This article shows how to account for the sociomaterial dimension of distributed creativity in the arts. By following the genesis of a new theatre production, we examined the sociomaterial practices involved to unpack the sociomaterial dimension of distributed creativity. To account for this, we draw on concepts from laboratory studies to explain creative and design work. In so doing, we considered the significance of distributed creative practices that are constituted by intermediaries which we argue, help to outline, refine and develop the creative idea. This article is especially attentive to the professional practices in the rehearsal room; what we called the ‘creative laboratory’, the locus where material artifact and their potentialities unfold in the process of creating a work of art ‘yet to arrive’. Extracts from ethnographic observations are used to illustrate the creative process from the germination of ideas to the collectively arrived at final production. In this respect, the rehearsal room is where initiatives are trialled and tested, and specific aspects of a scene (re)created, to feed into the composition of the emergent theatrical work.
AkrichM.LatourB. (1992). A summary of convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In BijkerW. E.LawJ. (eds), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264).
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
2.
AlvessonM. (2003).
Methodology for close up studies – Struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education,
46, 167–193.
3.
AriztíaT. (2016). The ‘reference’ as an advertising device. In FariasI.WilkieA. (eds), Studio studies: Operations, topologies & displacements.
Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
4.
BeauboisV. (2015).
Design, assemblage and functionality. Deleuze and Design, Techniques & Culture,
64, 48–63.
5.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
6.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.Punamäki-GitaiR. Miettinen R.-L. (eds), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38).
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
FlemingJ. (2016). The trouble with women.
London, UK:
Square Peg.
9.
GlăveanuV. P. (2010a).
Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology,
28, 79–93.
10.
GlăveanuV. P. (2010b).
Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture & Psychology,
16, 147–163.
11.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192--208.
12.
GlăveanuV. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual.
Berlin, Germany:
Springer.
13.
GlăveanuV. P.Hanchett HansonM.BaerJ.BarbotB.ClappE. P.CorazzaG. E., … MontuoriA. (2019).
Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
0, 1–5.
14.
GoodwinC. (1994).
Professional vision. American Anthropologist,
96, 606–633.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
17.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39--103.
18.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1983). The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In KnorrK. D.-CetinaMulkayM. (eds), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
19.
Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1995). Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. Handbook of science and technology studies. SAGE Publications, pp. 140--166. doi: 10.4135/9781412990127
20.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
21.
LatourB. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
22.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.
Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
23.
MattozziA. (2018). Quando il design è una serie di descrizioni prospettive, peper presented to the conference Quando è Design/Quand c'est du Design/When is Design, Urbino, Italy, 10--11 September 2018.
24.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (2000). In Search of Creativity: Beyond Individualism and Collectivism. Western Academy of Management Conference, Hawaii, March 2000.
25.
ParolinL. L. (2010).
Sulla produzione materiale. Qualità sensibili e sapere pratico nella stabilizzazione degli artefatti. Tecnoscienza,
1, 39–56.
26.
PercivaleT. (2016). Più veloce del vento.
San Dorligo della Valle, Italy:
Einaudi Ragazzi.
27.
SawyerR. K. (1995).
Creativity as mediated action: A comparison of improvisational performance and product creativity. Mind, Culture, and Activity,
2, 172–191.
28.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
StorniC. (2012).
Unpacking design practices: The notion of thing in the making of artefacts. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
37, 88–123.
30.
TanggaardL. (2013).
The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. Culture & Psychology,
19, 20–32.
31.
Vallée-Tourangeau F., & Cowley S. J. (2013) Human Thinking Beyond the Brain. In: Cowley S., Vallée-Tourangeau F., (eds) Cognition Beyond the Brain. London: Springer, pp. 1--11.
32.
VialS. (2015). Le design.
Paris, France:
Presses Universitaires de France.
33.
VinckD. (2003). Everyday engineering. An ethnography of design and innovation.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
34.
Yaneva, A. (2005). Scaling up and down: Extraction trials in architectural design. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 867--894.
35.
Yaneva, A. (2009). The making of a building: A pragmatist approach to architecture. Peter Lang.
