Abstract
Thomas Edison is credited with saying that “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration”, suggesting thus that having a creative idea is not the only thing that matters, there is also a lot of hard work involved. He was, in this way, responding to popular beliefs that consider insight the real mark of the genius. In fact, the first conceptions of creativity were actually based on the idea of divine inspiration (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) and the Ancient Greeks, for instance, metaphorically pointed to the muses as the source of true creation. While this image actually locates creativity outside of the person, it was following the Renaissance that genius became ‘internalised’ as biological and hereditary (Montuori & Purser, 1995). Today, such extreme views are avoided but the ethos of attributing creative qualities to the individual continues in research focused on creativity and intelligence, personality, thinking styles, neurological correlates, and so on. This kind of research typically uses ideation/divergent thinking tasks as a measure of creativity (more specifically, ‘creative potential’) and, since it rarely looks at what people actually do, it contributes to the classical separation between inspiration and perspiration (for a more distributed understanding of inspiration, see Glăveanu, 2022).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Collingwood, R. G. (1938). The principles of art. Clarendon Press.
Cooper, P., & Allen, N. B. (1999). The quilters: Women and domestic art, an oral history. Texas Tech University Press.
Crilly, N. (2023). Design research and the study of the possible. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699221128218
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (1974). The developmental approach: Universal to unique. In S. Rosner & L. E. Abt (Eds.), Essays in creativity (pp. 47–85). North River Press.
Gardner, H. (1994). The creators’ patterns. In M. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 143–158). MIT Press/Badford Books.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). Creativity and folk art: A study of creative action in traditional craft. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(2), 140–154.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2017). Creativity in perspective: A socio-cultural and critical account. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 31(2), 118–129.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2022). Inspiration. In V. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_42-4
Glăveanu, V. P., & de Saint Laurent, C. (2021). Social media responses to the pandemic: What makes a coronavirus meme creative. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 569987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.569987
Glăveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21.
Gorovei, A. (2001). Ouăle de Paşte. Studiu de folclor (2nd ed.). Paideia.
Harris, D. (2023). Non-binary possibilities of creative agency. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231166485
Kozbelt, A., & Durmysheva, Y. (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.
Mall, A. S. (2007). Structure, innovation and agency in pattern construction: The Kōlam of southern India. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 55–78). Berg.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112.
Ormerod, T. C. (2023). Possible, yes, but useful? Why the search for possibilities is limited but can be enhanced by expertise. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231172562
Pye, D. (1968). The nature and art of workmanship. Herbert Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge University Press.
Ross, W., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2023). The constraints of habit: Craft, repetition, and creativity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-023-09902-5
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt-Brace.
Weisberg, R. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Glăveanu, V.P. (2023). Craft. In: Glăveanu, V.P., Tanggaard, L., Wegener, C. (eds) Creativity — A New Vocabulary. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41907-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41907-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41906-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41907-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)