do): a note in the treble is sustained, very little.
and meanwhile the bass key-signature changes, And what can one say? What about that
perhaps from minor to major or perhaps just haunting melody that won't let go of us even
from D flat to D, and then suddenly, for after a thousand days? Where did it come
reasons that nobody really understands, our from? We don't know; the philosopher doesn't
sweat glands begin to work overtime and a know; the psychologist doesn't know; the artist
feeling of unfathomable mystery overcomes himself doesn't know. Any positive account of
us; it is an experience after which we shall artistic creativity that is specific enough to be
never be quite the same. The creative enlightening involves to this day matters so
master-stroke by which this was done cannot
deep, so intricate, so shrouded in mystery, as
be described in such a way as to enable to defy our attempts to fathom them. We of the
another artist to achieve it-he may emulate it,
Stone Age have yet to discover fire.
but cannot repeat the miracle-and the descrip-
tion one can give of it may apply to many ' See, for example, Vincent Tomas, Creativity
other works, but only the Mahler has the in the Arts (Englewood Cliffs, 1964); Carl
magic. The description defies every attempt to
Hausman, A Discourse on Novelty and Creation
individuate the experience. (S.U.N.Y. Press, 1984); Douglas Morgan,
The same observation can be made about "Creativity Today," Journal of Aesthetics and Art
the few master-strokes of bodily motion and Criticism, XII, no. 1 (1953); Arthur Koestler, The
Act of Creation (New York, 1964).
visual composition which fuse in Martha
2 Rollo May, "The Nature of Creativity," in
Graham's dance Clytemnestra, which suddenly
Harold Anderson, ed., Creativity and Its Cultivation
illuminate the whole and render it incandescent, (New York, 1959).
like a stroke of lightning illuminating a cloud 3 J. P. Guilford, "Traits of Creativity," in
formation, and transforming what might Anderson, p. 143.
otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill dance 4 Monroe Beardsley, "On the Creation of
into something that quickens the pulse and
Art," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Artistic Creativity
XXIII, no. 3 (1965), pp. 291-304.
5 Carl Rogers, in Anderson, p. 71.
6 Henry Murray, "Vicissitudes of Creativity,"
in Anderson, p. 99.
7 I. C. Jarvie, in Artistic Creativity, Dennis
Dutton, ed., (The Hague, 1982), p. 112.
K See John Hospers, Introduction to Philo-
sophical Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, 1967), pp.
308-20.
9 Nancy Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics
Lie (M.I.T Press, 1983), p. 49.
" For example, in Sigmund Freud, Collected
Papers, Vol. 4, "The Relation of the Poet to
Day-dreaming" (London, 1925).
" See, for example, Edmund Bergler, The
Writer and Psychoanalysis (New York, 1954).
' Time Magazine (October 8, 1964).
I3 John Dewey, Art as Experience (New
York, 1934), Chapter 4; Curt J. Ducasse, The
Philosophy of Art (New York, 1929); Robin G.
Collingwood, The Principles of Art (Englewood
Cliffs, 1982), Chapter 4.
'14 See John Hospers, Understanding the Arts
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:13:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
255
(Englewood Cliffs, 1982), Chapter 4.
1 Rogers, p. 71.
16 See Ernest Hilgard, "Creativity and Prob-
lem-Solving," in Anderson, pp. 162-80.
17 Quoted in Brewster Ghiselin, ed., The
Creative Process (New York, 1952), p. 44.
Apparently, however, the letter is spurious: see
Peter Kivy, "Mozart and Monotheism: an Essay
in Spurious Aesthetics," Journal of Musicology,
(1983), 322-28, especially footnote 5.
'I A. E. Housman, The Name and Nature of
Poetry (chapter by the same name). Quoted in
Ghiselin, pp. 86-91.
" Herbert Spencer, "A Conversation with
George Eliot," in An Autobiography, (London,
1904).
20 Edmund Gurney, The Power of Sound
(London, 1880), p. 316.
' At this point in the oral presentation, a
selection from Solzhenitsyn's novel Cancer WaLrd
(portions of pp. 475-82) was read and commented
on.