22

Cultural Construction of Creativity: Dualism and Beyond

Minati Panda

Research on creativity in mainstream psychology is inescapably rooted in the philosophical and cultural orientation of individualism. This made ‘autonomy’ a desirable trait and counter-posed it with dependence. In fact, dependency and conformity were viewed as negative traits constraining one's freedom, which is at the base of any creative act/behaviour (Montuori & Purser, 1995; Purser & Montuori, 2004). Thus, in the study of creativity, the creative individual is often the focus (Sternberg, 1988). The claims that it is ultimately the individuals themselves who are creative, and that, membership in a group is, more often than not, a hindrance to creativity characterized the construction of creativity in mainstream American psychology (Montuori & Purser, 1995; 1999). The majority of studies in this field of inquiry came from North America and were mindlessly replicated in other parts of the world (Raina, 1991). The twentieth century psychological literature on creativity in India is, therefore, based on the biases and assertions about the supremacy of the individual, whereas, culture and cultural processes were deemed less important (Raina, 1993; Sternberg, 1985, 1999). This raised the question as to whether any individual can really be considered isolated or alone in the pursuit of both knowledge and creativity. If the answer is ‘no’, then it is imperative to ask the question that logically follows from the earlier one, that is whether, any creative process can occur without any form of interaction or socio-cultural influence. Even if somebody works in physical isolation, is she or he not part of a larger discursive context which is socio-politically and historically determined? In the words of Montuori and Purser (1995), ‘Can there be a lone genius?’

In fact, individualism, according to Montuori and Purser (2004) thrived on the numerous forms of dualisms or dichotomy. Creativity research in psychology suffered most because of our lack of ability to overcome these dualisms that are built into modern ways of knowing. Such dualisms have unfortunately created cultural polarization between self and society, creativity and conformity, order and disorder, individualism and collectivism (Purser and Montuori, 2004). Cultures were categorized into more or less creative cultures using these bipolar adjectives. In individualistic cultures, where people hold an atomistic view of the self, creativity is seen as the product of cognitions of a lone genius (Simonton, 1999; Montuori & Purser, 1999).

According to Purser and Montuori (2004) and Oligvy (cited in Purser & Montuori, 2004), in cultures where people hold a holistic view of self, creativity by definition is social and context embedded; and the individual is epiphenomenal—the vehicle for social forces which play themselves out with or without any particular individual. For individualists, social factors are epiphenomenal (Sampson, 1991), and for more collectivist positions, the individual is simply expressing the social, political and economic forces of the times. Either way, we find an oppositional, disjunctive form of thinking in either/or terms, which can be traced back to dualisms (Ogilvy, cited in Purser & Montuori, 2004).

The scholars who converged on the other extreme of the dichotomy preferred the term ‘social creativity’ which had its genesis in the reaction to this discursive context of individualistic project. In his brilliant exposition on ‘What is an Author?’, Foucault (cited in Hoffman and Weiner, 2003) asks, do we always want to trace ideas back to specific authors? Why do we insist that ideas or concepts, or even literary works, are the creation of a single individual? In fact, the postmodernists raised a fundamental question on the contribution of one single individual as his knowledge is socially produced. It questioned the centre and brought in the periphery to the centre through a de-centering process. It is interesting here to examine why does Foucault say the author is ‘dead’? According to Hoffman and Weiner (2003):

Its Foucault's way of saying that the author is decentred, shown to be only a part of the structure, a subject position, and not the center. In the humanist view, authors were the source and origin of texts (and perhaps of language itself, like Derrida's engineer), and were also thus beyond texts — hence authors were ‘centers’. In declaring the author dead, Foucault follows Nietzsche's declaration (at the end of the nineteenth century) that ‘God is dead,’ a statement which Derrida then reads as meaning that God is no longer the center of the system of philosophy which Nietzsche is rejecting. By declaring the death of the author, Foucault is ‘deconstructing’ the idea that the author is the origin of something original, and replacing it with the idea that the ‘author’ is the product or function of writing, of the text.

In other words, any creative writing can not only be attributed to the genius of a single author or man as he himself is the product of a particular discursive practice in a given community (here community can be as big as the world also).

However, it is important to note here that, though, this counter thesis brought in ‘social’ processes to the centre stage, it could not push away from the dominant discourse on creativity and creative processes the numerous dualisms created by ‘individualism’. In fact, the very conception of social creativity was based on a complete rejection of the role of lone individual and, as a result, it attained a position of the polar opposite to individualism. By virtue of being the polar opposite to the individualistic construction of creativity, social creativity seemed to have assumed that it is based on or, at the least, represents the concerns of collectivistic cultures. In fact, some scholars went as far as claiming that social creativity essentially refers to Oriental construal of creativity. The implicit assumption underlying such a straightforward assertion could be that the Oriental construal of creativity is necessarily the polar opposite of individualistic construal of creativity without sufficiently examining the latter. In this sense, it can be claimed that the concept ‘social creativity’ is an offshoot of Western philosophy rather than being an expression of Oriental cultures.

Wilden (1987) examined the creativity literature from the perspective of ‘imaginary’ oppositions—creativity vs. conformity and order vs. disorder. In Western scholars’ views, cultures can be hypothesized to differ in the extent to which they embody creativity enhancing or limiting features such as worldview and value placed on conformity to tradition (Lubart, 1989). There is a strong opposition between individualism and pressures of conformity to community norms. According to Lubart (1989), some cultures favour conformity and structure and others reward innovation. Lubart (1989) discusses two studies, one on Amish and urban American school children by Lembright and Yamamoto (1965) and the second on divergent thinking among nine- to eleven-year-old children in the United States, England, France, Puerto Rico, Turkey and Greece by Torrrance (1964). Both these studies revealed that cultures differ in the dominant type of pressures, the forms of pressures, and the consequences of pressures. Lembright and Yamamoto (1965) found the Amish worldview as highly structured which was implicated by the factual, non-imaginative nature of the Amish's responses. Torrance's (1964) study revealed that some cultures favour conformity and structure and others reward innovation. According to all the three scholars, people are more creative in the less structured society which rewards innovation. The problems with these analyses are obvious in that creativity across cultures is rated by those whose worldviews are inescapably Western. Comparing creativity of different cultural groups assessed in this fashion is problematic because the groups do not share a common reference point and, therefore, any such comparison leads to a biased formulation. There are theorists who have suggested that a culture's worldview can enhance creativity when it empowers people to work towards the future. According to Trachtman (1975), societies that do not maintain faith in progress and the future, value immediate gratification, and see the world as complex, are believed to stifle creativity.

Such approaches to categorize cultures as less and more creative on the basis of two criteria—worldview and value of conformity—could be ethnocentric. Both the studies discussed by Lubart (1989), appear to have taken one ‘universal’ view of creativity, that is, the Western individualistic view. The oriental cultures and researches reveal that conformity and structuring one's daily life are part of creative processes and, therefore, are not perceived as anti-creative, the way it is perceived in the West. Contemporary psychological researches in countries like India, where both concepts and instruments are borrowed from the West, tend to validate the dualism, treat these phenomena as ontologically opposed and mutually exclusive categories. Vidya Niwas Misra (1992), Vatsyayana (1968), Bhattacharya (1992), and a few psychologists like G. Misra, Srivastava and I. Misra (2006), and Raina (1993) in the recent past have questioned the Western construction of creativity and tried to throw light on the different facets of creativity in an Indian context. Unfortunately a large majority of empirical studies done by other Indian psychologists used Western tests and measures to assess creativity as a personal attribute (Tanwan, 1977). It is, therefore, imperative to explore the bases of ‘creativity’ in the Indian context.

Over centuries, Indians have been engaged with the analysis of creativity in various ways. Creativity is often viewed as ‘navonavonmeśaśāliniprajñā’, that is the intellect that generates new forms (Tagore, 1922). It refers to the creation of something new and different, characterizing a digression from the normal/usual and yet remaining in harmony with nature. The latter half of this definition is that which makes the Indian construal of creativity and creative processes unique and different from the Western conceptions. In India, the human spirit and the spirit of the universe are considered one (Chandra, 1992). According to Chandra:

Man and the world are one great truth. How can we divide the bud and the blossom? The literature of India are the purest voice of her deeps, the cream of her reason, born of leaves soaked in the dew of dawns since the days of the ‘Rigveda’. Ramayana, Shakuntalam, and many other great Indian epics provide a bewildering account of creativity being an extension of the milieu or the environment creating and endorsing different levels of existence and consciousness.

Chandra questions the bipolarity of phenomena in Indian creative expressions—transistors or transcendence, computers or contemplation, where lies the chaotic surface and where is the powerful vitality, where is the conflagration or where is compassion (karuṇā)? Perhaps ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ would be appropriate—secret links of man and nature are the purest, primordial beauty (p. 49). The detailed descriptions of art and the process of creation of art are found in a number of Indian texts some of which are discussed below in order to examine the cultural construction of ‘creativity’ and the creative processes in the Indian context.

Environment and Creativity

The artist is a part of nature. The creative work is a product of the environment whose constituting elements are nature, society, individual psyche, religious and philosophical traditions which interact among themselves and merge almost imperceptibly into the form and content of art (Bhattacharya, 1992; G. Misra et al., 2006). These elements undergo a process of transformation and concentration in the mind of the artist aided by his/her creative imagination. Even though the style of a writer or an artist is shaped by his/her own personal capacity and inclination, what remains, at the source of this creative imagination is the culture and experience of the culture. Artists’ creative imagination comes from their ability to relate to and co-exist with the flora and fauna, experience the origin and the extension of self into nature and also the ability to re-create nature in imagination (Misra, 1992). The ancient texts in India provide varied accounts of the relationship between culture and creativity.

Primary sources like the Vedas provide a rich account of the concept of human beings in relation to habitat, physical, social and cultural environments, the animal world and the activities of the mind and the senses. Vedic writings present a picture of the biological and the psychic being and also suggest that humans can transcend both these aspects and experience ānanda, the ultimate bliss. In Indian thought, a person is constantly seen as an embodiment of elements and forces of nature and in relationship with animal and plant life. This gives the Indian evolutionary worldview a different character from that implied in the Western idea of evolution. Human beings are not the best because they overpower and conquer nature and are, thus, the fittest to survive, but because they are among many with a capacity for consciousness and transcendence of pure physicality through physical discipline and discipline of mind.

It is evident from texts like Nāṭyaśāstra that the Indian aesthetic theories and the earlier literary theories emerged in a cultural context. According to Vatsyayan (1992), the first few chapters of Nāṭyaśāstra provide ample evidence of the world view which offered an environment for the creation and evolution of such an aesthetic theory. ‘The edifice of the Nāṭyaśāstra would crumble if it were taken out of context of the periphery of a world view in which man and environment had a special relationship and where man was not the conqueror of the environment but was one among all of the living matter’ (Vatsyayan, 1992, p. 22). While talking of abhinaya (acting) in Chapter-XIII, Bharat lays down two modes, viz., lokadharmī and nāṭyadharmī. The first is the dramatic presentation of facts and feelings as they obtain in nature and life outside, while the second is a stylized mode with technical superimpositions (Krishnamurti, 1992, p. 37). Lokadharmī is considered to be a superior form of art. Chapter XXV provided the criteria that become relevant in aesthetic judgment or in evaluating artistic merit. The key terms for evaluation of artwork are loka (folk tradition/people), veda, and ādhyātmya (spirituality); loka being the first major criterion. Abhinavagupta in his commentary on Vyaktiviveka validates these criteria. Fidelity to nature and life is the exclusive criterion outside the world of art for evaluating the nāṭya (theatrical performances). In fact people are of different natures and nāṭya is rooted in nature. According to Bharata, actors should well incorporate the criterion of loka in their performance. Literary theorists like Bhāmaḥ also emphasize loka in poetry, tatra lokāśrayaṁ kāvyam (poetry is grounded in loka).

The very names given to literary styles are geographical—Vaidarbhī, Gaudī, Pañcālī etc. (these are ancient Indian towns/villages), and this indeed is indicative of the fact that environment is associated with varying literary modes (Krishnamurti, 1992). It is implicit that the place here refers to the existence of a particular culture in a geographical location distinct from other locations/cultures which played a significant role in the production of a particular literary or artistic style. This reinforces the view that the distinctiveness of a creative style of form comes from the distinctiveness of an environment or cultural milieu. Similarly, the concept of gharānās (which refer to the existence of different schools and forms of music) in Hindustāni music obtained their names from the place/family where they developed as stylistic forms. The term gharānā is derived from the root word ‘ghar’ connoting house, home and most appropriately, family. The term is applied to various schools of Hindustāni classical music, especially khayāl. The concept is linked to the oral tradition, the guru-śiṣya paramparā (teacher-pupil tradition) and the ethos of the guild system which continues to operate in the development and handing over of skills from father to son, in closeted traditions in many fields of Indian tradition and experience. The critical factor about the gharānā system is the prevalence of individual styles of rendition, which acquired distinct and special aesthetic values, along with individual repertoires of compositions and even rāga specialties. Though, the styles of gharānās often may tend to be the dominant creations of individuals, whose command over audiences has been extraordinary, one finds the influence (though subtle) of folk traditions (that includes dominant traditions in the area of music, dance, art, pottery etc.) of the community on the compositions and styles. As Indian classical music moves into the twenty-first century, it is significantly redefining its position within the blitz of commercial music proliferation. It is able to do so, because it maintains distinctiveness by virtue of being rooted in a long historical (folk) tradition of a given community. Even though the sensitive and subtle aesthetics of gharānā individualities are merging into an eclectic approach, yet the significance of gharānā ideology and style remain, representing the aesthetic and the functional value of Indian folk heritage as living tributes to centuries of disciplined artistic endeavour.

The popular dance forms in India, both classical and folk such as Bharatanāṭyam, Mohini Aṭṭam, Kucipuḍi, Chau, Videśīya, Kathak, Kathakali and Oḍissi provide clear evidence of a give and take relationship between the environment and the emergence of these dance forms. The dance forms derive their distinctiveness from the specific cultures and regions in which they developed. Oḍissi, for example, began as a temple dance in Puri, Orissa. The dominant themes of this dance form were on Jagannath and other gods with a narrative style typical of 16th century Oriya society. Many of Sri Chaitanya's devotional songs are enacted by the Oḍissi dancers even today. Chau, a military/war dance from the Mayurbhanj district of Orissa portrays the dominant military culture of Western Orissa. In the sixteenth century, when the bhakti movement was strong in coastal Orissa (in fact, the whole of coastal Orissa was resonating with the devotional songs of Sri Chaitanya), Western Orissa continued to emphasize military rule and a culture of masculine power, war, protest and independence. Different local Oriya and tribal groups from Mayurbhanj were encouraged to perform war dances. There was an inherent fear that spread of the bhakti movement would demilitarize the minds of people and would reduce their fighting instinct. Thus, the themes of Chau dance were mostly derived from the myths that surround Lord Śiva (God of Destruction) including his famous tāṇḍava nṛtya and different great wars mentioned in Indian mythology. Oḍissi and Chau differed in their dominant rasas (or the meta emotional states), as both developed in two very different cultural milieu which fostered different kinds of world views among its people.

Origin Myths and Cultures’ Creative Expressions

An artist is a part of nature that experiences his/her body as an extension of the larger experiential reality. The artist, according to Bhattacharya (1992, pp. 68–69):

…retains in his body the primitive features of life, breathes natural air to live, co-exists with the flora and fauna, bears with climatic changes and above all allows his body to be consumed by the elements after death. He owes his birth too to nature. His creative imagination therefore recreates nature and makes Gods out of stars, rivers, mountains and oceans. He invents God or the absolute being and the other myths to explain the creation of the world.

The origin of distinct Western and Oriental views of creativity is worth noting here. In the Oriental world, the theories of creativity derive partly from a culture's creation myths. ‘The Oriental view of cosmic creation is described as an ongoing process—a developing, an unfolding. The same is true for an Indian view where life and death…all originate from the almighty, the cosmic power’ (Sinclaire, 1971). In India, myth making—an ongoing process, partly resulting from our feared ignorance about our own limitless universe—is organically linked up with our creative imagination and creative expressions. A closer look at temple arts, Paṭṭa Citra in Orissa, Pahardi arts in Rajasthan, Madhubanī in Bihar and also the dominant themes of many prominent dance forms like Oḍissi, Kathakali, Kucipuḍi, Bharatanāṭyam (these are classical dance forms from Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu respectively) provide evidence of our obsessive engagement with the themes related to several creation myths. Mythification around the man–nature relationship appears to be a continuing feature of our mind (Bhattacharya, 1992, p. 69) and our civilizational memory.

Whether we regard nature as a friend or enemy, it is likely to be a constant source of images in poetry, of the descriptive and the narrative in fiction or painting and of symbols in all kinds of art; in fact, it is a never-ending source of artistic and creative imagination.

It may be noted that not only in India, but also in many African cultures, the artists at work are viewed as enacting or recreating the origin myth. The Dogon weaver, who draws threads from the spindles of a loom, is symbolically identified with Nommo, a primordial being, who wove together four elements to make the universe (Ben-Amos, 1986:60 cited in Lubart, 1989). The legendary expressions of Viśvarūpa described in the Bhagavad Gītā and Daśa avatāra (ten incarnations of God) present literary and artistic expressions of the origin myth in India.

It is believed that mystery is another powerful aspect of creative imagination. Creativity may not exist without mystery. The link between creative experience and imagination of mystery is consistent in diverse cultures of India (Chandra, 1992). Mystery surrounds the creation of the human and the universe, reflected in the continuous engagement of creative artists of all ages in the creation and re-enactment of creation myths in writings, sculpture, dance, music and painting. Interestingly, a close analysis of themes surrounding origin myths in India may reveal that order out of chaos or non-order; new forms out of formless are implicit in the classic meaning of creativity. This could be true of many other cultures and their construal of creativity. If the concept of creativity stems from this origin (the culture's creation myth), then the perceived spontaneity of creativity and the locus of creativity in the individual logically belong together (Lubart, 1989). It will be difficult to separate the human from nature, order from chaos, destruction from the creation of new life. The trinity concept (a divine trinity of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśa posited as regulating creation, maintenance and destruction of the world) only lend support to such coexistences (Misra et al., 2006).

Psychology of Imagination

In Patañjali's Yoga Sūtra, the practice of yoga has been recommended for the attainment of the desired end. It is important to note here that in Indian thought, the concept of art as yoga has a strong tradition. This is because the purpose of yoga was mental concentration, carried so far as overlooking all distinctions between subject and object of contemplation: a means of achieving harmony or unity of consciousness (Coomaraswamy, 1987). Because the concentration of the artist was of this very nature, art was conceived as a special form of yoga. As Coomaraswamy (1987) observes:

It should be understood that yoga (‘union’) is not merely a mental exercise or a religious discipline, but the most practical preparation for any undertaking whatever.…Through the East, wherever Hindu or Buddhist thoughts have deeply penetrated, it is firmly believed that all knowledge is directly accessible to concentrated ‘one pointed’ mind, without the direct intervention of senses. Probably all inventors, artist and mathematicians are more or less aware of this, as a matter of personal experience.

The conception of art as yoga is based on the belief that matter and mind, sense and spirit are not in opposition but are complementary (Vatsyayana, 1992, p. 26). The Kaṭha Upaniṣad points out that:

The senses turn to external objects and therefore man sees only these objects, not the internal soul (antaratman) but the wise one, with wise “inwards” and desirous of immortality, beholds the absolute soul (IV, 1).…[T]he twin possibilities, that the senses may be turned to look outward or inward, are clearly suggested. The one who has turned inward, and has experienced the formless, can see clearly the world of form (rupa) of taste, experience (rasa), smell (gandha) and of love (maithuna) (chap. IV. 3.). Here then is the second key to the worldview. The world-form (of nama and rupa) is an actuality to be comprehended but not to be got involved in.…[I]n the discussion of the ‘Absolute’ at no time are the body and the senses denied. Matter and mind, sense and spirit are not in opposition but are complementary. It is in this framework that the concept of yoga is first enunciated in this Upanishad.

Thus the Indian literary theory as well as the theory of aesthetics holds art as a yogic performance where the artist engages in both the inward and outward look and creates his imagination of things, matter, life and fulfilment and experience of bliss. There are abundant literary parallels for this conception of art as yoga. Vālmīki, although he was familiar with the story of Rāma, before composing the epic Rāmāyaṇa sought to realize it more profoundly, and,

…seating himself with the face towards the east and sipping water according to the rule, he set himself to the yoga-contemplation of his theme. By virtue of his yoga power he clearly saw before him Rama, Lakshman and Sita, and Dasharatha together with his wives, in his kingdom laughing, talking, acting…By Yoga power that righteous one beheld all that had come to pass…And having truly seen all by virtue of his concentration, the generous sage began the setting forth of the history of Rama (Coomaraswamy, 1987).

The preceding analyses suggest a strong connection between dream, intuitive knowledge and art. The work of art is contemplated before the work of transcriptions or representation is begun. The artist uses imagination and intuitive knowledge to visualize and complete the text in mind before starting the work. In Agni Purāṇa, the imager is instructed, on the night before beginning his work, and after ceremonial purification, to pray, ‘O thou Lord of all Gods, teach me in dreams how to carry out all the work I have in mind’. Another example taken from Buddhist sources explains the psychology of imagination as depicted in ancient texts:

The artist, after ceremonial purification, is to proceed to a solitary place. There he is to perform the ‘seven fold office’ beginning with the invocation of the hosts of Buddha and Bodhisattvas, and the offering to them of real and imaginary flowers. Then he must realize in thought the four infinite moods of friendliness, compassion, sympathy, and impartiality. Then he must meditate upon the emptiness (shunyata) or non existence of all things, for ‘by the fire of the idea abyss, it is said, there are destroyed beyond recovery the five factors’ of ego consciousness. Then only should he invoke the desired divinity by the utterance of the appropriate seedword (bija) and should identify himself completely with the divinity to be represented. Then finally on pronouncing the dhyana mantram, in which the attributes are defined, the divinity appears visibly, like a reflection or in dream and this brilliant image is the artist's model (see Coomarswamy, 1987).

This ritual shows a clear understanding of the psychology of imagination. The first phase of creative imagination involves psychological preparation of the artist followed by the transformations of the thinking principle, self identification with the object of work, and last but not the least, the vividness of the final image.

These snippets from ancient texts clearly provide an anticipation of modern views, which associate myth, dream and art in representing dramatization of the innermost hopes and fears of human beings. It recommends right intellectual and psychic preparation before undertaking a creative work. The practice of visualization was very evident and central in these texts.

…there is aesthetic intuition on the part of the original artist, — the poet or creator; then the internal expression of this intuition — true creation or vision of beauty, the indication of this by external signs (language) for the purpose of communication, - the technical activity; and the resulting stimulation of the critic or rasika to reproduction of the original intuition or of some approximation to it (Coomaraswamy, 1987).

It is interesting to note here that ‘what’ and ‘how’ (that is, both the knowledge and the method) of the right intellectual and psychic preparation of the artist before undertaking a creative work evolves in the Indian social and cultural context of a given time and there is shared understanding of this among the folks. Therefore, creativity in the Indian context appears to be a disciplined intellectual and creative exercise embedded in the social context and heightened by moral and social values (Panda & Yadava, 2005). The emotional, personal and intra-psychic aspects of the human play a major role in creativity (Gulati, 2004).

Is the Indian Artist a Lone Genius?

In Indian texts, the artist has been variously described as sādhaka, mantrin, or yogin. The artist is expected to proceed to a solitary place and follow certain rituals rigidly so that he is able to contact the psychic reality within the depths of self, engage with imagination and work with the help of intuitive knowledge. In other words, the Indian view of creativity has always emphasized the intuitive and imaginative aspects of the process. Maduro (1976) studied 155 traditional painters in Nathwada, India and extended support for a distinct Eastern view of creativity even in modern India. According to this study:

…the creative artist is one who contacts the psychic reality within the depths of himself — strive(s) to make it manifest, to become one with it, integrating it through differentiation, meditation, and self-realization. In the very real sense, the artist is enjoined to recreate, or reactivate, what is already latent in his unconscious (p. 135).

It seems, the creator, according to Indian texts, is a lone voyager, a counterpart of the concept of ‘a lone genius’ (as conceived in the Western contemporary literature) in India. However, in the Western conception of lone genius ‘social’ is treated as a binary opposite and, therefore, undesirable, which is not the case in the Indian situation. The very texts which talk about a lonely inward journey of the artist through yogic preparation of the individual (refer to the snippet taken from Buddhist sources cited in Coomaraswamy, 1987) also emphasize possession of social traits like friendliness, compassion, sympathy, and impartiality by a true artist. It presupposes the goodness of the creator, ability to relate to man, nature and the cosmos with a high sensitivity towards these and a desire to either alleviate the man and the world of the miseries or create new metaphysical realities for humanity. It is also evident in these excerpts that the artist is expected to possess socially desirable skills, high morale, and ability to reflect and use intuitive knowledge.

The following descriptions of a creative individual provided in śilpa śāśtra (science of sculpture) further substantiate this point:

The Shilpan should understand the Atharva Veda, the thirty two Shilpa-shastras, and the Vedic mantras by which the deities are invoked. He should be one who wears a sacred thread, a necklace of holy beads…delighting in worship of God, faithful to his wife, avoiding strange women, piously acquiring a knowledge of various sciences, such a one is indeed a Craftsman (cited in Coomaraswamy, 1987).

In the same text, the painter is described as a ‘…good man, no sluggard, not given to anger, holy, learned, self-controlled, devout and charitable, such should be his character’.

What is evident here is that the creative product is not evaluated independent of the processes and the social virtues of the creator. The product and the process are not isolated from society and the social processes. They are in fact products of larger social processes where a man's position is not counterpoised with that of the society or the larger social milieu, rather, man and the society exist in a harmonious relationship. More importantly, the artist in his supposedly lone voyage remains in touch with nature and society and maintains a harmoniums relationship with them. So the metaphor of ‘lone genius’ conceived in the cultural context of individualism in the West does not have a parallel in India.

Anukaraṇa (Imitation) and Creativity

In Hinduism, creativity is seen as a spiritual or religious state. Maharṣi Mahesh Yogi describes creativity as ‘a state of unboundedness that has a biological basis in the relaxed coherent patterns of the nervous system’ (Sherr, 1982). The creative processes involve here a complete compliance with the rituals recommended by the relevant texts, surrendering oneself to the almighty, realizing the oneness of self and the cosmic power, and then embarking on spiritual thought and imagination, and finally translating these images into creative products/outputs. It is important to mention here that the valued creative products may not necessarily be innovative solutions to a problem (the way the West presents them). The epic Rāmāyaṇa was originally written by Maharṣi Vālmīki. After this, sixteen such texts/epics were written by different authors at different points of time in different Indian languages, describing the same story with some variation in style and content. In Indian Hindu views, each of these texts is considered original. In the area of painting and sculpture, many a time the artists imagine and reproduce the image of Gods and Goddesses. They are treated as pieces of creative art. Instead of anukaraṇa, Abhinavagupta introduces anukīrtana in the context of creative art in India. According to him anukīrtana is not an act of mechanical imitation but an act of aesthetic illumination (anuvasyasāya) evoked in the heart of a responsive spectator.

Within each art form in India such as Madhubanī, Paṭṭacitra, Pahardi (folk paintings from Bihar, Orissa and Rajasthan respectively) contemporary artists are often found to produce similar kinds of motifs. The dominant themes are related to legends around Gods and nature. The artists are trained to reproduce them using the same styles and themes. The individual artist brings in some variation in colours, styles and themes. But, in large scale production of art, the artists repeat many of their works. In such cases, it appears as if the artists lack originality and copy the style and forms used by senior artists. But, in India, these still continue to enjoy the status of creative work. Each artist is considered creative—some may be more original than others. New forms and new themes are invented by the more original ones, but the bulk of their creative work is repetitive in nature with some variation here and there. Many studies in India reveal that in these artist communities, imitation and repetition are not considered as constraining creative work. They are rather viewed as necessary components of art training and, therefore, valued (if not as much as originality). A similar situation is found in music, performing arts and many other folk arts. Imitation, repetition, novelty, conventionality or unconventional expressions, all form a continuum of creative behaviour. They do not necessarily contradict or constrain each other; they rather complement each other in the art production. Indian society still values both conventional (and repetitive) art forms as well as the non-conventional ones.

It is amply clear that the conceptualization of creativity (and creative processes) is cultural. The Indian view of creativity encompasses the individual, spiritual and social aspects as a fusion. This is also reflected in the folk perception of creativity in India. A study on creativity by Panda and Yadav (2005) revealed that the Indian notion of creativity emphasizes relational, social and interpersonal aspects rather than cognitive, analytical and typical utilitarian aspects of creativity. An empirical analysis of the descriptions of creative people given by Indian young adults revealed the presence of four factors such as ‘sociability and social responsibility’, ‘leadership’, ‘unconventional personality orientation’ and ‘task persistence’. Thus, the social and relational aspect of creativity seems to be emphasized in implicit theory of creativity in India.

The cultural perspective raises skepticism about the cross-cultural comparative analyses one finds in the academic literature (mostly Western or biased by the same) on creativity. Hallman (1970) regards the reduced emphasis on originality as the greatest difference between the Indian (Hindu) and Western definitions of creativity. Many African and Asian cultures are regarded as less creative cultures as they emphasize and value normative behaviour, conformity, repetition etc. along with innovation. The Western culture views, on the other hand, value innovation as the sole criterion of creativity. Categorization of Oriental and Western cultures into less or more creative cultures on the basis of parameters valued in individualistic cultures reveals biases and methodological individualism (Purser & Montuori, 2004).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that the Western views have promoted a notion of creativity as an individualistic non-conforming innovation. The lone genius stands apart from others and in isolation from social forces. This approach has biased Indian as well as cross-cultural comparative studies of creativity projecting a view of non-western ‘collective’ cultures as less creative. Borrowing the Western framework as well as the measures of creativity often leads to confirmation of an apparently universal view of the concept. An examination of the traditional Indian texts and thoughts on creative processes shows a perspective that goes beyond the dualistic opposition between the individual and society and between originality and conformity. In the Indian view, creativity is a disciplined intellectual exercise embedded in the social context and heightened by moral and social values. Creativity is not an individualistic utilitarian act; it is a disciplined and value based mental act situated in the cultural context. In this process, the individual and the social are fused together.

The Indian texts discussed briefly in this chapter demonstrate that in Indian art and aesthetics bipolar concepts and phenomena co-exist in the sense that one creates the other or one leads to the other. Since, humans are conceived of as part of nature, it will be far-fetched, especially in the area of creativity, to assume bipolarity of concepts or phenomena. Western cultures and, more specifically, the American culture should have been no exception. But the construct creativity grew in American culture in the context of individualism. It is difficult to argue that in any society, creative work is the product of lone genius. In fact, group work and innovations are more a norm than an exception in America (Purser & Cabana, 1998). If that is the dominant reality in America, it is theoretically untenable to argue and justify the individual focus in creativity research. In fact, a few recent scholars’ claim that individualism in America is a political project and not a social reality (Purser & Cabana, 1998) appears to be more convincing.

The Indian conception of creativity needs to be explored by systematically examining the Indian literary and aesthetic theories as well as the folk notion of creativity in contemporary times. The heuristic value of such conceptions for explaining creative behaviour in contemporary India could be established by undertaking a few empirical works without necessarily counterposing it to Western theories.

It is, indeed, important to mention here that creative expressions include activities like art, craft, music, dance and many more activities than just innovation in the area of science and technology. The technologically less-advanced collectivistic societies of the Eastern world show ample creativity in art, craft, music or dance. It is important to note here that while in the technologically advanced Western societies innovation and creativity are market driven, in developing societies these art forms survive without much of regular market support. In the area of science and technology, the phenomenal growth in the population of computer professionals, scientists, doctors, engineers in the supposedly structured and traditional value driven societies like India, China, Korea and other Asian nations in the last fifty years (who have made certain developments in the digitalized Western societies possible) cannot be entirely explained by the market forces in the respective countries, nor could these be entirely explained by the opening up of the world economy in the recent past. There is probably something else these societies or cultures (rather all societies) have that support innovation and creativity, and that cannot be explained fully using currently available Western individualistic theories, nor even by the supposedly more progressive framework of Greenfield et al. (2003). It is, therefore, worthwhile to explore the cultural models of creativity that underlie the educational and work practices in these countries.

References

Bhattacharya, B. K. (1992). Creative imagination and its role. In V.N. Misra (Ed.), Creativity and environment. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.

Chandra, L. (1992). Creativity and environment. In V. N. Misra (Ed.), Creativity and environment. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.

Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1987). The dance of Shiva. New Delhi: Sagar Publications.

Gulati, S. (2004). Exploring Indian perspectives on creativity and talent for school education. Unpublished paper, NCERT, New Delhi.

Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461–490.

Hallmann, R. J. (1970). Towards a Hindu theory of creativity. Educational Theory, 2(4), 38–39.

Hoffman, E., & Weiner, M. B. (2003). The love compatibility book. Novato, CA: New World Library.

Lembright, M. L., & Yamamoto, K. (1965). Structure and creative thinking: An exploratory comparison between Amish and urban American school children. Merril Pamer Quarterly, 11, 49–64.

Lubart, T. I. (1989). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 39–59.

Maduro, R. (1976). Artistic creativity in Brahmin painter community, Research monograph 14. Berkeley, CA: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (1970). Art and the artist. In M. Cain (Ed.), Arts and science of creative intelligence: Independence of part and whole (p. V). Iowa: Fairfield.

Misra, G., Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, I. (2006). Culture and facets of creativity: The Indian Experience. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 421–455). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Misra, V. N. (Ed.) (1992). Creativity and environment. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.

Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (Eds.) (1999). Social creativity, (Vol. 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112

Panda, M., & Yadava, R. (2005). Implicit creativity theories in India: An exploration. Psychological Studies, 50(1), 32–39.

Purser, R. E., & Montuori, A. (2004). In search of creativity: Beyond individualism and collectivism. Retrieved from: http:online.sfsu.edu/-purser/revised/pages/creativitywam.htm/.

Raina, M. K. (1993). Ethnocentric confines in creativity research. In S. G. Isaker, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. New York: Bearly Publications.

Raina, M. K. (1999). Cross-cultural difference. In M.A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Sherr, J. (1982). The universal structures and dynamics of creativity: Maharishi, Plato, Jung and various creative geniuses on the creative processes. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 16(3), 155–175.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity, (Vol. 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sinclaire, E. C. (1971). Towards a typology of a cultural attitude concerning creativity. Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology, 2(30), 82–89.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607–625.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1988). The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tagore, R. (1922). Creative unity. New Delhi: The Macmillan Company.

Tanwan, R. S. (1977). Measurement of creativity thinking and their use in India. Indian Psychological Review, 14(2), 59–62.

Torrance, E. P. (1964). How people perceive the cultures evaluation of divergence. In E. P. Torrance, (Ed.), Role of evaluation in creative thinking (pp. 324–339). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Bureau of Educational Research.

Vatsyayan, K. (1992). Indian view of environment as a part of Indian aesthetics. In V.N. Misra (Ed.), Creativity and environment. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.

Vatsyayana, K. (1968). Classical Indian dance in literature and arts. New Delhi: Sangeet Natak Academy.

Wilden, A. (1987). The rules are no game. London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.