Paper summary - Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework, by Vlad Petre Glăveanu

What I read

In this paper, Glăveanu describes a new model for creativity, one that recasts the “Four Ps” into “Five As.”

The author begins by introducing the fundamental problem he sees in existing models: that they are written “largely from the perspective of the individual, and within individuals, from the perspective of cognitive functioning.” He describes that this view was formalized by Mel Rhodes in the 60s, as the Four P’s of creativity, which are Person, Product, Process, and Press. This is one of the most used models in creative literature, and the author briefly names many influential papers that use this model as a basis for their work. Then, Glăveanu explains that the goal of the paper is to “rewrite” the elements to focus on “the growing importance of social, systemic, ecological, and cultural” models and theories of creativity. This new model includes Actor, Action, Artifact, Audiences, and Affordances.

Next, Glăveanu explains why there is a need for a new or refined model. He illustrates that many of the subfields or fields of psychology have shifted to focus on a cultural view rather than a personal view, and have increasingly referenced the embedded nature of people, their thinking, their actions, and, in this case, their creative activities. This is how Glăveanu interprets the brief mention of Press by Rhodes, but indicates that it is far from sufficient. Ultimately, the author explains that the core of the model shift is to “advance a sociocultural, distributed, and ecological framework for the psychology of creativity,” which reflects a shift and growth in the same form of situated understanding of other psychological phenomena. The “P” model is insufficient because it both ignores the role of this externality, and also because it does “little to specify any clear relations between categories.”

Glăveanu then introduces the Five A’s model. He explains that historically, each of the Ps has been studied individually, rather than as an interrelated model. The elements are always interrelated, though, and one of Glăveanu’s goals with the model is to make this connectivity explicit.

Additionally, the author’s goal is to vastly expand or recast the “Press” element of the initial framework.

Glăveanu recognizes that this new model may simply be seen as a terminology change, but that it is a shift in “epistemological position” in order to recognize and give room for research into the embedded nature of cognition and creativity. He indicates that the Press, then, has been split into both Audience and Affordance in order to capture this interdependency and positioning.

Next, Glăveanu describes in detail each shift in naming and positioning. First, he describes the move from Person to Actor. The word Actor is selected because it indicates that creativity occurs with “societal scripts”, and creators create in relationship to the scripts (and to other actors.) The tendency for psychologists to focus on creative traits in their research has ignored this, because it doesn’t show where those traits came from or what they can be used for in the world around them. Glăveanu describes that traditional creative research focuses on “Genius” creators, which elevate the person to a level of something extraordinary, without recognizing the world in which they were extraordinary. He indicates that a power creators have related to the actor model is to be “selective and constructive in engaging with any cultural material.”

Next, Glăveanu describes the second part of the A model, shifting from Process to Action. This “means acknowledging the double nature of creativity: an internal, psychological dimension and an external, behavioral one.” Again, Glăveanu’s shift is primarily based on positioning the things a creative person does in the context in which they do them. He explains that by thinking of creativity in the context of action, it implies and recognizes intentionality, where creativity is goal directed. Dewey is cited as a proponent of an Action way of thinking, particularly related to the interactions between a person and the world around them. Action is integrated with perception, not just with process (usually psychologically thought of as being internal.)

Glăveanu describes the many ways others have positioned creativity as cyclical and often out of sequence or out of organization.

Glăveanu then describes the shift from Product to Artifact. The word Artifact implies that a made thing exists long after its introduction, and has historical meaning that can be unearthed in the context in which it was created. This is formal acknowledgement of the sociocultural context in which creativity occurs, and how an analysis of a product only comments on its formal qualities but not on where those formal qualities emerged from. Creativity is an evolutionary process of the past, and the output of the process carries meaning and prompts meaning-making from a viewer or user.

Next, Glăveanu describes one of the two shifts he has made from Press to Audience (Press to Affordance to follow.) He recognizes that the word press is difficult to understand, and indicates that he will use it as it “suggests the ‘pressing’ influence of others and society over the creator and his or her work.” Audience makes it clear that importance comes from the way others assist, contribute, judge, or use the thing that has been made or the process by which it was made. He cites others, such as Negus and Pickering, who describe that a creative act isn’t actually realized until there is a social encounter concerning it. Glăveanu also describes that the “passive general public” participates in the creativity as much as the creator. And, the creator themselves participates in the same public world, influencing their work.

Finally, Glăveanu describes the second of his Press shifts, to Affordances. This indicates the way creativity is “a form of action deeply embedded in the material world,” and this materiality has been ignored by the existing P framework. There is an interaction between the creator and the material they are using, and the material needs to be considered as a fundamental part of the creative process, as it directs what someone can do. This isn’t just true in the creative process; again, Glăveanu describes how objects exist in culture, and provide intentionality. Items, used loosely, teach an audience how to use them, and how to consider them in the context of the world. The creator needs to understand the material used to make the item, and the “users” need to also understand how that item can and should be used.

In the next section, Glăveanu addresses why the shift from four Ps to five As is important. First, they are presented as interdependent rather than stand-alone, and the author indicates that creativity research should be researching the interconnectivity, not the stand-alones. But, this isn’t the main benefit of this new framework. What is most important is that they indicate a new definition of creativity: “Creativity is concerned with the action of an actor or group of actors, in its constant interaction with multiple audiences and the affordances of the material world, leading to the generation of new and useful artifacts.” Creativity is distributed and embodied and always found in a sociocultural context.

Glăveanu also indicates that the new model gives room for non-genius creativity, as it recognizes that creativity exists in the banal plain world, too; even plain activities, like cooking, can be considered creative in this model.

Glăveanu describes that the new model offers both a challenge and opportunity to the research into creativity itself. Observation is difficult, but technology advances (such as head-mounted cameras) can focus on the “situated account” of the creative effort, rather than retrospective first-person accounts. Glăveanu’s “multiple feedback approach” fits into this model as a way of gathering input of creativity from cultural groups and communities, not just from the creator. The author also indicates that the new model can be more practical, as well, in that it is more flexible into contexts like business or education, rather than traditional art or science fields.

Glăveanu ends by re-emphasizing his shift is not one of vocabulary, but instead, one of how to conceptualize and think about creativity—that it exists in culture outside of a creator.

What I learned and what I think

I’m glad I selected this paper when I did, because it’s been a strong balance between what I’ve perceived as either far too clever in the use of language, or far too lacking in contribution.

In terms of how his ideas are presented, Glăveanu’s references to previous research flows in the context of his points and feels less like “checking the box” of making gestures to others, and more like he actually used those points as a jumping off space for this new model. It feels, and is, scholarly instead of publishey—like it was written in order to actually contribute to the advancement of creative theory, rather than to get tenure. Maybe that’s totally wrong, and I was punked stylistically, but I don’t think so.

I appreciate the way Glăveanu went out of his way to show that his new model is not simply a recasting of words, but in an attempt to make a fundamental shift in the way creativity is explored. The slight self-deprecating reference to the alliteration—"To be sure, the reason does not have to do with the terminological difficulty of producing a perfect alliteration”—makes it clear that he’s thinking about how this will be perceived. I don’t agree; it’s too cute that it fits perfectly; but it also probably doesn’t matter, and it’s a nice way of introducing a complex idea to replace an equally complex idea, clearly.

Each of the model shifts have the goal of making creativity a group, cultural, community, collaborative, humble, accessible, and shared event (and similarly to recast the output in the same way.) Some are clearer than others in illustrating the point; for example, the use of the word artifact naturally adds the historical and cultural implications of something that is dropped into the world around us, but the shift from Person to Actor is harder to grasp or embrace. I don’t feel that “Person” as a phrase lacks reference to the way they behave and are considered, but it’s probably splitting hairs.

I’m not sure there’s a reason to shift Press to Audience. As I understand Rhodes intention with the word, at least as explained by Glăveanu, the goal was to show either how an artists needs to leverage the press in communicating their work, or that they are being pressured by the world around them. Both cases have the externality and reference to culture that is at the core of the framework change. The inclusion of Affordances is critical, but the positioning it as a separation from Press seems unnecessary. It fits better, actually, as an extension of Audience.

This paper led to some critical observation and thoughts, which has been the whole point of reading these papers, so yay!

First, I think the model swings wayyyyy to far away from the creator or maker. Creators make things often because they need to make things. I do; I feel terribly agitated if I’m not creating something on somewhat of a regular basis, and it has nothing to do with anyone else (and more often than not, no one else sees or hears about or knows about the thing I made.) I recognize that my making lives in the context of the rest of the world, but the me in the story is far more important than the everyone else. This was my critique of several of the other papers I’ve read recently: that standard definitions of creativity seem to require the output to be public. That seems like a big miss.

Next, it feels like some key pieces of literature are missing, primarily The Sciences of the Artificial, The Politics of the Artificial, work by Nigel Cross and Dich Buchanan, and the long history of work that examines the role of consumer artifacts in shaping popular culture. Many of these articles and writings position creativity in culture, just as does Glăveanu, but describe that the audience of creative output (at least for designed mass-produced objects) are merely consumers, and have no active participation at all, except to buy. It can be a pretty dark view of humanity, but it’s one that’s very accurate. Glăveanu’s model is overly optimistic, maybe because ”designed objects that are for sale” are more or less ignored in the discussion.

I also think the materiality of the material being created with is ignored in the model: the things that are manipulated, like clay, pixels, or, in the case of broad interaction design, human behavior. I don’t know how you can talk about creating without talking about the stuff that is being created with, and as more and more public creation is embedded in digital stuff, it seems much more important to resurrect the whole “medium is the message” ideas.

The model also ignores craftsmanship and skill, and that’s a huge miss for me. Whether an Actor or a Person or a Craftsman or a Designer, creativity demands skill. I just don’t believe that someone heating up a hot-pocket can be viewed through the same lens as a master chef at a Michelin restaurant, and everyday acts can’t always “count”, or we’ve lost the whole point of studying the phenomenon at all. I’ve always had a love-hate with Thoughtless Acts by Jane Fulton Suri, because it is true and great to observe that people do regular things to fix the broken world around them, but they aren’t as important (and blameful, really) as designers, who broke the things in the first place; the creativity of the designers is “better”, and the consequences are amplified because of their “betterness”, which is one of the biggest problems of the stupid profession in the first place.

I’m also thinking about the nature of a new-to-creativity person (a student, or a student-of), who isn’t very good. They are making things, and are fully ashamed of the things they make and of themselves for making them, and this is where creativity bites it for many people. What’s the connection here between this person and the model, any model, which describes experts?

I’m going to read more of Glăveanu’s work. I’m also going to try to track down something around the novice, but hopefully something that didn’t come from an educator track at a conference and is actually a “first class citizen” of research.