Creativity As Concept DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Michael Scott Kellner Graduate Program in Arts Administration, Education, and Policy The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Sydney Walker, Advisor Philip Armstrong Michael Mercil Jack Richardson Copyright by Michael Scott Kellner 2014 Abstract The problem this dissertation addresses is the over-determined understanding of creativity in contemporary Western culture. I argue that popularized scientific understandings of creativity limit both the historical understanding of the term, as well as its potential. This dissertation utilizes a methodology that draws from the work of the philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the psychoanalyst Felix Guattari. The duo, working in conjunction with one another, develops an understanding of a philosophical “concept.” According to the authors, a “concept” is encyclopedic and multidimensional; when a concept becomes “commercial professionalized training” it is robbed of its encyclopedic form. Therefore, by employing the concept as a methodology that addresses creativity, I work to resist easily definable ideas of creativity; in other words, the task of the concept is to keep creativity as encyclopedic as possible. This dissertation employs the concept in two ways. First, I present a series of three conceptual arguments utilizing historical understandings of creativity in Western culture. In the first conceptual argument, creativity requires a structure to make itself manifest; in turn, the results of the creative act often reify this structure. As part of this argument, an individual’s refusal of some dominant ii socio-cultural parameters can create a space where other, previously less visible, socio-cultural parameters are brought to attention. The second conceptual argument begins with a Platonic reading of creativity before pressing forward chronologically through the Scientific Revolution. Through this history, the process of creativity is often individualized, but its reception is socialized. Within this framework, I argue that the dominant reading of creativity in Western culture is masculine, even if creativity’s association with madness and isolation troubles attempts to simplify this reading. The third conceptual argument brings to the fore a feminist reading of creativity. Here, the traditional, historical pairing of female creativity with birth is identified. Creativity as birth provides a space to explore the more embodied and disruptive affects of feminist creativity, a research focus only hinted at in the previous two conceptual examples. The second way Deleuze and Guattari’s concept is employed is by utilizing some of the authors’ other philosophical ideas to understand creativity as production. Production is addressed broadly by considering desire; here, an individual’s desires are inextricably intertwined with the desires of their surrounding environment. Creativity as production is then addressed more specifically by considering sensation in artwork. Sensation asks us to consider both the reception and creation of the work of art as a Deleuzean encounter, which “forces us to think.” In considering creativity in relation to desire and sensation, creativity is recognizable as process driven. It is here that I argue iii creativity becomes pedagogic. Creativity, as a concept, resists being captured as commercial professionalized training and, instead, is tilted it to its encyclopedic form by way of desire and sensation. iv Dedication For Shannon, Miles and Eleanor v Acknowledgments In writing this dissertation, I have been the beneficiary of a tremendous amount of help. If I tried to thank everyone proportionally to the help they have given me, this section would be longer than the document that follows; an emphatic thank you will have to do instead. Let me just say that I feel very, very fortunate. Thanks to my committee: Sydney Walker, Philip Armstrong, Jack Richardson, and Michael Mercil. All have contributed meaningful feedback and support to me throughout this process. By virtue of opening his studio and class to me, Michael provided an example of how a person might operate in the world as both an intellectual and artist. Jack provided a relentless enthusiasm for my work, suggestions for more books than I could ever have hoped to read, and well-timed pep talks over coffee. Philip provided the initial kernel of an idea for this dissertation and then continued to offer suggestions, support, and many necessary edits throughout this process; it has been humbling to receive this level of attention to my writing and thoughts from a scholar like him. My deepest gratitude goes to Sydney for being my advisor. From my first meeting with her, I knew that I had hit the advisor lottery. Her support and encouragement vi throughout my time here has helped to make this experience everything I hoped it could be. It is impossible to acknowledge all the varieties of support I received throughout my time at Ohio State. Please know that I have been deeply appreciative of the financial support given to me so that I may pursue this work. Of course, all the financial support in the world isn’t worth anything if you aren’t surrounded by really wonderful and interesting people. Some of the people who made this a rich experience include: Theresa Delgadillo, Kris Paulsen, Jennifer Eisenhauer, Ann Hamilton, Laura Lisbon, Debbie Smith-Shank, Matt Fleming, Verónica Betancourt, Bee Kim Koh, Morgan Green, Nicole Rome, Ruth Smith, Julie Pfieffer, Kate Collins, Melissa Crum, Juuso Tervo, Liz Kengeter, Meaghan Brady Nelson, Justin Sutters, Manisha Sharma, Marissa Nesbit, Courtnie Wolfgang, Tim Smith, Ramya Ravisankar, Mindi Rhodes, Chris Purdie, Monika Laskowska, Brittney Denham, Anne Keener, Leah Frankel, Nick George, Sage Lewis, and David Knox. There are more, but I will thank the rest in person. In addition to the Ohio State community, I thank my parents, my brother and sisters, my in-laws and all my non-school friends (especially: Alexandra Robinson, Jonas Angelet, Shane Holzderber, Aaron Abell, and Jon Graas) for all at least pretending like this was an admirable idea. Additionally my old North Carolina family (Andrea Van Engelenhoven, Kevin Mertens, Jamie Schmidt, and Donald Williams) was incredibly thoughtful and supportive throughout this vii process. Most importantly, I offer my thanks to those above for being a respite when I needed it. Finally, I offer my thanks to my family: Eleanor, Miles, and Shannon. The depths of my appreciation cannot be expressed adequately here. Let me just say that I couldn’t imagine a more loving and supportive home if I tried. How did I get so lucky? viii Vita May 1995 ................................................Covington Catholic High School 2000........................................................B.F.A. Studio Art, University of Louisville 2002........................................................M.F.A. Studio Art, University of Cincinnati 2002 to 2005...........................................Lecturer, University of Louisville 2004 to 2005...........................................Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Cincinnati 2004 to 2005...........................................Lecturer, Jeffersonville Community College 2006 to 2010...........................................Instructor, Coastal Carolina Community College 2010 to 2011...........................................University Fellow, The Ohio State University 2011 to present.......................................Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University Publications ix Kellner, Michael S., “Most Likely You Go Your Way and I’ll Go Mine (The Function of the Studio),” Visual Arts Research 40, no. 1 (2014): 85-86. Fields of Study Major Field: Arts Administration, Education, and Policy x Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................ii Dedication ............................................................................................................v Acknowledgments..............................................................................................vi Vita .......................................................................................................................ix Table of Contents ...............................................................................................xi Chapter 1: A Context for Creativity...................................................................1 Total Noise Culture.............................................................................................3 Creativity Definitions and Context.......................................................................6 “The past is never dead. It’s not even past;” Two works from Ori Gerhst ........17 Chapters ...........................................................................................................26 Fragment: Ease Yourself Down .......................................................................29 Chapter 2: A Methodology................................................................................31 My research position ........................................................................................32 I and We ...........................................................................................................36 Ethics in Creativity ............................................................................................41