CHANNELING FLOW IN VISUAL ART: THE PRODUCTION OF CREATIVITY

Think back to the most vivacious display of creativity that you can think of. A time when you observed something that genuinely made you widen your eyes. Whether it be dance, visual art, or prose, there exists some mechanism by which facilitates the creative process for that piece to exist. It is this medium that is of the utmost concern–a facet of the human experience of which its value is priceless because it cannot be imitated. What is it that makes a person’s creative experience so unique?

Most conscious experiences are often written off as too abstract to measure. Things such as intelligence and personality are some of the most commonplace examples of such–but as lofty as they are, there will always exist some motivation to qualify them. With concepts such as intelligence, there is an evidently strong push to determine what makes a person ‘smart’ in a conventional sense. We employ standardized tests in the school system to find these intelligent people early on so that we can hone their skills and have them solve some of the most pressing issues of society.

What of the artmakers, though? Although it seems statistically that intelligence and creativity borrow from each other, it would be disingenuous to conflate the two. It’s strange to think about how people in the real world speak conjointly of the two concepts–one wouldn’t look at the work of Pablo Picasso and say that he was as intelligent as he was creative, just as one would not look at a picture of Albert Einstein and believe that he is as creative as he was intelligent. However, there are those moments where you have someone, such as a Steve Jobs type, who exhibits both creativity and intelligence in his work.

Suffice to say–this reading is not about intelligence; but it is about the mechanisms by which it is allowed to flourish distinctively in people. It is important that we find the concept that exists in one’s creative toolbox as it lays down the foundation for new ideas to be conceived. Fortunately, I believe that I have found just that. This is in defense of flow–a state of mind by which the visual artistic creative can tap into, honing their creative experience and laying down the steps in qualifying the measurement of creativity.

THE NOVEL IDEA

The prevailing thought on creativity, as perpetuated throughout multiple channels, is the idea that its existence in people solely relies on the creation of novel ideas in accordance with a goal. This gives way for innovation, as the creator is able to draw upon new references to make a thing, in the simplest term, better. As you can see, we already run into problems with this theory. Its subjectivity in the resulting creative processes is difficult to interpret–everybody has a different view on the work that goes into creating art and there is no progress that can be made in describing how to operationalize a variable when the variable itself is included in the operation.

Another problem with this theory is the idea of a novel idea–a highly-contested belief due to the debate of whether or not ideas can be truly novel in this age. Another way to put this, is whether or not there is such a thing as a truly original idea. As I consider this in the context of creativity, I must say that this is rather irrelevant to the concept at hand. To start, even if we were to disregard the fact that all ideas borrow in part from a different prevailing idea that was taught to the creator at some point in time, I would still not be inclined to say that all ‘original’ ideas are creative. A rather infamous example to cite from would be the Pepsi commercial (yes, that Pepsi commercial), where Kendall Jenner ended a police-protest tensions with a Pepsi soda. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, companies have fueled marketing campaigns based on current events, but the conception of the ad was filled with these ‘novel’ ideas, of which the quality of the ideas is definitely debatable.

We see here where this idea fails–even if we were to accept the fact that a novel idea does exist, and that the operation is not circular, there are still instances in which one might not accept a novel idea as a truly creative one as it relates to its goal. If mended, this concept has the potential to be a sustainable measurement, but for now there are other, more practical ways to operationally define creativity.

FLOW STATE

The flow state, as defined by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, is a process under which one goes through an intense period of focus on a respective activity. Csikszentmihalyi does not define a certain subset of activities that enables the flow state, rather his allusions to creativity and maximal happiness show that this state of mind is applicable to all activities. It’s akin to that moment where you are writing a paper, or playing an instrument and–for a moment in time–you go through deep thought, unable to lift your fingers from whatever you are using them for and the ideas just continue to pour out of your head, and into the medium that you are expressing yourself through.

Notice how this definition borrows from previous explanations while still maintaining its integrity–we still get to include creativity as a function of its output, and we avoid a circular definition. Creativity, as defined via the mental phenomenon that is the flow space, is the skill achieved by the creator’s ease resulting in the ability to successfully demonstrate their capacity for innovative and efficient ideas. One of the key points that Csikszentmihalyi brings up is the distortion of time that occurs when one enters the flow space. Minutes become seconds, and our sense of time as we know it seems to fade away as we relinquish ourselves to the creative tide pool. It’s not a point that he harps on for too long–it’s a fleeting moment that we only seem to realize once we exit the flow space, look at our phones and say “where did the time go?”–so it makes sense that there might not be much there to say. However, I find this one quote to be critically important when discussing this phenomenon.

“In other words, clock time no longer marks equal lengths of experienced time; our sense of how much time passes depends on what we are doing” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

There’s something particularly fascinating I find about time itself and I won’t dwell on it for too long, but I believe it is worth mentioning here. Time, itself, is real–as in there are things that will happen at a future moment, that then surely happen at a present moment, that ultimately continue to exist in a past moment. As a consequence of this, every physical thing is subject to time and, conversely, things like ideas and thoughts–though they may originate at a point–only rely on a thinker to continue their existence. This is synonymous with the flow state–an experience that seemingly exists outside of time and only relies on the creative individual to perceive it. It is possible to time yourself to see how long you are in the flow state with clock time, of course, but what is to say that clock time and flow time are bound together?

The reason I bring this up is because although this is a compelling idea, it is also an admittedly weak part of the theory. When measuring something like the flow state in relation to creativity, it seems as though we are choosing to measure one abstract concept with another. It might not be a perfect theory, as there rarely exists one, however I do believe this is the closest step we can get towards that measurement. It is a weighty theory that upon further development (perhaps looking into the idea that maybe other animals can experience a sort of flow state), might yield us new knowledge of creativity. It is something that I might read more about in the future when I have more time, but I would love to know the domains to which flow extends to. Though the concept was first brought to fruition in the psychology field 30 years ago, it is still in its beginning phases.

By no means is creativity an easily digestible occurrence. It could be the fact that, like most concepts that humans find themselves trivializing, it might be a combination of evolutionary skills that we find ourselves grouping together and labeling. Regardless of whatever the case may be, it is something that is heavily sought after in our society, and a skill that people pride themselves on. There is a clear difference in value between someone who is able to replicate a drawing via tracing and someone who is able to come up with an art piece just by allowing their imagination to spill itself onto the canvas.

Of course, there are subjects within the archetype of flow that I would like to further explore. As previously mentioned, I would like to study flow in animals further, but I would also like to study flow in individuals that have shorter attention spans. I know that personally, as an individual with attention deficits, I still experience flow but at much shorter intervals. I would like to study this in people that might have a harder time focusing than I do, as this would speak more to flow’s limits and how exactly this might be resolved.

Everybody has their own personal relationship with creativity. It might be the case that some regard themselves as inherently not creative, and don’t get to see their creative fruit play out because they are not allowed to call on it. Others have an easier time with the flow state and can find themselves in that mental space. This is why the experience is so personal to me–not only do I need creativity to pursue the work I can see myself doing in the future, but it is an integral part of life for me. It helps me interpret messages and convey my own thoughts as I engage with a nonsensical world. In an entropic world, creativity is the anecdote to make sense of the chaos.

References

Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential Theory of Creativity. Harvard Business School Working Paper

Cseh, G. M. (2016). Flow in creativity: A review of potential theoretical conflict. In L. Harmat, F. Ø. Andersen, F. Ullén, J. Wright & G. Sadlo (Eds.), Flow experience: Empirical research and applications; Flow experience: Empirical research and applications (pp. 79-94, 392 Pages). Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28634-1_6

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

Hintze, S. and Yee, J.R. (2023), Animals in flow – towards the scientific study of intrinsic reward in animals. Biol Rev, 98: 792-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12930

van der Linden D, Tops M and Bakker AB (2021) The Neuroscience of the Flow State: Involvement of the Locus Coeruleus Norepinephrine System. Front. Psychol. 12:645498. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645498