Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
If in current times we were in need of a single such concept, “creativity” would
probably be considered as one of the favourites. Information, communication, sus-
tainability, ecology, or globalisation might be competing. However, creativity would
probably still win. It is a concept full of shining promise. Nobody dares criticise it
as plastic and arbitrary. Everybody appears to be relating positively to it. Techno-
freaks use it as well as environmentalists. No political party would drop it from their
rhetoric.
Creativity may be considered as a
means
for activity, or as its
goal
. However,
von Hentig is sceptical about the possibility of developing
more
creativity through
education and training; he is also sceptical about creative skills independent of the
context. Creativity as an abstract, general concept, taken out of context, is unlikely
to exist. If a helpful concept at all, creativity is bound to situations and contexts.
Only relative to them may our judgement evaluate an activity as creative. Creativity
exists only concretely.
Leaving out ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, it seems that
the way we understand “creativity”
today
is as a US-American invention (Hentig
1998
, p. 12). It started with the fabulous definition of an IQ (Intelligence Quotient)
and operational tests to measure it by Stern (
1912
) in Germany. His approach be-
came an operational method in the USA by the end of World War I. J.P. Guilford
(
1950
) and others made clear that IQ tests did not identify anything that might be
called “creative”. Current creativity research starts from this article. Like any other
measure, a test of your IQ may at best say something about a standard behaviour
within given boundaries, but not much about crossing boundaries. Often people do
what they are
supposed
to do, and they do it well. Others do what they
want
to do,
and do it to the dismay of their bosses, teachers, or parents.
When we consider creativity as an attribute, a property, or a feature that we may
acquire by taking courses or joining training camps, we put creativity close to a
thing, or a commodity. We inadvertently transform a subjective activity or behaviour
into an objective thing. We may acquire many or few commodities, cheap or expen-
sive ones. But is quantity important for understanding creativity, or for becoming a
creative person? Doesn't it make more sense to associate the term “creativity” with
behaviour, activity, situation, and context? The idea of attaching creativity to indi-
viduals is probably what we are immediately inclined to think. But it may still not
be very helpful. Creativity seems to emerge in situations that involve several peo-
ple, who interact in different roles with favourable and unfavourable conditions and
events.
1
We may align intelligence with making sense in a situation that makes sense.
If we do so, creativity could be viewed as making sense in situations of nonsense.
Dream and fantasy are, perhaps, more substantial to creative behaviour than any-
thing else.
1
We are so much accustomed to thinking of creativity as an individual's very special condition and
achievement that we react against a more communal and cooperative concept. It would, of course,
be foolish to assume individuals were not capable of creative acts. It would likewise be foolish to
assume they can do so without the work of others.
