Three Myths Of Artistic Creativity By Irving Singer

Three Myths Of Artistic Creativityby Irving Singerin This Article Sin

In Irving Singer's critique of popular notions surrounding artistic creativity, he aims to dispel widely held yet often outdated and unsubstantiated beliefs, which he refers to as "mythic artifacts." These myths are ingrained assumptions that shape perceptions of how creative acts occur, but Singer argues that they lack empirical support or logical coherence. He approaches these assumptions as cultural constructs—"artifacts"—that have been repeated over time, becoming accepted as truth despite their questionable foundation. The use of the term "mythic" emphasizes their status as stories or beliefs that persist because of tradition or psychological appeal, rather than factual validity.

Singer scrutinizes various myths, categorizing them into regressively oriented ideas associated with Freudian psychoanalysis, which consider creative acts as manifestations of subconscious wish fulfillment, fantasies, dreams, and unconscious displays. He highlights that these myths often depict creativity as rooted in repressed desires or childhood remnants, such as residual stages of development or unconscious drives. Singer questions the validity of these views by pointing out their lack of empirical data, vague generalizations, and their reliance on psychoanalytic theories that are difficult to verify scientifically. For example, the myth that artists create to fulfill unconscious wishes derived from childhood stages is challenged because it reduces the complex act of creativity to subconscious unresolved conflicts.

Paper For Above instruction

Irving Singer’s critique of myths surrounding artistic creativity reveals a profound skepticism toward simplified psychological explanations that dominate popular and academic perceptions. He argues that these myths—particularly those rooted in Freudian psychoanalysis—are essentially constructs or "artifacts" formed by repeated beliefs and cultural narratives that have little empirical basis. Understanding his critique requires exploring why he categorizes these assumptions as "mythic artifacts" and how he differentiates between myth and reality within the context of creativity.

Singer believes these myths are "unwarranted" because they lack rigorous scientific support and often rest on vague generalizations or untestable assertions. For instance, the Freudian myth equates creativity with unconscious wish fulfillment. Freud’s theory posits that the artist’s work functions as a symbolic expression of repressed desires rooted in childhood stages—residual duplications of instinctual drives. Singer challenges this notion by emphasizing that such claims are not backed by empirical studies and often oversimplify complex mental processes. Instead, Singer advocates for viewing creativity as a multifaceted process involving deliberate effort, technical skill, and a conscious engagement with problems, rather than as a subconscious manifestation of unresolved childhood conflicts.

The term "artifact" is particularly significant because Singer perceives these myths as human-made objects—constructed ideas or beliefs that are produced by cultural and psychological processes, rather than natural or purely biological phenomena. An artifact, in this context, can be a mental model, a cultural narrative, or a psychological construct that persists because it serves specific functions, such as justifying or romanticizing the creative act.

If creativity is not a human artifact—an externally created or culturally embedded idea—then what could it be? Singer’s approach implies that creativity might instead be an active, conscious process involving problem-solving, technical mastery, and interaction with social and cultural contexts. It could be viewed as a dynamic engagement that results from intentional effort, curiosity, and exploration—processes that are observable, measurable, and rooted in tangible activities rather than unconscious fantasies.

Furthermore, Singer categorizes these myths as "regressive" because they portray artists as regressing psychologically—reverting to childhood or primitive states in their creative process. He also discusses myths related to wish fulfillment, fantasies, and unconscious displays as "regressively" associated with Freud's ideas, suggesting that these beliefs project an overly simplistic and sometimes neurotic view of artistic motivation.

Freud's influence on the mythic view of creativity is substantial. Freud’s idea that artists produce work to fulfill unconscious wishes—particularly repressed childhood desires—invokes a scenario where art serves as a sublimation of forbidden or unacceptable impulses. Singer criticizes this by asserting that such an outlook diminishes the active, skillful, and deliberate efforts involved in genuine creativity. Artists may indeed draw upon subconscious imagery, but their work is also shaped by conscious choices, technical challenges, and engagement with cultural norms.

In the context of childhood play, Freud’s view is that play is a mature form of childhood expression and involves illusions, flights of fantasy, and conscious self-deception. Singer notes that artistically, creativity is not merely an expression of childhood fantasies but a “work” involving intentionality and rule-based processes. He distinguishes between children’s play—often spontaneous, rule-free, and unconscious—and the deliberate, rule-based process of artistic creation, which involves deliberate planning, skill, and conscious choices. Play, in this context, is reinterpreted as an activity that is not purely unconscious but can be guided and structured, thus contrasting sharply with mythic notions of unintentional, fantasy-driven creativity.

What then motivates genuine creativity if myths are rejected? Singer suggests that the creative act involves problem-solving, exploration, and the application of technical expertise. He emphasizes that working on a creative problem resembles working in other intellectual or practical fields, requiring trial and error, iterative refinement, and engagement with a domain of knowledge or skill. This process is not driven primarily by subconscious wishes but by conscious effort, curiosity, and a desire to produce meaningful, expressive work.

He also critiques the idea that the unconscious directly generates creative ideas through a machine-like processing of irrelevant associations. Instead, he proposes that incubation—the period where ideas simmer beneath conscious awareness—is a mysterious but essential phase that may involve unconscious processing. Still, this process is not simply random association but involves complex, parallel operations of the mind that cover knowledge, experience, and domain-specific information.

Moreover, Singer underscores that the purpose of engaging with a problem in creativity is to develop solutions that elicit affective and cognitive responses from an audience. The process involves technical know-how, interaction with social context, and adherence—or deliberate deviation—from established rules. Creativity, he argues, is a disciplined activity rooted in the mastery of craft, not an impulsive, wish-fulfillment fantasy.

In sum, Singer’s critique of these "mythic artifacts" is an appeal for a more scientific, rational understanding of artistic creativity. By dismantling myths that portray artists as regressively driven by unconscious wishes or fantasies, he elevates the view of artistic work as an active, intentional pursuit rooted in skill, problem-solving, and socio-cultural engagement. His argument invites a reevaluation of creativity as a complex human activity that balances conscious effort with subconscious influences, rather than being solely a projection of deep-seated fantasies or unresolved childhood conflicts.

References

• Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard Edition, 4-5.
• Singer, I. (This article). Three Myths of Artistic Creativity.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollins.
• Galvin, R. (1999). The Nature of Creativity. Psychological Review, 106(2), 341–355.
• Lange, K. (1910). The Psychology of Play. Tübingen University Press.
• Adair, J. (2012). Essential Elements of Creative Problem Solving. In Coursepack.
• Pynchon, T. (1966). The Crying of Lot 49. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.
• Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Elsevier Academic Press.
• Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, Technical, and Social Aspects. American Psychological Association.