DENITA BENYSHEK, PHD MA MFA LMHC
  • Home
  • Counseling Methods
  • Bio
  • Fees/Insurance
  • Contact/Directions
  • Artists/Creators
  • Graduate Students

Heal and Grow
​Counseling for Gifted and Talented, PTSD, and Chronic Illness
​
HIPAA Compliant Video Counseling - Telehealth
​

types of creativity

12/27/2012

2 Comments

 
Creativity is a dynamic process in which “creators think, feel, experience, motivate and direct themselves, and behave related to the generation of original and meaningful creative outcomes” (R. Richards, 1999b, p. 733), requiring certain kinds of cognition (Guilford, 1967; Runco & Sakamoto, 1999; Russ, 1993; Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999), personality traits (Sternberg, 1985), and motivation (Amabile, 1983; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The creative process can result in adaptation and regeneration (R. Richards, 2000-2001), self actualization (Maslow, 1971), or a fulfillment of human potential (May, 1975), which can be expressed through an individual, society, or culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1994, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Simonton, 1988).

The category creativity was divided into a number of sets and subsets by different researchers proposing related yet somewhat different models. Kaufman and Beghetto (J. C. Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009) recognized that creativity was typically dichotomized into everyday creativity and high C creativity.  These two categories are the most fully developed and widely accepted concepts of creativity within the field of psychology and the subfield of creativity studies. Some of the categories and subcategories, used by researchers in their studies of creativity, are set out in the table below.

The discussion regarding different types of creativity continues below the table.

You may click on the table to see a larger image.
Picture
Picture
Everyday Creativity

Everyday creativity includes a wide span of creative endeavors. For R. Richards (1999a), everyday creativity includes “the creative person or creative outcome (products, ideas, or behaviors) that involve day-to-day activities at work and during leisure time. These are characterized both by originality… and meaningfulness to others” (p. 683).

Everyday creativity is a “survival capability – representing the ‘phenotypic plasticity’ that allows humans to adapt to changing environments – and a humanistic force in ongoing growth, personal development, and even transcendence” (R. Richards, 1999a, p. 684).

As a set, everyday creativity can be divided into subsets. These subsets distinguish points on the spectrum of creativity.  Everyday creativity is a broad category reaching beyond leisure activities and “extend[ing] from mini-c to little-c through Pro-c” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 6), including middle C creativity as well. 

Low C creativity.

Low C creativity is “exemplified by original transformations in small products, thoughts, or expressions. Examples might be a satisfying flower arrangement or a humorous play on words” (Morelock & Feldman, 1999, p. 449).

Middle C and Pro-c creativity.

Middle C creativity results in “products appreciated in terms of interpretive skill, mastery of technical forms, distinctive style, and success in achieving a technical, practical, commercial, or academic goal” (Morelock & Feldman, 1999, p. 449). Middle C creativity is likely to be seen in traditional arts where less value is placed on originality and more value is associated with perpetuating a traditional art form as a means of sustaining and supporting traditional culture. Middle C creativity also “refers to creativity in the expression of professional expertise. It is about creative products appreciated for interpretive skill, mastery of technical terms, distinctive style and success in achieving a technical, practical, commercial or academic goal” (Mann & Chan, 2011, p. 7). 

Middle C creativity “includes creative acts that have substantial social impact beyond the creative agents’ immediate circle of acquaintances, but which do not transform entire fields or subfields” (Harrington, 2004, p. 180), and generally limited in effect to one organization or a modest sized community (Moran, 2009).

Pro-c creativity, similar to middle C creativity, is a level of professional expertise that is not domain transforming. “Anyone who attains professional-level expertise in any creative area is likely to have attained Pro-c status” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5). Generally, 10 years of training, formal or informal apprenticeship, being mentored, and ongoing practice is required to attain pro-c status.

Middle C and pro-c categories of creativity define sets of individuals that make “solid, professional creative contributions” (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 5), but are not  eminent creators or geniuses.

High C Creativity and Eminent Creativity

High C creativity or eminent creativity, including the realms of geniuses and eminent creators, involves a “unique reorganization of knowledge resulting in substantial new contributions to bodies of knowledge. Some rare human beings produce creative contributions that are so significant that they utterly transform a domain of knowledge” (Morelock & Feldman, p. 449).

Conclusion

Although we often limit our idea of creativity to geniuses and artists, creativity can be applied in almost any endeavor, relationship, hobby, career, cooking, vacation planning, homemaking, teaching, playing, inventing, scientific research, volunteering, running a business, or engaging in a change process. The creative process can assist with life transitions such as divorce, helping to build a new life out of the rubble of marriage. Knowledge of creativity can enhance healthy relationships between parents and children and improve the productivity of organizations.

Denita Benyshek, Ph.D., M.F.A.

This article is an excerpt from An Archival Exploration Comparing Contemporary Artists and Shamans (Benyshek, 2012).

References


Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.

Benyshek, D. (2012). An exploration of contemporary artists as shamans. Ph.D., Saybrook University, San Francisco, CA.  

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135-158). New York, NY: Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Praeger.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In R. Steinberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 329-363). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Harrington, D. M. (2004). Creativity. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia: A - K (3rd ed., pp. 180-182). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.

Mann, L., & Chan, J. (2011). Introduction. In L. Mann & J. Chan (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in business and beyond: Social science perspectives and policy implications (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.

Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Big Sur, CA: Esalen books.

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Moran, S. (2009). What role does commitment play among writers with different levels of creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 21(2, 3), 243-257.

Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1999). Prodigies. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. II, pp. 449-456). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (1999b). Four P's of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I, pp. 733-742). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (1999b). Four P's of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I, pp. 733-742). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (2000-2001). Creativity and the schizophrenia spectrum: More and more interesting. Creativity Research Journal, 13(1), 111-132.

Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 62-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Russ, S. W. (Ed.). (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.

Ward, T., Smith, S., & Finke, R. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

2 Comments
Leslie Birleson link
4/24/2013 02:14:17 am

No offense! but I find the chart a little silly. Extraordinarily simplistic, with unsatisfactory explanations and descriptions. What would one hope to gain in the way of knowledge from such a chart that obviously took a great deal of thought and time to put together?( just curious)
The chart itself and the explanations do not address the act of creativity or creativity itself.
By way of explanation is what I mean is this. I know professional artist who have achieved all awards the collective can heap on them, even to the level of museum show status.( personal friends) who are absolutely and utterly uncreative. By the same token I know people who have practice relatively little art and are at the highest level of the creative scale.
The scale seems to be addressing the superficial, observational, residue in the every day world of what it perceives to be creative acts or more to the point products.
I'm sure I'm missing the point, but I am curious.
Best regards
Les

Reply
Denita Benyshek
4/24/2013 04:50:47 am

Dear Les,

Thank you for taking the time to offer several keen, insightful comments. Here is my response.

You asked “What would one hope to gain in the way of knowledge from such a (simplistic) chart?” Many people associate creativity with eminent creators (like Picasso or Einstein) and do not realize that there is a spectrum of creativity that can also be seen in everyday life. Someone who is successfully coping with divorce, navigating those challenges and major life changes, is being creative in what the chart categorizes as “General Everyday Creativity.” But, this is not meant to downgrade this individual’s great accomplishment. One of my purposes in making this chart was to help people recognize that there are many valuable forms of creativity and that creativity can be used in any activity.

You commented, “The scale seems to be addressing the superficial, observational, residue in the every day world of what it perceives to be creative acts or more to the point products.” You are correct that this chart focuses primarily on creative products – I acknowledge that this narrow focus excludes many important aspects of creativity, although the table also includes creativity in daily activities, practical actions (problem solving), commercial ventures, academic activities, technical pursuits, adaptation to change, or personal growth, development, and transcendence. Activities such as creative daydreaming, play, and imagination could be included under adaptation, problem solving, or personal development – where the creative person could be considered the resulting (nonstatic) “product”.

I’m interested in hearing what you consider highly creative.

Sometimes, in the psychological study of creativity, the "4 P's of creativity" are mentioned: person, process, product, and environmental press. “Person” refers to the individual (personality, personal history, etc.). “Environmental press” refers to outside influences that affect creativity (how material poverty and the civil rights movement influenced the creativity of the quilters in Gee’s Bend http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/geesbend.html). I would add “purpose” for a 5th P. Art might be created as part of the process of healing from trauma or to bring attention to global warming.

I agree with your statement, You are correct that commercially successful artists and even award-winning artists may be less creative than someone who is highly creative and not an artist. Comedians such as Jon Stewart and the writers for The Daily Show are highly creative. Someone may have a great sense of humor and original wit, never be interested in achieving fame or fortune as a comedian, and be highly creative. Perhaps you are very creative in arenas not considered fine art.

Fame, in my opinion, should not be the primary indicator of creativity – although the chart implies this value inasmuch as it looks at social impact (such as the social effects of novels such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin or Black Beauty), transformation of fields (like the invention of Cubism or the Apple computer). An outsider artist, such as S.P. Dinsmoor (who created The Garden of Eden in Lucas, Kansas, http://www.garden-of-eden-lucas-kansas.com/) was highly creative even though his work is not famous worldwide, he never received an NEA grant, he never exhibited in New York City, and he did not spark a major art movement. Sometimes fame (awards and sales) comes more easily to artists who create within common ideas of what “high” art should be (abstract oil paintings, not quilts made from worn denim jean scraps).

You also commented, “I find the chart a little silly. Extraordinarily simplistic, with unsatisfactory explanations and descriptions.” I have to admit to having the same reaction, on numerous occasions, to flow charts, tables, and diagrams in books or published research reports. Nonetheless, when I began conducting research, I found that simplified charts, tables, and diagrams helped some readers organize and understand content more quickly. You may be able to do this mentally and not need a physical rendering. You spoke of “the highest level of the creative scale,” implying some sort of mental picture that ranks creativity – and I am very interested in how you rank creativity, what would be at the highest level of the creative scale.

Your comments helped me realize that I should, in the future, articulate limitations in material presented and mention that there are many creative processes, purposes, and persons who do not fit into “the box” of the chart.

I’m guessing or intuiting that you might be such a person. I’d love to hear about your creative style and process and how you rank creativity. Who knows? I might quote your comments in another article!

Again, thanks for your thought provokin

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    author

    Dr. Benyshek is a devoted psychotherapist and marriage counselor, a professional artist, and an internationally renowned researcher on contemporary artists as shamans.

    Dr. Benyshek  provides mental health counseling and coaching services for intellectually gifted and artistically talented individuals (preteens, adolescents, adults), couples, families, and highly creative individuals.

    Archives

    July 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    July 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Artists
    Creativity
    Gifted And Talented Students
    Graduate Students
    Mental Health
    Shamanism
    Spirituality
    Women
    Writing

    RSS Feed

DENITA BENYSHEK, PhD, MFA, LMHC
Online counseling, video counseling, telemental, telehealth counseling for Washington residents.
Counseling, Mercer Island, Medina, Redmond, Kirkland, Woodinville, 
Issaquah, Bellevue, Seattle.

98006, 98053, 98005, 98110, 98101, 98075, 98045, 98112, 98065, 98199, 98177, 98052,
98004, 98072, 98033, 98074, 98039, 98121, 98040, 98077
  • Home
  • Counseling Methods
  • Bio
  • Fees/Insurance
  • Contact/Directions
  • Artists/Creators
  • Graduate Students