{"title":"Creativity from Interaction: Artistic Movements and the Creativity Careers of Modern Painters","authors":"Fabien Accominotti","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1396415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article revisits David W. Galenson’s work on the relationship between artistic creativity and the life cycle of artists. Galenson introduces a simple classification of creativity careers (early vs. late-bloomers), relates it to a bipartite typology of creativity (conceptual vs. experimental innovators) and builds on this typology to explain the decreasing trend of age at which artists were most creative over several generations in the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on Galenson’s measures, the present paper uses a different approach to overcome possible criticisms to his design. Applying sequence analysis to creativity careers of 41 major modern painters, it also yields a fairly different story from the one Galenson proposes. In particular, I show that a typology of creativity should distinguish between creativity occurring within artistic movements and other forms of creativity. This distinction is important, for the decrease in age at peak creativity over time seems actually driven by the evolution of movement-related creativity alone. Investigating the specific issue of creativity over the life cycle of artists, and showing that movements and interactions play an important part in the picture, the paper thus suggests there is something more than the mere individual involved in artistic creativity.","PeriodicalId":142467,"journal":{"name":"Labor: Human Capital","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"69","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor: Human Capital","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1396415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 69
Abstract
This article revisits David W. Galenson’s work on the relationship between artistic creativity and the life cycle of artists. Galenson introduces a simple classification of creativity careers (early vs. late-bloomers), relates it to a bipartite typology of creativity (conceptual vs. experimental innovators) and builds on this typology to explain the decreasing trend of age at which artists were most creative over several generations in the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on Galenson’s measures, the present paper uses a different approach to overcome possible criticisms to his design. Applying sequence analysis to creativity careers of 41 major modern painters, it also yields a fairly different story from the one Galenson proposes. In particular, I show that a typology of creativity should distinguish between creativity occurring within artistic movements and other forms of creativity. This distinction is important, for the decrease in age at peak creativity over time seems actually driven by the evolution of movement-related creativity alone. Investigating the specific issue of creativity over the life cycle of artists, and showing that movements and interactions play an important part in the picture, the paper thus suggests there is something more than the mere individual involved in artistic creativity.
本文回顾了David W. Galenson关于艺术创造力与艺术家生命周期之间关系的研究。Galenson介绍了一个简单的创造力职业分类(早期和晚期),将其与创造力的两部分类型(概念创新者和实验创新者)联系起来,并在此类型的基础上解释了19世纪和20世纪几代艺术家最具创造力的年龄下降趋势。根据Galenson的测量方法,本文采用了一种不同的方法来克服对他的设计可能存在的批评。将序列分析应用于41位主要现代画家的创作生涯,也得出了一个与盖伦森提出的完全不同的故事。我特别指出,创造力的类型学应该区分艺术运动中的创造力和其他形式的创造力。这一区别很重要,因为随着时间的推移,创造力峰值年龄的下降似乎仅仅是由与运动相关的创造力的进化所驱动的。研究了艺术家生命周期中创造力的具体问题,并表明运动和互动在画面中起着重要作用,因此,这篇论文表明,在艺术创造力中,不仅仅有个人参与。