Impunidad por arrestos y detenciones arbitrarias

A relatively new approach to studying the creative process is called the creative cognition approach, which posits that (i) people are naturally creative and creativity is a feature of normal cognition; (ii) the psychological processes resulting in creative products can be studied via experiments; and (iii) these processes are observable (Ward, Smith, & Finke, 1999). In addition, the originators of this approach, Finke, Ward and Smith also theorised that these cognitive processes are organized in a bottom-up fashion (Weisberg, 2006). In other words, input from the environment is analysed via the senses, then the resultant sensory information is processed via perception, and finally relevant information in memory is sought that matches processed information before creative problem solving can begin (Weisberg, 2006). Much of the creative cognition approach is built upon experimental research that other cognitive psychologists have undertaken in areas such as mental imagery, combinatorial creativity, mental blocks, novel tasks, etcetera (Piirto, 2004).

Out of the creative cognition approach, they have developed a model of the creative process called the geneplore model. According to the geneplore model, creative thinking encompasses two processing stages. First, there is a generation stage in which generative processes such as association, memory retrieval, transformation, synthesis, categorical reduction and analogical transfer are used to create mental representations called pre-inventive structures (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992). Memory retrieval and association are the generative processes that produce the most simplistic pre-inventive structures as they happen rapidly, but suffer from fixation effects (i.e. being unable to view an idea outside of its original context or use). Mental transformation and synthesis produce a wider variety and more intricate pre-inventive structures. Analogical transfer, in which relationships are transferred to another context, is another common generative process. Categorical reduction refers to mentally reducing concepts or objects to more basic descriptions such as viewing a cup as a container for hot liquid allowing for consumption (Finke et al., 1992).

This process is repeated until several pre-inventive structures, which are not creative products in themselves, exist (Finke et al., 1992). Visual patterns and object forms are two pre-inventive structures that are primarily visual and spatial images that may eventually lead to new designs. Mental blends are pre-inventive structures that include metaphors, merged images, and conceptual combinations. Pre-

inventive structures may also take the form of category exemplars, which are hypothetical categories that resemble existing categories in some respects but differ in terms of others (Finke et al., 1992). Mental models are pre-inventive structures that mentally depict physical or conceptual systems. Verbal combinations are interesting arrangements of words or phrases that are not blended like mental blends and that may be used for poetic or literary creativity. Some musical forms may also represent pre- inventive structures.

These pre-inventive structures are then mentally visualised and manipulated to test them in usage situations. For more complex problems with many parts, the geneplore model suggests that great creators often physically externalize these pre-inventive structures or take these pre-inventive structures outside of their heads during the generation stage or later exploration stage (Sawyer, 2012). This externalization can occur verbally, visually and even mathematically, depending on the problem faced and modifications can be made afterwards. Day (as cited in Sawyer, 2012) found that when progress is stifled during problem-solving, it is because inappropriate external representations not matching the type of problem are being used. For example, when faced with certain classes of design problems, written language is only suited for conveying classes of objects (e.g. boxes) rather than specific objects (e.g. shapes with no known names). Therefore, visual representations or externalizations are superior for specific objects as this allows designers to see consequences of using specific objects (Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010). According to the geneplore model, creative thinking attempts to capitalise on properties of pre-inventive structures (outlined in Table 2.1) so that final creative products possess most of these properties.

Table 2.1

Pre-inventive Structures and Properties according to the Geneplore model

Pre-inventive Structures Pre-inventive properties

Visual patterns Novelty

Object forms Ambiguity

Mental blends Meaningfulness

Category exemplars Emergence

Mental models Incongruity

Verbal combinations Divergence

Note. Adapted from “Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd edn.),” by R.K. Sawyer, 2012, p. 137. Copyright 2012 by Oxford University Press.

However, it should be emphasised that no single property is essential. Novelty is a desired property, because the chances of a creative product are increased if the pre-inventive structure itself is uncommon (Finke et al., 1992). Ambiguity creates greater opportunity for exploration and interpretation, especially where concepts are involved. Meaningfulness refers to a pre-inventive structure’s sense of meaning and potential for inspiring new interpretations. Emergence is the degree to which unanticipated features manifest in a pre-inventive structure, especially in those structures that form via mental synthesis (Finke et al., 1992). Incongruity is the conflict inherent in the elements of a pre-inventive structure and motivates further exploration. Divergence is existence of multiple (non-conflicting or non-mutually exclusive) meanings or uses within the same pre-inventive structure.

Then, the exploration stage starts in which exploration processes such as conceptual interpretation, contextual shifting, attribute finding, functional inference, hypothesis testing and limitations search are used to organise, interpret the meanings of and evaluate these pre-inventive structures (Finke et al., 1992). Conceptual interpretation involves finding a theoretical, metaphorical, or abstract interpretation of a pre-inventive structure. Contextual shifting refers to imagining the pre-inventive structure in a different context. Attribute finding is the mental scanning of the pre-inventive structures for unknown or unexpected features. Functional inference involves imagining uses for a pre-inventive structure. Hypothesis testing refers to mentally testing pre-inventive structures as possible solutions to problems. Limitations search entails attempts to discover for which problems pre-inventive structures will not work and which solutions are not feasible, which makes future searches easier. The resultant interpretations produce insights that either focus on specific issues or modify pre-inventive structures in an expansive manner (Van der Lugt, 2002). It should be noted that constraints on the creative product can be set during either stage of the model (Van der Lugt, 2002). According to Finke et al. (1992), the creative problem-solving process ends when one or a combination of these structures meet all the constraints and is therefore sufficient to solve the problem.

This geneplore model rejects the abrupt insight view of creativity, but proffers a more incremental process. If a creator undertakes the two-phase geneplore process and is unsuccessful in creating a creative product, he/she may return to generative phase, abandon the initial pre-inventive structure and generate another such structure. Alternatively, he/she may modify the pre-inventive structure and repeat the exploratory phase. Depending on the level of refinement required by the creator, the geneplore model may operate in a cyclical fashion. Another important aspect to note is that the geneplore model views intrinsic motivation, especially the joy of creative discovery, as important for creativity and that intrinsic motivation can be activated before the generation phase or once pre-inventive structures have been formulated (Finke et al., 1992).

Figure 2.1. The basic structure of the geneplore model. Reprinted from “Brainsketching and how it differs from brainstorming,” by R. Van der Lugt, 2002, Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, p.49. Copyright 2002 by Blackwell Publishing Limited.

An example of the geneplore model in action is the 1940s saxophonist, Charlie Parker, who is considered to be an all-time great of the Jazz genre in the main because of his improvisations that were both novel and appropriate (Cropley & Cropley, 2009). It appeared as if his improvisations arose from nothing each time. In reality, Parker had developed an extensive collection of 100 musical sequences or ‘licks’ (pre-inventive structures) varying between 4 and 10 notes in length, which he combined and recombined to produce novel performances (Cropley & Cropley, 2009). It could be theorized that Parker retrieved some of these licks from memory, combined several in a new synthesis such as a melody line, sound-tested it mentally, and then arranged it with other newly created pre-inventive structures to create a Jazz performance. Parker’s initial problem may have been ‘How do I express my current feelings musically?’

Another, far less famous, but no less creative, example comes from a chance encounter the current researcher had one afternoon upon entering an unusual sushi bar in a town in the Karoo, a region in the Western Cape known for its lamb. Upon scanning the menu, it was evident that most of sushi items contained biltong (i.e. South African spiced and dried meat) instead of fish. It can be theorised that the entrepreneur-owner of the sushi bar had engaged in a mental transformation or a synthesis (generative processes) that produced a mental blend of ‘biltong sushi’ (pre-inventive structure). This pre-inventive structure possessed novelty (pre-inventive property) and subsequently the entrepreneur explored this further, possibly via limitations search (explorative process) by determining whether all regular sushi items (Ngiri, Fashion sandwiches, California rolls, etcetera) would work with biltong in it instead of the more traditional fish or prawns. This was accomplished by externalisation or crafting sample biltong

sushi and taste-testing. This lead to expanding the pre-inventive structure into a final creative product: a full biltong sushi menu.

One of the strengths of the geneplore model is that it allows for some people to be more skilled in the generative phase, while others may excel at the explorative phase without either being less creative than the other (Finke et al., 1992). For example, Mozart created complete compositions in single attempts, while Beethoven constantly revised his initial compositions, exploring new possibilities. While contributing in outlining various generative and exploration processes that may play a role in creative thinking, Weisberg (2006) contended that the bottom-up geneplore model contradicts the evidence for top-down processing that places greater emphasis on the role of knowledge and expectations about the world. The top-down approach expands the role of memory to beyond just a mechanism for recognition to the seat of knowledge, concepts and expectations, which is viewed as the starting point for processing. However, the current researcher is of the opinion that the geneplore model does not minimise the role of knowledge and expectations. It merely views generative processes that rely heavily on prior knowledge, such as memory retrieval and association, as fairly common, but likely to create less creative pre-inventive structures.

Weisberg (2006) suggested that there was no pre-inventive structure when Picasso painted his anti-war painting, Guernica. However, Weisberg (2006) also admits that Picasso sketched the structure of Guernica before painting it. These pre-painting sketches could be considered to be externalisations of object forms or visual patterns, both examples of pre-inventive structures.