Paper summary - Creativity and Culture, by Morris I. Stein

What I read

In this text, Stein presents a definition of creativity, and then explains the various parts of that definition. The work is based on experimental findings with artists in Chicago.

The definition that is presented is:

The creative work is a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group in some point in time.

In expanding and explaining this definition, the author starts with the idea of a “novel work,” which is described as a creative product that did not exist before, in the same form. This could be a small deviation from precedent, or a large deviation. The author acknowledges that this deviation may be only new to the person who deviated (as in a child), or new to the larger world (as in an inventor.) It’s unclear if both “count” in the eyes of the author’s definition.

The word interaction is introduced as the relationship between the problem space, and the person involved in the creative act. This interaction starts with a feeling of anxiety or discomfort about how things currently are, which indicates a problem space, and the level of discomfort is described as a creator’s sensitivity, or awareness, to the part of the world that is out of equilibrium. This is related to the individual’s ability to live in a state of ambiguity, which is the place between how things are and how things could be, without actually knowing how things could be, yet. The author describes that, for some, recognizing and alerting the world of this ambiguous state is the end of the creative process. Others then work to close the gap.

The author explains that the first part of closing the gap is a creation of a hypothesis and testing of that hypothesis. The hypothesis definition is not always a conscious activity. Flexibility and rigidity of a “permeable boundary” that separates a person from the environment then indicates the ability for the creator to develop a hypothesis. And just like with alerting the world of a gap, this also may be where some creative people stop their process, perhaps because they develop too few hypotheses, or because they become distracted with other things.

The author describes that hypothesis formation is neither haphazard nor rigid. It’s recognized that many creative people experience emotional dissatisfaction, in the form of depression, because they see no progress towards the testing of a hypothesis through the making of something new, or the inability to communicate the hypothesis to others.

Next, the creator tests the hypotheses through creation; when this testing is completed successfully, the creator feels a moment of satisfaction.

The author briefly describes that the Rorschach experimental test of identifying levels of creativity may not be an accurate representation of all forms of creativity, because it is focused exclusively on the lack or breadth of visual closure or hypothesis testing.

Next, Stein unpacks the next part of his definition, focused on the utility or satisfaction of the creative output, which is intended by the author to show that the output must be shown to other people to “count” as creative. This means that, at least partially, creative output is a form of communication, or is always communicated; the creator must have a way to communicate, and must position, recast, or re-create the creation in a way that others can view it. The first portion of this—that the creator has a way of communicating their ideas—is related to the craft of making things.

The author indicates that the communication to others must be accepted: that it is “congruent with the need or experiences of a group.” This is a portion of the hypotheses testing, or a “testing of reality.” The author recognizes that the group may be large or small, although no boundary condition is placed on “small”.

Stein then unpacks the last part of his definition of creativity, referencing acceptance of the idea. This acceptance may not be in the lifetime of the creator, but it must have acceptance at some point.

The last portion of the article addresses the context in which creativity occurs. This relates to the socio-political environment around the creation, recognizing that in some cases, external forces may limit or prohibit the ability for the creator to pursue the hypothesis testing. Additionally, education, parenting, and other early circumstances may instill in a creator a sense of limitation. A culture may not be willing to accept the ambiguity that was described around a sense of gap, or “valley”, between a current state and a new state. In all of these cases, the reference is to the broad audience, those who view, absorb, or engage with the creation. A critic is one of the more obvious parts of that audience, in that they translate what a creator has made into a form of assertion for larger audiences.

This means that, for a creative work to be truly creative, it must “resonate” with the group that has accepted it: needs of the group must be satisfied, in something of the same way in which the discomfort of the creator was satisfied.

Last, the author briefly discusses that some creators are unable to communicate their creation with an audience. It may be technically too complex, or it may not stand on its own, or it may be emotionally unsatisfying or offensive to the audience.

What I learned and what I think

Nearly all of this text either supported things I believe and have written and presented about, or gave language and form to things I believe and have never been able to successfully synthesize for myself.

I’m mostly reflecting on the idea that a creator can sense or see a problem state, is uncomfortable with that state, sees room for a resolved state (although doesn’t know what it is yet), and can remain in the discomfort, or ambiguity, between states long enough to explore how to close the gap. This really is the creative process I’ve seen and experienced. In my design work and in dealing with corporate problems, this manifests in a few ways.

The comfort of ambiguity exists in the somewhat fuzziness of the problem itself. The problem isn’t defined, and it’s generally accepted that problem definition is a part of the initial design process; often, that definition emerges from qualitative research with people (at least in the context of a user-centered design process.)

The comfort of ambiguity also exists in the space where data has been gathered, and a problem space is starting to emerge, but no scaffold has been stood up to present artificial constraints for exploration. This is the time where synthesis hasn’t happened yet, but experienced designers are “sensing” a frame based on a pattern language. We’ve seen something like this before, but the circumstances were different. This part feels very much like my understanding of abductive reasoning: that a form of logic is starting to be at play.

The ambiguity is most obvious during a part of synthesis, which I think is what Stein means by hypothesis definition. When we synthesize data, the experience or interaction or cultural scaffold starts to emerge as “insights”, which is really an overly pretentious word for “structure.” This is what I’ve always thought of as subjective objectivity: that the scaffold is artificial, but once it’s there, it becomes truth.

The hypothesis testing that Stein describes is sketching, ideation, variation development, form giving, modeling, drawing, Figma-component-moving-around, and so-on; this is making things. I don’t like how Stein positions making things as a form of communication to others, because it’s often communication to myself, but I do appreciate that the ability to make things well is a fundamental part of his definition of creativity: without skills, the process is ineffective. I’ve never thought of making things as testing my hypotheses, and I would like to think further about this in the context of Donald Schön’s reflective practitioner.

I also appreciate Stein’s brief discussion of how creativity and depression may be related. He positions emotional frustration (or depression) as when the creator sees a lack of forward movement:

It has been observed by some that in the course of the creative process the creative individual experiences depression. The hypothesis is suggested that this depression arises as a result of anxiety that is brought forward by the lack of direction just mentioned. The creative person no longer feels that he is going forward and still he cannot enjoy the present state. The lack of direction may be a consequence of an excessive number of hypotheses that occur to the subject and the feeling of inadequacy as to the possibilities of testing any of them. It may also arise as a result of his inability to communicate his ideas to others.

This is writer’s block, or drawer’s block, or creator’s block; this is, exactly, my reluctance to pick up my sitar and practice, or put pen to paper. There is a mitigation to this, though, at least in design at a job: I have to work to close the gap between the present state and a future state, because it’s my job, and there are obvious consequences. This has always forced forward momentum for me. But external constraints, like obtuse stakeholders or companies with inertia towards inaction, do act as a block to “hypothesis testing”, and while this doesn’t manifest for me as depression, it does drive me up the fucking wall.

I have trouble with some parts of Stein’s definition of creativity, primarily in the need for acceptance by others. He’s entirely correct in the context of design: a design has to actually sell, or be used, or impact the world around it, because design is the liberal art of technological culture: it isn’t the liberal art of technological private thoughts. Design output is always embedded in a distribution system, like a company or a government, and if it isn’t adopted, it disappears.

But I don’t think that a creative work ever actually has to be shown to anyone else in order to “count”: art can be, and often is, private, and still closes the gap between the problematic state and the idealized state, at least for the artists themselves. I can, and do, make things in my shop that I consider highly creative, and that fit the definition Stein offers as well, with the exception of showing these things to other people; and it doesn’t matter, because the discomfort that has been described is gone.

Often, even the hypothesis testing is private, at least as considered as iterations: we draw for ourselves, react to what we drew, and draw more. No one ever sees the iterations, and the testing and acceptance or rejection of the creation happens so quickly that we may not even consciously notice ourselves.

Stein cites only six papers, but I’m going to try to track at least one of them down for a next exploration.