Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

European artistic geniuses (5 composers and 10 painters of the 15th to 19th centuries) and comparison groups of their less-gifted contemporaries were analyzed on the basis of the stylistic parameters of their works using archival and expert rating techniques. The parameters reflected the artists' orientation regarding the “analytic” versus “synthetic” poles of creativity and perception, which are usually associated with left- or right-hemispheric prevalence, respectively. Findings reveal that the artists within a comparison group were stylistically similar with respect to the nature of their creative processes, that is, they reflected an artistic zeitgeist for their historical era. The genius artists exhibited significant deviations from their lesser contemporaries on many of the stylistic parameters measured (which reflect the phenomenon of “rara avis” described in the article). The implications of this phenomenon for the progressive development of new art forms over time are briefly discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eysenck

H. J.

(1995). Genius. The natural history of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Farnsworth

P. R.

(1969). The social psychology of music. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Golitsyn

G. A.

, & Petrov

V. M.

(1995). Information and creation: Integrating the “Two Cultures.” Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

Grove

, & Blom

(1954). Grove's dictionary of music and musicians (in 10 vols.). London: Macmillan.

Ioganson

B. V.

(1962-1981). Art of countries and peoples of the world: Short artistic encyclopedia (in 5 vols.). Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia (in Russian).

Kozbelt

(2008). Longitudinal hits rates of classical composers: Reconciling “Darwinian” and expertise acquisition perspectives of lifespan creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 221–235.

Kozbelt

(2009). The evolution of evolvability applied to human creativity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 19, 101–121.

Kozbelt

(in press). Michelangelo. In Runco

M. A.

& Pitzker

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Kozbelt

Beghetto

, & Runco

(2010). Theories of creativity. In Sternberg

R. J.

& Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Kulichkin

P. A.

(2004). Evolution of artistic life and style of thinking (A trial of quantitative investigation). Doctoral dissertation. Moscow: State Institute for Art Studies (in Russian).

11.

Martindale

(1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York: Basic Books.

12.

Maslov

S. Y.

(1983). Asymmetry of cognitive mechanisms and its sequences. Semiotika i Informatika, 20, 3–34 (in Russian).

13.

Petrov

V. M.

(1992). Evolution of art and brain asymmetry: A review of empirical investigations. In Cupchik

G. C.

& Laszlo

(Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process: Psychology, semiology, and philosophy (pp. 255–268). New York: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Petrov

V. M.

(1995). Evoluzione dell'arte e asimmetria cerebrale. Rivista di Psicologia dell'Arte, 6, 4–9.

15.

Petrov

V. M.

(1996). Quantitative estimations of left- and right-hemispherical dominance in art. Leonardo, 29(3), 201–205.

16.

Petrov

V. M.

(2001). Creativity in art: Stylistic waves and monotonic evolutionary trends (information approach). Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 2(1), 30–33.

17.

Petrov

V. M.

(2003). Cyclic cultural evolution against the background of long-range progressive trends: Information approach. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 1(2), 85–107.

18.

Petrov

V. M.

(2004). Quantitative methods in art studies: Handbook for students. Moscow: Academic Project (in Russian).

19.

Petrov

V. M.

(2007). The information approach to human sciences, especially aesthetics. In Martindale

Locher

, & Petrov

(Eds.), Evolutionary and neurocognitive approaches to aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 129–148). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

20.

Petrov

V. M.

, & Boyadzhiyeva

L. G.

(1996). Perspectives of art development: Methods of forecasting. Moscow: Russky Mir (in Russian).

21.

Simonton

D. K.

(1976). Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and zeitgeist: An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 630–640.

22.

Simonton

D. K.

(1980). Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 972–983.

23.

Simonton

D. K.

(1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: The Guilford Press.

24.

Simonton

D. K.

(1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

25.

Simonton

D. K.

(2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Genius: A Son of His Time or a Rara Avis?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References