See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238725021

Rethinking Creative Practice in the Light of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's

Systems Model of Creativity

Article · January 2007

CITATION READS

1 3,298

1 author:

Phillip Mcintyre
University of Newcastle
69 PUBLICATIONS   276 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creativity in Higher Education Network View project

Creativity and Creative Industries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Phillip Mcintyre on 25 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rethinking Creative Practice in the Light of Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi’s Systems Model of Creativity.

Phillip McIntyre
Abstract: Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi’s work on the notion of ‘flow’
has been particularly influential in explaining the experience of creativity
but this paper argues that his conception of the systems model of creativity
may prove to be equally beneficial in terms of analyzing and describing
creative practice. Csikszentmihalyi argues that creativity occurs as a result
of the three way interaction of a person with a domain of knowledge and a
field that makes decision about that domain of knowledge. The systems
model, and the increasing move towards the use of confluence models in
creativity research in general, highlights the necessity to look beyond the
individual in accounting for creativity. This shift in research thinking then
entails a necessary shift in approaches to the techniques we can utilise to
enhance the practice of creativity. Csikszentmihalyi asserts that we need to
abandon our Ptolemaic approach to creativity for a more Copernican one.
If he is correct the use of personal skills and the acquisition of domain
knowledge will need to be supplemented with a complex understanding of
the way in which fields work and make decisions.

Key Words: Csikszentmihalyi, flow, creativity, inspirationist,

romantic, systems model, domain, field, individual.

Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi’s work on the notion of flow, or autotelic

experience, has been particularly influential in explaining the experience
of creativity. It has been described as a state where individuals have ‘a
sense that one’s skills are adequate to cope with the challenges at hand, in
a goal directed, rule-bound action system’. 1 Autotelic experience, where
individuals self-direct goals and rewards, occurs when a person’s skill
level is approximately equivalent to the level of the challenge they are
presented with 2 . If skills exceed the challenge of the creative task
boredom results and the flow experience won’t occur. If the challenge is
too high anxiety results and flow stops. Autotelic motivation can be seen
as the desire to enter flow. 3 While flow has certainly been a useful concept
to help describe the experience of creativity, and recreating this flow
experience may well provide the conditions for a child to be creative in, it
is argued here that there is a more fundamental and instrumental way to
describe the actual mechanisms of creativity and thus provide more solid
ground for developing long term creative action in children. Nonetheless
this recent approach to rethinking creativity is itself pointed at by the
 Phillip McIntyre 2
___________________________________________________________

notion of flow, as the requisite skill acquisition necessary for flow to occur
indicates that that there are structures, such as bodies of knowledge and
institutional practices, one must learn in order to enter this experience and
be creative.

This paper argues that Cziksentmihalyi’s conception of the

systems model of creativity 4 may prove to be as equally beneficial and
important as the concept of flow in terms of analyzing and describing
creative practice. As such, an understanding of the systems model may
provide a useful set of tools to generate the conditions for creativity to
occur and thus allow the state of flow to develop. Before we explore the
systems model more fully however it is wise to, firstly, clarify the deep-
seated commonsense understandings of creativity which are linked to the
west’s long cultural and eclectic heritage.

One of the major narratives in the west is that of the Judeo-

Christian tradition. One of the fundamental tenets of this belief system is
that the world was bought into being ex nihilo. Since, according to this
creation myth, God also ‘created man in his image’ 5 it is a small enough
step to make, and then accept, that a few rare individuals, working under
divine inspiration, can create astounding objects, ideas and concepts that
have their genesis in a realm beyond mere mortals. This is a position not
too dissimilar in general terms from that of the idea of the Platonic muse
whereby a creative individual is ‘never able to compose until he has
become inspired, and is beside himself, and reason is no longer in him’ 6
The works produced in this way ‘are not of man or human workmanship,
but are divine and from the gods’. 7 Both of the Judeo-Christian and the
Greek traditions have lead, in part, to the notion of genius. Once genius
can be seen as analogous to that of the creator myth then it also becomes
acceptable that creativity itself can be conceived of as a spiritual and
mystical process directly connected to extraordinary individuals with god-
like powers who have access to that process. The explanation for
creativity from this perspective can be best described as inspirationist.

However, for the German philosopher Kant, whose name has

become inextricably tied to the field of aesthetics and thus to the notion of
genius, there was a disconnection with either the biblical or Platonic ideas
of creativity. In connecting the notion of genius and creativity he
emphasised ‘the unprecedented, spontaneous nature of the creative act or
process; as the work of genius provides the rules for any activity, genius is
a guiding and determining factor in itself’’. 8 Significantly, by declaring
the centrality of genius, Kant also disconnected the notion of creativity
from either an external muse or God figure and focussed instead on the
supposed freely functioning internal abilities of the extraordinary creator.
 Phillip McIntyre 3
___________________________________________________________

He asserted that the creation of art does not rely on prior procedures or
rules, but it is ‘independent of all conditions other than spontaneous
activity made possible through faculties in the creators consciousness’. 9

For the nineteenth-century Romantics who, following Kant,

emphasised the unknowable internal landscape of the creator, self-
determination led unopposed to self-expression and self-discovery. 10 This
left the individual firmly at the heart of the creative process but they were
working beyond rationality 11 . This position paradoxically left the
supposedly free-willed self-expressive individual at the mercy of their
own creative drives; drives that must be obeyed to the point of insanity. In
adhering to these ideas many Romantics rejected rationalism and
distanced themselves from a society they perceived to be ‘utilitarian and
philistine. This isolation served to fuel ideas of split personality and
opposing selves, an allusion to popular notions of artistic creativity as
intrinsically linked to pain, suffering and madness’. 12 These ideas were
not lost on the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud. He believed that
creative individuals were ‘driven by unconscious motivations - a quasi-
neurotic who channels his near-pathology into a socially permissible
path.’ 13 But the basic problem for his understanding of creativity, seen
through the lens of artistic activity, was that he uncritically adopted a
popular belief of his age. ‘In relating the creative powers of the artist to
neurosis, Freud is effectively providing what amounts to a medicalised re-
reading of the Romantic agony’. 14 Petrie further argues that Freud can be
criticised for ‘conceptualising art as existing only in relation to the
individual who produced or contemplated a particular work. The objective
role of social conditions and the process of production itself are practically
ignored’. 15 (Petrie, 1991). But Freud’s ideas, or those very similar to them,
have persisted. The general problematic, of course, is that if we see
creativity solely in this inspirational or romantic way it causes us to look
at the individual and at the individual only. As Robert Weisberg has
argued;

the literature on creativity was until recently dominated

by what one could call the “genius” view of creativity,
which also pervades our society. This view…assumes
that truly creative acts involve extraordinary individuals
carrying out extraordinary thought processes. 16

However, more recent research has tended to search for a more

complex answer to the puzzle of creativity. It has moved beyond the
simple assumption that it can be found in studying individual agents and
individual agents alone. Embedded in this research are significant counter
propositions to the inspirationist and romantic positions. 17 It has come
 Phillip McIntyre 4
___________________________________________________________

from a number of fields. The research is composed of work from

sociology 18 , the field of art 19 and cultural production in general 20 , the
reasoned arguments from literary criticism 21 and the postructuralist
rhetoric of Barthes and Foucault 22 as well as communication and media
studies. 23 Psychology, operating in its various sub-categories including the
psychodynamic, behavioural, neuro, cognitive, and social ones, has been
central to contributing to this now significant body of work on creativity. 24
Many of these schools of thought provide an account of creativity that
may be seen as narrowly focused on specific aspects of the phenomenon
of creativity. However, the advent of the more recent confluence approach
to creativity, itself owing a large debt to Morris Stein 25 , eschews a single
sighted approach and embraces multidisciplinarity. This approach can be
seen in the recent work of a number of creativity researchers. 26

The confluence approach to creativity doesn’t pursue the remnant

romantic focus on the individual agent. It instead argues that a complex set
of multiple factors must converge in order for creativity to occur. What
those specific factors are has been the source of debate within this school
of thought 27 but there is some agreement that creativity can only be
explained by investigating all of the biological, psychological, social and
cultural inputs to its existence. It is argued here that the most apt way to
account for these multiple factors is to see creativity coming about through
the actions of a complex system in operation. To think of explaining
creativity in this way is as radical a step to take as that proposed by
Copernicus when he argued and provided evidence that the earth was not,
as imagined by the then commonsense Ptolemaic conception of it, the
centre of the solar system; it was instead one important part of the solar
system but only a part. 28 The analogy is that we can no longer see the
individual as being at the heart of the process of creativity. ‘We need to
abandon the Ptolemaic view of creativity, in which the person is at the
centre of everything, for a more Copernican model in which the person is
part of a system of mutual influences and information’. 29 The individual
still has a role to play, no doubt, but their importance and centrality have
been superseded by a conception that has them as one operant in a
confluence of many.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, for example, argues that creativity

occurs as a result of the three way interaction of a person with a domain of
knowledge and a field that makes decision about that domain of
knowledge. 30 The three major components of this interactive system are
labelled the field, the domain and the individual. Just as air, tinder and a
spark are all vitally necessary to create fire the three components of the
creative system, field, domain and person, are equally important in
bringing about a creative product. 31 It is suggested that the system has
 Phillip McIntyre 5
___________________________________________________________

circular causality meaning that the act of instigating creativity does not
reside solely with the individual 32 . It instead can be generated by any one
of the components in the system and by the system as a whole.

A domain is the symbol system that the person and others

working in the area utilises. It is the culture, the sets of conventions, the
knowledges the person becomes immersed in. It is related in a sense to the
notion of cultural capital where it is seen as a form of cultural knowledge,
competences or dispositions. 33 The domain may also be indirectly equated
to Bourdieu’s notion of field of works which is seen as the accumulated
work done to a certain point in a particular field. This ‘heritage
accumulated by collective work presents itself to each agent as a space for
possibles, that is as an ensemble of probable constraints which are the
condition and the counterpart of a set of possible uses’. 34

If this is the case there are a number of ways the domain can
contribute to the creative system. These include the clarity of structure of
the domain, its centrality within the culture, its accessibility and whether
the domain requires innovation. 35 The clarity of structure of the domain
provides a basis for assessment. For example a domain with a cohesive
internal logic makes knowledge easy to assess. If the domain is central to a
culture it is easy for those concerned with domain to access resources to
contribute to creative endeavours within it. The speed with which
information is processed within the domain also correlates directly to the
amount of novelty the domain is capable of generating. If a domain is
incomplete and those working within it realise this, the domain itself
becomes the driver of the process.

While the domain can be seen to be based in a set of symbolic

cultural artefacts the field can be seen as the social organisation that
understands that cultural knowledge. ‘The easiest way to define a field is
to say that it includes all those who can affect the structure of a domain’. 36
However, given the complexity of the operation of any social organisation,
it may be more apt to describe a field as a structured space that is
organised around specific types of capital or sets of domain knowledges.
As such it can be described as a set of ‘concrete social situations governed
by a set of objective social relations’. 37 It also can’t be simply equated to
institutions but may be seen as an arena of production, circulation, and
appropriation of goods, services, knowledge, or status. It is in one sense an
arena of contestation where the competitive positions held by actors in
their struggle to accumulate and monopolise different kinds of cultural and
symbolic capital occurs. 38
 Phillip McIntyre 6
___________________________________________________________

Fields can affect creativity in three different ways; by being

reactive or proactive, by choosing a broad or narrow filter to select
novelty, and by being ‘well connected to the rest of the social system and
thus able to channel support’ 39 into that particular domain. A reactive field
does not solicit novelty whereas a proactive one does by actively
demanding novelty from the creative individuals concerned. In addition
some fields are conservative and allow only a few new items to enter the
domain at any given time. They reject most novelty and select only what
they consider best. Others are more liberal in allowing new ideas into their
domains, and as a result these change more rapidly. ‘At the extremes, both
strategies can be dangerous: It is possible to wreck a domain either by
starving it of novelty or by admitting too much unassimilated novelty’. 40
The fundamental task of the field is to ‘select promising variations and to
incorporate them into the domain’. 41

From the systems perspective the person’s task is to produce

some variation in the inherited information residing in the domain they
have access to. They rearrange elements of the symbol system in novel
and valuable ways but their agency is not ‘free’ in the romantic sense but
is always both enabled and constrained 42 by the structures of the field and
domain they work within. They thus exemplify the idea that ‘practice is
always informed by a sense of agency (the ability to understand and
control our own actions), but that the possibilities of agency must be
understood in terms of cultural trajectories, literacies and dispositions’. 43
If what the person has done is acceptable to the field this new work may
be incorporated into the domain and take its own place in the field of
works as new knowledge. In this way the system in action can be seen as a
dynamic and fluid one giving both the field and the domain, as well as the
person, an active part in the production of creativity.

There are of course a set of factors that contribute to the

individual making those variations in the domain. These have already been
closely studied. 44 These factors consist of the individual’s personal
background including the genetic pool they spring from, their personal
experiences including things such as familial influence, sibling position,
social class and educational opportunities. Many of these factors
contribute to the access the individual may have to both the domain and
field. In this regard the person must go through a process of enculturation
into the domain including learning to recognise the codes, conventions,
forms, rules, knowledges pertinent to that domain. They also need to be
socialised into the field including being able to recognise and negotiate the
status, norms and values of that field, and learn to understand how the
field makes decisions and how it goes about selecting or choosing those
changes in the symbol system it considers worthwhile.
 Phillip McIntyre 7
___________________________________________________________

This shift in understanding of the action of creativity from an

inpirationist and romantic view to a confluence approach, as exemplified
by the systems model, then entails a necessary shift in the way we need to
approach the skills and techniques utilised to enhance the practice of
creativity. If the systems model is a more apt way to conceive of
creativity, which I believe it is 45 , it may be that the teaching of personal
skills and the acquisition of domain knowledge will need to be
supplemented with a complex understanding of the way in which fields
work and make decisions. While there are many factors involved in
creativity that we have little or no control over, such as, the inability to
govern the way the social organisation of the field will react to a
revolutionary idea, choose the times a child is born into, decide which
family they are born into, or govern the sets of genes they acquire from
that family, there are nonetheless many other factors, many external to the
individual, that can be learnt in achieving some long term creative output.

A good way to begin creative practice, therefore, is to disregard

the romantic imperative to examine one’s self introspectively or rely on
inspiration or the muse appearing when they are most needed. Instead, as
Keith Sawyer advises in his book Explaining Creativity: The Science of
Human Innovation, and basing his position on a survey of recent scientific
studies into creativity, one must help thos interested in creative practice to
turn their creative gaze away from their navel, so to speak, and focus
outward to the critical and influential social and cultural structures that
have, as has been discussed, so much bearing on creativity. 46 For example,
in order to pursue creative practice children must at some point become
aware of the field they would like to work in and be given an opportunity
to examine the structure of that field, find out how it makes its decisions
and how the selection processes work within it. This information will help
them negotiate their entry into this active arena of social contestation and
help them to introduce their innovations in what Sawyer calls ‘marketable’
way. As he states, ‘the most successful creative people are very good at
introducing their ideas to the field’. 47

In conjunction with these activities children could also be taught

how to actively choose a field that is right for them. 48 In doing this
Sawyer suggests a field is more likely to experience creativity if it has; a
system of training in place, a system to identify potential newcomers,
where mentoring is prioritised and provision is genuinely made for
newcomers to work in the domain. 49 If the systems model is correct these
are necessary things to become aware of. Some fields will also require lots
of networking as some connection and interaction with the field will be
necessary in order to gain support, albeit emotional or financial, to allow
 Phillip McIntyre 8
___________________________________________________________

creative practice to, firstly, take place and, secondly, continue. Also a
network of like-minded people is crucial to developing new and unlikely
ideas. Children should thus be led to understand the nature of
collaboration as, no matter what domain is engaged with, it is often a
necessity in creative practice. 50 It is inevitable that others will not only be
able to contribute to this practice but when they do so they will
unavoidably invest their own reputation in any solution. This means that
credit shouldn’t necessarily follow the singular individual focus of the
‘author as genius’ model favoured by romanticism. While the various
copyright and patent laws have their basis in romantic individualism 51 a
fear of losing valuable credit could prevent a critical and productive
collaboration. While Sawyer suggests that collaboration will produce
stronger results in creative practice 52 it is nonetheless advisable to learn to
assess the members of the field one interacts with wisely developing the
ability to work alongside only those collaborators that one can trust and
those that will push the creative practice beyond what it comfortably may
be otherwise.

In terms of the domain an individual can actively choose a

symbol system, a body of knowledge or field of works, out of the ones on
offer, that suits them. If, for example, a child is focused on problem
finding, an ill-structured domain, as Keith Sawyer suggests, would be
suitable while a tightly defined domain such as maths with significant pre-
existing work available, with problems that need solving that is evident to
the field, would be attractive to those interested primarily in problem
solving. 53 The creative individual also needs to focus on one particular
domain and concentrate their efforts there as they’ll spend years
internalising it 54 and building skills until it becomes part of their habitus.
The habitus, as detailed by Bourdieu, is a set of dispositions which
generates practices and perceptions. The habitus is the result of a long
process of inculcation which becomes a ‘second sense’ or a second
nature 55 against which they can make judgements about the creative work
being produced. Given the time this automaticity of action 56 takes to
develop, and contrary to the ideas of sudden and illuminating creativity
inherent in the inspirationist model, it is often the case that some years will
elapse before a person will have the ability to contribute anything creative
to a domain. 57 As their habitus develops the individual will aid their cause
by looking for the most pressing problems facing the domain. They will
need to learn or be taught how to work at asking good questions and not
get caught up in solving the simple and easy to get at questions. The
experts in the field know what these are and the task of the individual may
be as simple as finding out this information from them. 58
 Phillip McIntyre 9
___________________________________________________________

In summary Sawyer argues that a person interested in pursuing

creative practice should find a domain and field, an environment to work
in that is supportive and suits them. 59

Once that person has a few successes in engaging with the

domain and field they will build the confidence to take the necessary risks
entailed in creative practice. It is also hardly ever publicised how many
failures it takes to create a success. Failures, especially for children, need
not be detrimental as they also prove to be strong motivators in moving
creative practice forward. As Sawyer asserts, ‘confidence will come from
years of preparation in the domain, and from additional years of hard work
once you’ve learnt the domain’. 60 In addition, and in line with both Robert
Weisberg’s and Sharon Bailin’s work, most creative practice tends to
require a set of disciplined work habits. 61 Their studies report that creative
individuals, contrary to the common perceptions of artists, do in fact work
hard and long. In this case inspiration really does come about from
perspiration; not from a mystical muse sitting on the individual’s shoulder.
What counts primarily is motivation. This is particularly important for
children. However, Sawyer suggests that for a person to be engaged in
creative practice they must be intrinsically motivated. 62 While this idea is
a persistent hangover from romantic benefits of nurturing an internal
landscape 63 there is too much evidence to say that extrinsic motivators are
also just as crucial. 64 It seems the most likely motivator is to ignore
whether the work is either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated and look
instead for the challenges that are comparable to the skills a child
possesses. This will ensure that the autotelic, or flow, experience is in fact
instigated. The desire to enter the flow experience, as has been reported, is
motivator enough as it has been found to drive people back to creative
practice time and time again. 65 With this in mind educators need to be
aware that if a child’s work is becoming easier as their experience and
skill level increases, they should be led to find ways to increase the
challenge facing them so that they will continue to become fully absorbed
into their creative practice. 66

Finally, with all of this new information at the educator’s

disposal aiding them in negotiating the creative system, and research
evidence to support it, it seems apt to propose that educators need to
engage with more pragmatic ways of stimulating creative practice other
than focusing primarily on the individual and the individual alone.
Understanding and acting on the multiple confluence of factors outlined in
the systems model of creativity will convey a more considered and
research supported analysis and description of creative practice; one that
will then allow the autotelic experience, the flow of creativity, to be
taught, learnt and engaged with more fully.
 Phillip McIntyre 10
___________________________________________________________

1
M Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience,
HarperPerrenial, New York, 1991, p. 71.
2
While the phenomenon, technically called optimal or autotelic
experience, has been linked to various mystical, metaphysical or religious
experiences its existence has been more accurately identified as having a
neurobiological base. For an elaboration see A Marr, ‘In the Zone: A
Behavioural Theory of the Flow Experience’, Athletic Insight: The Online
Journal of Sport Psychology, V3/N1, April 2001, (accessed 10/4/06),
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol3Iss1/Commentary.htm
3
M Csikszentmihalyi & I Csikszentmihalyi (eds.), Optimal
Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1988.
4
For elaborations see: M Csikszentmihalyi, ‘Society, Culture and Person:
A Systems View of Creativity’ in Robert Sternberg (ed.) The Nature of
Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1988 ; M Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow
and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, HarperPerrenial, New
York, 1997; and M Csikszentmihalyi, ‘Implications of a Systems
Perspective for the Study of Creativity’ in Robert Sternberg (ed.)
Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK,
1999.
5
Catholic Biblical Association of America, The New American Bible,
Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville Tennessee, 1971, p. 2.
6
Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, E
Hamilton & H Cairns (eds), Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.,
1971, p. 220.
7
ibid.
8
I Kant, The Critique of Judgement (translated with analytical indexes by
J Meredith), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, p. 190.
9
A Rothenberg & C Hausman, The Creativity Question, Duke University
Press, Durham N.C., 1976, p. 29.

10
P Watson, Ideas: A History from Fire to Freud, Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, London, 2005, pp. 606-623.
 Phillip McIntyre 11
___________________________________________________________

11
K Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. 15-17.
12
D Petrie, Creativity and Constraint in the British Film Industry,
MacMillan, London, 1991, p. 3.

13
V Zolberg, Constructing a Sociology of the Arts, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990, p. 109-110.

14
Petrie, op.cit, p. 5.
15
ibid.
16
R Weisberg ‘ Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories’ in R
Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K., 1999, p. 148.

17
Margaret Boden, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, 2nd ed.,
Routledge, London, 2004, p. 14.
18
For example see: V Zolberg, Constructing a Sociology of the Arts,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990; J Stillinger, Multiple
Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius, Oxford University Press,
1991; J Wolff, The Social Production of Art (2nd ed), MacMillan, London,
1993; and M Howe, Genius Explained, Cambridge University Press,
London, 1999.
19
For example see: H Becker, Art Worlds, University of California Press,
Los Angeles, 1982.
20
Outlined in: P Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK, 1977; P Bourdieu, The Logic of
Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1990; P Bourdieu, Field of
Cultural Production (R Johnson ed), Columbia University Press, New
York, 1993; and P Bourdieu, The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of
the Literary Field (trans by S Emanuel), Polity Press, Cambridge UK,
1996.
21
R Pope, Creativity: Theory, History, Practice, Routledge, New York,
2005.
 Phillip McIntyre 12
___________________________________________________________

22
R Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’ in Image, Music, Text, Noonday
Press, New York, 1977, pp142-153; M Foucault ‘What is an Author?’ in
J.V. Harare (ed) Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structural
Criticism, Cornell University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 141-160.
23
For example see: D Petrie, Creativity and Constraint in the British Film
Industry, MacMillan, London, 1991; K Negus & M Pickering, Creativity,
Communication and Cultural Value, Sage, London, 2004.

24
The research has been variously reviewed by: C Bergquist, ‘A
Comparative View of Creativity Theories: Psychoanalytic, Behaviouristic
and Humanistic’, Vantage Quest, 1999, (accessed 15/6/06).
http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/comparative.htm ; R Sternberg (ed.)
Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.,
1999; M Runco & S Pritzker, Encyclopaedia of Creativity, Academic
Press, San Diego California, 1999; and K Sawyer, Explaining Creativity:
The Science of Human Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
25
See: M Stein, ‘Creativity and Culture’ in The Journal of Psychology, 36,
1953; and M Stein, Stimulating Creativity: Volume One, Individual
Procedures, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
26
For example see: T Amabile, Creativity in Context, Westview Press,
Boulder Col., 1996; H Gruber ‘The Evolving System Approach to
Creative Work, Creativity Research Journal, 1, 1988, pp. 27-51; Dean
Keith Simonton, ‘Individual Differences, Developmental Changes and
Social Context’, in Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 17, 1994, pp. 552-
553; D Feldman, M Csikszentmihalyi & H Gardner, Changing the World:
A Framework for the Study of Creativity, Praeger, Westport Connecticut,
1994; R Sternberg & T Lubart, ‘An Investment Theory of Creativity and
its Development’ Human Development, 34, 1991, pp 1-32; R Sternberg &
T Lubart, ‘Buy Low and Sell High: An Investment Approach to
Creativity’ Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1/1, 1992, pp 1-
5; J Dacey & K Lennon, Understanding Creativity: The Interplay of
Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 1998; and M. Csikszentmihalyi, op. cit. 1988, 1997 & 1999.
27
For an example see; R Weisberg, Creativity: Understanding Innovation
in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts, Wiley, Hoboken
N.J., 2006.
28
C Sagan, Cosmos: The Story of Cosmic Evolution, Science and
Civilisation, Futura, London, 1983, pp. 65-69.
 Phillip McIntyre 13
___________________________________________________________

29
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1988, p. 336.
30
ibid, p. 329.
31
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1997, p. 7.
32
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1988, p. 329.
33
P Bourdieu, op.cit., 1993.
34
P Bourdieu, op.cit., 1996, p. 235.
35
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1997, p. 38.
36
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1988, p. 330.
37
R Johnson in P Bourdieu, op.cit., 1993, p. 6.
38
ibid., pp. 4-9.
39
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1997, p. 44.
40
ibid., p. 44.
41
M Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1988, p. 330.
42
For a fuller discussion of these ideas see: A Giddens, Central Problems
in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis,
MacMillan Press, London, 1979; A Giddens, The Constitution of Society:
Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984; and
J Wolff, The Social Production of Art (2nd ed), MacMillan, London, 1993.
43
T Schirato & S Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy: An
Introduction, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1996, p. 148.

44
For example see: R Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1999; and M Runco & S Pritzker,
Encyclopaedia of Creativity, Academic Press, San Diego California, 1999.
45
See: P McIntyre, Creativity and Cultural Production: A Study of
Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting, unpublished PhD
Thesis, Macquarie University, 2003; and P McIntyre, ‘Paul McCartney
 Phillip McIntyre 14
___________________________________________________________

and the Creation of ‘Yesterday’: The Systems Model in Operation’ in

Popular Music, V25/N2, 2006, pp. 201-219.
46
K Sawyer, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
47
ibid., p. 309.
48
ibid., pp. 307-308.
49
ibid., p. 308.
50
ibid., p. 310.
51
L Bently, ‘Copyright and the Death of the Author in Literature and
Law’ in The Modern Law Review Limited, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
57, 1994, pp. 973-986.
52
K Sawyer, op.cit., 2006, p. 311.
53
ibid., p. 307.
54
ibid., p. 309.
55
R Johnson in P Bourdieu, op.cit., 1993, p. 5.
56
D Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action, Basic Books, New York, 1983.
57
R Weisberg in R Sternberg, op.cit., 1999, pp. 230-235.
58
K Sawyer, op.cit., 2006, p. 310.
59
ibid., p. 312.
60
ibid., pp. 311-312.
61
R Weisberg, Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius, W. H. Freeman &
Co., New York, 1993: S Bailin, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay
On Creativity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1988.
62
ibid., p. 309.
 Phillip McIntyre 15
___________________________________________________________

63
R Eisenberger & L Shanock, ‘Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Creativity: A Case Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation’ in
Creativity Research Journal, 2003, 15 / 2-3, 2003, pp121-130.
64
For example see: P Evans & G Deehan, The Keys to Creativity, Grafton
Books, London, 1988.
65
M Csikszentmihalyi & I Csikszentmihalyi, op.cit., 1988.
66
K Sawyer, op.cit., 2006, p. 310.
 Phillip McIntyre 1
___________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amabile, T., Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder Col., 1996.

Bailin, S., Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay On Creativity. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston, 1988.

Barthes, R., ‘The Death of the Author’. Image, Music, Text, Noonday
Press, New York, 1977, pp142-153.

Becker, H., Art Worlds. University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1982.

Bently, L., ‘Copyright and the Death of the Author in Literature and Law’.
The Modern Law Review Limited, Vol 57, 1994, pp.973-986.

Bergquist, C., ‘A Comparative View of Creativity Theories:

Psychoanalytic, Behaviouristic and Humanistic’. Vantage Quest, 1999,
(accessed 15/6/06), http://www.vantagequest.org/trees/comparative.htm

Boden, M., The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, 2nd ed.
Routledge, London, 2004.

Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge UK, 1977.

Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice. Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1990.

Bourdieu, P., Field of Cultural Production (R Johnson ed). Columbia

University Press, New York, 1993.

Bourdieu, P. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field.
Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1996.

Catholic Biblical Association of America, The New American Bible.

Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville Tennessee, 1971.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., ‘Society, Culture and Person: A Systems View of

Creativity’ in R Sternberg (ed.) The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York,
1988.
 Phillip McIntyre 2
___________________________________________________________

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

HarperPerrenial, New York, 1991.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery

and Invention. HarperPerrenial, New York, 1997.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., ‘Implications of a Systems Perspective for the

Study of Creativity’ in R Sternberg (ed) Handbook of Creativity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1999.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (eds), Optimal

Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1988.

Dacey, J. & Lennon, K., Understanding Creativity: The Interplay of

Biological, Psychological, and Social Factors. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 1998.

Eisenberger, R. & Shanock, L., ‘Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and

Creativity: A Case Study of Conceptual and Methodological Isolation’.
Creativity Research Journal, Vol15/No2-3, 2003, pp121-130.

Evans, P. & Deehan, G., The Keys to Creativity. Grafton Books, London,
1988.

Feldman, D., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Gardner, H., Changing the World: A

Framework for the Study of Creativity. Praeger, Westport Connecticut,
1994.

Foucault, M., ‘What is an Author?’ in J. Harare (ed) Textual Strategies:

Perspectives in Post-Structural Criticism. Cornell University Press, New
York, 1979.

Giddens, A., Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and

Contradiction in Social Analysis. MacMillan Press, London, 1979.

Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of

Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984.

Gruber, H., ‘The Evolving System Approach to Creative Work. Creativity

Research Journal, Vol1, 1988, pp 27-51.

Howe, M., Genius Explained. Cambridge University Press, London, 1999.

 Phillip McIntyre 3
___________________________________________________________

Kant, I., The Critique of Judgement. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952.

Marr, A. ‘In the Zone: A Behavioural Theory of the Flow Experience’.

Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol3/No1,
2001, (accessed 10/4/06),
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol3Iss1/Commentary.htm

McIntyre, P., Creativity and Cultural Production: A Study of

Contemporary Western Popular Music Songwriting. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Macquarie University, 2003.

McIntyre, P., ‘Paul McCartney and the Creation of ‘Yesterday’: The

Systems Model in Operation’. Popular Music, Vol25/No2, 2006 pp. 201-
219.

Negus, K. & Pickering, M., Creativity, Communication and Cultural

Value. Sage, London, 2004.

Petrie, D., Creativity and Constraint in the British Film Industry.

MacMillan, London, 1991.

Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, [E

Hamilton & H Cairns (eds.)]. Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.,
1971.

Pope, R., Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. Routledge, New York,

2005.

Rothenberg, A. & Hausman, C., The Creativity Question. Duke University

Press, Durham N.C., 1976.

Runco, M. & Pritzker, S., Encyclopaedia of Creativity. Academic Press,

San Diego California, 1999.

Sagan, C., Cosmos: The Story of Cosmic Evolution, Science and

Civilisation. Futura, London, 1983.

Sawyer, K., Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation.

Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

Schirato, T. & Yell, S., Communication and Cultural Literacy: An

Introduction. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, 1996.
 Phillip McIntyre 4
___________________________________________________________

Schon, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in

Action. Basic Books, New York, 1983.

Simonton, D., ‘Individual Differences, Developmental Changes and Social

Context’. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, Vol17, 1994, pp. 552-553.

Sternberg, R. (ed), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge U.K., 1999.

Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T., ‘An Investment Theory of Creativity and its
Development’. Human Development, Vol34, 1991, pp 1-32.

Sternberg, R. & Lubart, T., ‘Buy Low and Sell High: An Investment
Approach to Creativity’. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
Vol1/No1, 1992, pp. 1-5.

Stein, M., ‘Creativity and Culture’. The Journal of Psychology, Vol36,

1953, pp. 311-322.

Stein, M., Stimulating Creativity: Volume One, Individual Procedures.

Academic Press, New York, 1974.

Stillinger, J. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. Oxford

University Press, 1991.

Watson, P. Ideas: A History from Fire to Freud. Weidenfeld & Nicolson,

London, 2005.

Weisberg, R. Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. W. H. Freeman &

Co., New York, 1993.

Weisberg, R., Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving,

Science, Invention, and the Arts. Wiley, Hoboken N.J., 2006.

Wolff, J., The Social Production of Art (2nd ed). MacMillan, London,
1993.

Zolberg, V., Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.

View publication stats