Art historian E. H. Gombrich raised challenging questions about creativity that remain neglected in contemporary psychological research. Emphasizing continuity with tradition, expertise, evaluation, and learning, Gombrich's foci exemplify a particular kind of creator, dubbed “seekers” by Galenson (2001, 2005). Gombrich's place in Galenson's typology and his own views on categories of creators motivate an overview of existing creative typologies. While in principle such typologies have great promise for bridging nomothetic and ideographic approaches to creativity, they have important limitations, like predominantly uni-dimensional structures and limited reliability and validity. Following Gombrich's (1960) principle of “ping and pong,” I argue that a further proliferation of such typologies would be counterproductive; a more informative strategy is to integrate them at the level of their components, rather than reconciling broad category labels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlinI. (1953). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy's view of history. Chicago, IL: Elephant Paperbacks.
2.
BerlinI. (1979). The naiveté of Verdi. In WeaverW. & ChusidM. (Eds.), The Verdi companion (pp. 1–12). New York: Norton.
3.
DasguptaS. (2003). Multidisciplinary creativity: The case of Herbert A. Simon. Cognitive Science, 27, 683–707.
4.
DennisW. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 9, 175–178.
5.
DurmyshevaY. (2007). Creativity: Experimental versus conceptual approaches. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the City University of New York.
6.
EllmannR. (1959/1982). James Joyce (rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
EpsteinS. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In CurtisR. (Ed.), The relational self: Convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 111–137). New York: Guilford Press.
8.
EpsteinS.PaciniR.Denes-RajV., & HeierH. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.
9.
FlamJ. (2003). Matisse and Picasso: The story of their rivalry and friendship. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
10.
GalensonD. W. (2001). Painting outside the lines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
GalensonD. W. (2004). The life cycles of modern artists: Theory and implications. Historical Methods, 37, 123–136.
12.
GalensonD. W. (2005). Old masters and young geniuses: The two life cycles of artistic creativity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
GombrichE. H. (1935/2005). A little history of the world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
GombrichE. H. (1950/1995). The story of art (16th ed.). London: Phaidon.
15.
GombrichE. H. (1960). Art and illusion.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
GombrichE. H. (1979). Ideals and idols. Oxford: Phaidon.
17.
GombrichE. H. (1984). Tributes: Interpreters of our cultural tradition. Oxford: Phaidon.
18.
GombrichE. H. (2002). The preference for the primitive.London: Phaidon.
19.
GombrichE. H., & EribonD. (1993). Looking for answers. New York: Abrams.
20.
GruberH. E. (1974/1981). Darwin on man. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GruberH. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27–51.
22.
GruberH. E., & WallaceD. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–115). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
23.
IsaksenS. G.LauerK. J., & WilsonG. V. (2003). An examination of the relationship between personality type and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 343–354.
24.
JensenR. (2004). Anticipating artistic behavior: New research tools for art historians. Historical Methods, 37, 137–152.
25.
KaufmannG. (1979). The explorer and the assimilator: A cognitive style distinction and its potential implications for innovative problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 23, 101–108.
26.
KirtonM. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.
27.
KirtonM. (1989). A theory of cognitive style. In KirtonM. (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving (pp. 1–36). New York: Routledge.
28.
KozbeltA. (2006). Dynamic evaluation of Matisse's 1935 ‘Large Reclining Nude.’Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 119–137.
29.
KozbeltA. (2007). A quantitative investigation of Beethoven as self-critic: Implications for psychological theories of musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 35, 147–172.
30.
KozbeltA. (in press). E. H. Gombrich on creativity: A cognitive-historical case study. Creativity Research Journal.
31.
KozbeltA. (in preparation). Lifespan creativity in classical composers: Reconciling Darwinian and expertise acquisition perspectives.
32.
KozbeltA., & DurmyshevaY. (2007). Lifespan creativity in a non-Western artistic tradition: A study of Japanese ukiyo-e printmakers. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 65(1), 23–51.
33.
LeonhardtD. (2006, November 15). The science of pricing great art. New York Times, pp. C1, C9.
34.
LubartT. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 339–350). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MartindaleC. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York: Basic Books.
36.
MartinsenØ. (1993). Insight problems revisited: The influence of cognitive style and experience on creative problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 435–447.
37.
MartinsenØ. (1995). Cognitive styles and experience in solving insight problems: Replication and extension. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 291–298.
38.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J., & TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
39.
PerkinsD. N. (1981). The mind's best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
PetrovV. M., & DanilovaO. N. (2004). Creativity in music: Cerebral hemisphericity, stylistic preference, and “greatness.” In FroisJ. P.AndradeP., & MarquesJ. F. (Eds.), Art and science: Proceedings of the XVIII Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics (pp. 532–535). Lisboa, Portugal: IAEA.
41.
PolicastroE., & GardnerH. (1999). From case studies to robust generalization: An approach to the study of creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 213–225). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
SimontonD. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
44.
SternbergR. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
45.
TetlockP. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
WallaceD. B., & GruberH. E. (Eds.). (1989). Creative people at work. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
WonderJ., & BlakeJ. (1992). Creativity East and West: Intuition vs. logic?Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 172–186.
