9.the Artistic Personality_ a Systems Perspective

8/4/2019 9.the Artistic Personality_ a Systems Perspective

1/12

3THE ARTISTIC PERSONALITY:A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVESAMI ABUHAMDEH AND MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI

"Why do people think artists are special? It's ju st another job."Andy Warhol (1975, p. 178)

When considering the relationship between personality and a givenoccupation or vocation, we usually assume the relationship remains invari-ant over time. One might assume, for instance, that the temperament andtraits that distinguished military leaders in the 5th century BCE would bethe same traits as those belonging to warriors in the Middle Ages, or in ourown times. Yet the changes throughout history in the social and economicstatus of soldiers, and in the technology of warfare, suggest that the person-alities of men (or wom en) attracted to a military career will be quite differentin each period.

This variability is very obvious in the case of artists. Until the end ofthe 15th century in Europe, when even the greatest artists were consideredto be m erely craftsmen and when works of art required the collaboration ofseveral individuals, the typical artist did not display the eccentric, fiercelyindependent qualities of the "artistic personality" that we now take for granted.In the words of an eminent sociologist of art, "The artist's studio in the earlyRenaissance is still dominated by the comm unal spirit of the mason's lodgeand the g uild workshop; the work of art is not yet the expression of an inde-pendent personality" (Hauser, 1951, pp. 54-55).

31


2/12

By the m iddle of the 16th century, however, several artists had becomecelebrities, in p art, because n ow that painting in oils on c anvas was the fa-vorite m edium of expression they could work alone, and also because theirstatus had been elevated by such stars as Michelangelo, Leonardo, andRaphael. Thus, Vasari, who in 1550 published the biographies of the "mosteminent artists" in Italy, complained that nature had given th e artists of histime "a certain element of savagery and madness, which, besides ma kingthem strange and eccentric... revealed in them the obscure d arkness of vicerather than the brightness and splendor of those virtues that make men im-mortal" (Vasari, 1550/1959, p. 22).The popular idea of artistic temperament embodied in Vasari's viewwent through several transformations in the past five centuries, but man y ofits basic traits have endured. One of the most prominent American paintersof the p ast generation, Jackson Pollock, is a good illustration of that "sav-agery and madness" Vasari complained about. H e spent most of his 44 yearsbattling alcoholism, depression, and self-doubt (Solomon, 1987), and hisstormy m arriage to artist Lee Krasner was a source of unrelenting torment.When Pollock pain ted, he did it with a passion bord ering on m adness, hurl-ing paint across the canvas in an all-out blitzkrieg of emotion, determine d togive life to his singular vision.Psychological studies suggest that artists are emotional (Barron, 1972),sensitive, independent, impulsive, and socially aloof (Csikszentmihalyi &Getzels, 1973; Walke r, Koestner, & Hum, 1995), introverted (Storr, 1988),and nonconforming (Barton & Cattell, 1972). But how pervasive are thesetraits among successful artists the p ersonalities who actually shape the do-main of art? Is there really such a thing as a timeless, constitutional artisticpersonality?In this chapter we propose that the notion of the "artistic personality"is more m yth than fact. Although it describes some of the traits that distin-guish aspiring artists at certain times under certain conditions, these traitsare in no sense req uired to create valuable art at all times, in all places. Weargue that artistic creativ ity is as much a social and cultural phenomenon asit is an intrapsychic one. And because the social and cultu ral constraints onthe artistic process vary significantly across tim e and place, the nature of theartistic personality will vary accordingly. When the predominant style orstyles of a period change from Abstract Expressionism to Op Art, Concep-tual Art, Photorealism, let us sayso will the personalities of the artists.W e begin with an overview of the theoretical framework that guidesthis chapterthe systems model of creativity.

THE SYSTEMS MODEL OF CREATIVITYCreativity has traditionally been viewed as a mental process, as the

insight of an individual. The majority of past psychological research on cre-32 ABUHAMDEH AND CSIKSZENTMIHALYI


3/12

ativity, accordingly, has concentrated on the thought processes, emotions,and motivations of individuals who produce novelty: the "creative personal-ity." However, beginning with the observations of Morris Stein (Stein, 1953,1963) and continuing with the extensive data presented by Dean Simonton(1988, 1990) showing the influence of economic, political, and social eventson the rates of creative production, it has become increasingly clear thatvariables external to the individual must be considered if one wishes to ex-plain why, when, and from where new ideas or products arise and becomeestablished in a culture (Gruber, 1988; Harrington, 1990).

The systems model proposes that creativitycan be observed only in theinterrelations of a system made up of three main elements. The first of theseis the domain,which consists of informationa set of rules, procedures, andinstructions for action. To do anything creative, one must operate within adomain. Art is a domain, and the various styles and movements within artcan be considered subdomains.The second component of a system is the field, which includes all theindividuals who act as gatekeepers to the domain. It is their job to decidewhether a new idea or product should be added to the domain. In the worldof art, the field consists of the art critics and art historians, the art dealers andart collectors, and the artists themselves. Collectively, this group selects theart products that become recognized as legitimate art.

The final component of the system is the individual. In the systems model,creativity occurs when a person makes a change in the information con-tained in a domain, a change that will be selected by the field for inclusion inthe domain.

As this overviewof the systems model suggests, the nature of the creativeindividualand therefore the artistic personalityis dependent on the na-ture of the domain and field in which the individual operates. Therefore, togain a meaningful assessment of the artistic personality, we must pay attentionto these other two components of the system. We begin with the domain.The Domain of Art

During the premodern era, the domain of art was relatively homoge-neous in its vocabulary. It consisted almost entirely of figurative works re-calling images of religious, philosophical, or historical significance that werewidely shared by most members of society. With the arrival of modernism,however, an explosion of artistic styles and movements broadened the bound-aries of art considerably. This "de-definition of art" (Rosenberg, 1972) hascontinued during the postmodern era, at warp speed, rendering all tidy defi-nitions of art obsolete.

To illustrate the relationship between the content of artwork and thepersonality of the artist, we use a classification scheme based on two dimen-sions of stylisticcontent, representational versus abstract and linear versuspaint-erly (see Figure 3.1).

1These two dimensions are among a set of five critical

TH E ARTISTIC PERSONALITY 33


4/12

Linear

Representational

StylesPhotorealismNew Realism

ArtistsChuck CloseEdward Hopper

StylesExpressionismFauvism

ArtistsChaim SoutineHenri Matisse

StylesNeo-PlasticismMinimalism

ArtistsPiel MondrianEllsworth Kelly* ADstract

StylesAbstract ExpressionismBlue Rider

ArtistsClyfford StillWassily Kandinsky

PainterlyFigure 3.1. The domain of modern and contemporary painting can be described bytwo continuous dimensions, representational-abstract and l inear-painterly.Examples of artists and styles for each of the quadrants are given.dimensions of stylistic content first proposed by the art historian HeinrichWolfflin (1929), and later validated by empirical research (e.g., Cupchik,1974; Loomis & Saltz, 1984) as important for differentiating artistic styles.The first dimension, representational versus abstract, refers to the degree towhich a particular artwork imitates an external reference; the second dimen-sion, linear versus painterly, represents the degree to which the content of anartwork is characterized by precisely controlled line and distinct figures (i.e.,linear) as opposed to loosely handled paint and re lative ly unde fined form(i.e., painterly).2

The diversity of stylistic content represented by the two dimensionswithin the domain of painting are the outward manifestations of a corre-spending diversity in artistic processes and artistic experience. First, let usconsider the representational-abstract dimension. Artists painting in a pre-dom inan tly representational manner have clear external references towardwhich they can direct their artistic activity a person, an object, a scene, oran y and all comb inations. A rtists are able to accurately monitor their progressby comparing their w ork w ith these external references. Indee d, the successof the w ork is highly dependent on the artist ma king such comparisons re-peatedly and skillfully.For those artists working in a nonrepresentational manner, the creativeprocess differs considerably. There is little or no objective referent towardwhich artists can guide their activity, no clear challenges and goals topursue.'For practical reasons, we limit our discussion of the domain of art to Western painting.!Clearly, the two dimensions of the classification system are not completely independent. The more"painterly" a style is, for example, the less "representational" it is likely to be.

3 4 ABUHAMDEH AND CS/KSZENTMIHALYI


5/12

Whereas the artistic process for the representational artist is highly struc-tured, driven by constraints imposed by the task of representation, abstractartists must actively impose structure on the artistic process, relying on feel-ings or concepts to guide the process. Susan Rothenberg, who works in apredominantly abstract style, commented on this formidable challenge: "Istruggle with it all the time, and a straightforward portrait would be a kind ofanchor. I envy Lucian Freud an d Chuck Close [two artists with highly repre-sentational styles], waking up every morning and knowing what they're go-ing to do" (Kimmelman, 1998, p. 178).The linear-painterly dimension is also associated with significant vari-ety in artistic process and experience. For the artist who paints in a linearstyle, the artistic process must be exact and focused. Attentional resourcesare necessarily directed outward, away from the self, toward the technicaldemands of the task. Because of this, the process tends to be associated withsecondary-process cognition (Fromm, 1978)rational andreality-orientedand devoid of strong emotion. In contrast, the artist who paints using thelooser brushstrokes of painterly styles is not bound by the rigid stylistic con-straints of the linear style, and is therefore able to allow primary-process cog-nitionfree-associative, irrational, and often emotionalto drive the pro-cess. As a result, the creative process is often more improvisational in nature.

The significant relationship among style and experience is exemplifiedby comparing the following tw o accounts of the artistic process. The firstaccount is by Clyfford Still, one of the original Abstract Expressionists, an dthe second is by Chuck Close, a Photo Realist famous for his mural-sized,eerily lifelike portraits.

A great free joy surges through me when I work ... with tense slashes anda few thrusts the beautiful white fields receive their color and the work isfinished in a few minutes. (Like Belmonte [the bullfighter] weaving thepattern of his being by twisting the powerful bulls around him, I seem toachieve a comparable ecstasy in bringing forth the flaming life throughthese large areas of canvas. And as the blues or reds or blacks leap andquiver in their tenuous ambience or rise in austere thrusts to carry theirpower infinitely beyond the bounds of the limiting field, I move with theman d find a resurrection from the moribund oppressions that held me onlyhours ago.) Only they are complete too soon, and I must quickly move onto another to keep the spirit alive and unburdened by the labor myPuritanreflexes tell me must be the cost of my joy. (Lucie-Smith, 1999, p. 184)Clearly, the artistic process fo r Clyfford Still was an expressive, intenselypersonal experience. Contrast this with the artistic process of Chuck Close,as described by his biographers, Lisa Lyons an d Robert Storr (1987):Propped on an easel to his left are the griddled photographs he refers toas he paints; a shelf on the right carries a telephone and two other impor-tant pieces of equipment: a television and a radio/cassette deck. The

THE ARTISTIC PERSONALITY 35


6/12

background noise they provide helps him to maintain that subtle degreeof detachment he needs from the tedious activity of building an image,part by part, with machine-like precision. In the past, Close listened to(but did not watc h) television almost constantly while working, becom-ing in the process a connoisseur of morning game shows and afternoonsoap operas. Their slow-paced soundtracks are "of such a mundane na -ture that you don't really get engaged," he once said. "It's like having adumb friend in the room. It just chatters away and you don't have torespond to it."

Personality ImplicationsThat significantlydifferent artistic processes exist within the domain of

art has significant implications for attempts to define the nature of the artis-tic personality. More specifically,it suggests that the kinds of traits optimallysuited to the creation of art will be dependent on the specific kind of artbeing created. For example, an artist who is extroverted, sociable, and movedby external norms would not be well-suited to create introspective work, as itrequires a special sensitivity to private inner events. Conversely, an intro-verted artist would have a hard time being noticed if the prevailing style ofthe domain consisted in polished representations of the objective world.

Although past research on the relationship between artistic style andpersonality has been relatively sparse, the results of these studies support theidea of a significant relationship between the personality of the artist and thetype of art he or she produces. Dudek and Marchand (1983) found a strongcorrespondence between artists' painting stylesand the degree to which theyexhibited cognitive defenses and controls. Artists who had lower cognitivedefenses and controls (assessed using the Rorschach test) tended to paint ina loosely controlled, painterly manner, whereas artists who were more rigidin their psychological defenses painted in a more formal, linear style. In astudy that examined the relationship between personality and the represen-tational-abstract dimension, Loomis and Saltz (1984) found that "rationalcognitive styles" were associated with representational artistic styles, whereas"irrational cognitive styles" were associated with abstract styles. Furthermore,extroverts tended to have representational styles, whereas introverts tendedto have more abstract styles.Perhaps the most compelling empirical support for a significant rela-tionship between the personality of an artist and his artistic style comes froma study by Ludwig (1998). He compared the lifetime rates of mental disorderamong artists whose work was primarilyformal (emphasizing structural, com-positional, or decorative elements) with rates of mental disorder among art-ists whose work was primarily emotive (emphasizing self-expression).3 Results3ln the study, Ludwig also classified the works of certain artists as "symbolic." Because we do not usethis classification category in the present chapter, Ludwig's findings relating to symbolic styles are notdiscussed here.

36 ABUHAMDEH AND CSIKSZENTMIHALYI


7/12

were dramatic: the incidence of lifetime mental disorder among the artists inthe emotive category was more than three times the incidence of mentaldisorder among artists in the formal category 22% versus 75%, respectively(JX.001).

These results point to a significant relationship between the personal-ity of the artist and the stylistic content of the art he or she produces. Next,we examine the field's role in shaping the personality traits that are charac-teristic of recognized artists.The Field of Art

"We are not the masters of what we produce. It is imposed upon us."Henri Matisse (Seuphor, 1961, p. 16)Artists have traditionally been perceived as individuals wo rking in rela-tive isolation, free to follow their crea tive urges. "Like most geniuses," wroteAmbrose Vollard, friend and biographer of Degas, "[Degas] was essentially

independent of events, persons, and places, refusing to be limited by timeand disregarding as unimportant everything which did not include and en-rich his work "(Vollard, 1986, p. 5).A co nsideration of the forces at work suggests a less romantic image.One does not become an artist simply by making art. To earn a living anddevelop a self-concept as a bona fide artist distinct from a dilettante, onemust be legitimated by the appropriate art institutions. Only when the artist'swork has been recognized by the field of art the critics, historians, dealers,collectors, curators, an d fellow artistscan the artist continue to focus his orher energies on creating art.So what does the art world look for? An artwork will only be acceptedas significant if it provides a meaning ful extension (aesthetic, political, moral,etc.) to the catalogue of past artistic achievements, the so-called "grand nar-rative" of art. The greater the contribution to the story, the more significantthe work is judged to be. "The imperative to make abstract art comes fromhistory," wrote the famous critic Clement Greenberg in 1940, when Ab-stract Expressionism was just beginning to take hold of the art world, "andthe artist is held in a vise from which at the present moment he can escapeonly by surrend ering his ambition and re turn ing to a stale past" (G reenberg,1940, p. 310).

If an artist creates artwork that does not fulfill the needs of the field,that artist will be dismissed or ignored. Leon G olub, who like so many otherartists spent a significant amount of his career living and working in NewYork, commented on the pressures often felt by artists and created by thefield pursuing its rigid agenda:

The critics were angry about my art. New York seemed impenetrable. Iwas devastated by some of the reactions, so we [Golub and his wife, artist

TH E ARTISTIC PERSONALITY 3 7


8/12

Nancy Spero] decided to leave because,frankly,we didn't have what-ever it took to fight New York and the atmosphere of that time. Therewas, and still is, a force in New York, you see, that pushes art in certaindirectionsideologically, rhetorically, and rather strongly. (Kimmelman,1998, p. 178)Because of the field's perpetual need for novelty, the field's aestheticpreference is guaranteed to ch ange c onstantly. W ith in a given artistic style,this change is characterized by, among o ther things, an increase in com plex-ity and unpredictability (Martindale, 1990). These changes maintain thefield's interest in a given style, warding off habitu ation and boredom . W he nthe style has exhausted its potential for interest, the field will be activelylooking for works that hold promise for ushering in a new paradigm.Consider the emergence of Pop A rt in th e late 1950s. Th e first Pop A rtpaintings appeared at a time wh en interest and faith in Abstract Expression-

ism was on the w ane. Warh ol's mass-produced paintings were not only no velin concept, they also provided a meaningful contrast to the highly expressivepaintings of Pollock, de Koon ing, and other leading A bstract Expressionists.In other words, Abstract Expressionism created the opportunity for Pop Artto emerge. It is unlikely that Pop Art would have appeared at another pointin the history of art.Th e n ature of the art field's selection process has two im portant impli-cations for the current topic under consideration, the artistic personality.The first is that, at any given point in time, there will be a constellation ofpersonality traits th at are optimally suited to create the k ind of art th e fieldwill recognize as significant. The nature of these traits will be strongly deter-mined by the nature of the domain. For example, if an abstract, painterlystyle such as Abstract Expressionism is reigning in the art world, emotional,introverted artists will have the advantage; if a realistic, linear style such asSocial Realism is in vogue, more e xtroverted, unem otional dispositions willbe favored. It is important to note, however, that the stylistic qualities ofmov emen ts often change significantly during a movem ent's life span, so tha tdifferent personality traits will be adaptive depending on the develop me ntalstage of the movement (Kubler, 1962). For example, original, nonconform-

ing types will flourish more during the early stages of a mov em ent, w hen thetask is to lay new foundations, rather tha n the later stages, wh en th e task is toelaborate and refine already existing symbols and themes.T he second im plication of the field's selection process, already suggestedby the first, is that the artistic persona lity is no t a stable, timeless personalitytype. As the field's taste for art changes, so too will the types of personalitiescreating the art tha t will be accepted as significant. Th oug h it may have bee nadap tive at one po int in history for artists to possess the traits associated w iththe archetypal "artistic personality"introverted, nonconforming, socially

aloof, and so forththere is no reason to believe th at these traits will con-tinue to be adaptive, or even that they are adaptive in today's art world.38 ABVHAMDEH AND CS1KSZENTM1HALY1


9/12

Indeed, a longitudinal study conducted by Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi(1976 ) suggests many of these traits are a recipe for failure in the co nte m po 'rary art world.

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF ARTISTICDEVELOPMENT AND ART ISTIC SU CCESSTh e study involved 281 students at the prestigious A rt Institute of C h i'cago. During the first phase of the study, the artists completed severalpersonality questionnaires and engaged in problem-finding and problem-solving tasks designed to assess various dim ensions of creativ ity. Tw enty yearslater, 64 of the original 281 students were contacted. The primary focus ofthis second phase of the study was to identify and unde rstand the factors th at

were most predictive of artistic success.The picture that emerged was unexpected. Out of the handful of artiststh at did achieve some artistic success, the traits that distinguished them fromtheir unrecognized peers were more characteristic of Wall Street marketingexecutives th an what we have com e to associate with artists. Com pared w iththeir less successful peers, these artists were more sociable, practical, andcareer-driven (Csikszentmihalyi, Getzels, & Kahn, 1984). "Unless you are asocial beast," said one of the artists, "it is naive to think you are going tomake it." They also demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice personalexpressivity in the service of artistic recogn ition. Instead of ignoring the busi-ness aspects of the art world, or pretending that they did not exist, the suc-cessful artists acknowledged, accommodated, and even embraced them. Oneartist put it this way: "Usually you can judge somebody's career orientationand ability in building a career by how good the ir career is. It has no thin g todo with the ir art, it has everything to do with how they can build a career andwho they know " (Freeman, 1993, p. 115).

Con sider Jim, the most successful artist of the sam ple. Like the handfulof other successful artists in the group, Jim had an acute understanding ofhow the business side of the art world worked. He tailored his art to accom-modate it. "You need to have a monotheistic thing on the surface for busi-ness reasons," he pointed out. "This is not Versace. This is Robert Hall. It'son the racks, like small, medium, and large. These are made to order." Jimheld no illusions about where his art fit into the system: "[Art] exists as avehicle for criticism and writing" (Freeman, 1993, p. 193).

In art school, students whose traits resembled that of the archetypalartistic personality ten ded to be viewed by their teachers as very original andcreative. But when students left school, those who lacked the extroversion,aggressiveness, and a knack for promoting themselves that attracted the at-ten tio n of critics, gallery owners, and media tended to disappear from the artscene, never to be heard of again. Simpson (1981) went so far as to suggest

THE ARTISTIC PERSONALITY 3 9


10/12

that the "artistic mystique" has been perpetuated more by unsuccessful artiststhan successful artists, as a defense against artistic failure.So w e see that many of the traits traditionally associated w ith the artis-tic personalitynonconforming, socially aloof, impulsiveare incompat-ible with artistic success in the contemporary art world. The loft, the exhibi-tion channels, the galleries, the New York ar t scene are all necessary steps aserious artist must be able an d willing to negotiate. Yet these steps to successrun counter to a large array of values an d traits young artists hold dear an dwere encouraged to believe in. Today's art world is extrem ely inhospitable tothe romantic image of the artist.

CONCLUSION

The systems perspective of the artistic personality ad mits that individualtraits may be necessary for a person to be recognized as creative, bu t thatthese cannot be predicted a priori. The specific individual traits associatedwith the artistic persona lity will depend on characteristics of the other tw osubsystems, the domain of art and the field of art. A person who becomes apainter in a period w hen Ab stract Expressionism is the reigning style will bemore likely to be recognized if he or she possesses the emotional, imagina-tive, and introverted qualities that are well-suited for the creation of ab-stract, expressionistic art. Likew ise, in a period when Photo Realism is invogue, a cool, rational, and outward-oriented person will be more likely tomake a contribution to the domain. Given the constantly evolving nature ofboth the domain of art and the field of art, the idea of the artistic personalityas a timeless, constitutional personality type is therefore an improbableproposition.The preceding analysis suggests that a construct as broad as the artisticpersonality may be of limited value if addressing questions related to indi-vidual differences in artistic creativity. Consider, for exam ple, the relation-ship between psychopathology and artistic creativity. Though it seems rea-sonable to suggest a link between the psychological torment of artists likeFrida Kahlo, James Ensor, and Vincent Van Gogh and their heavily affect-laden art, such a relationship in areas that allow fo r less self-expression (e.g.,Photo-Realism, Minim alism, etc.) is highly questionable. Indeed, it is hardto imagine how psychopathology would be anything but a distraction.It is important to keep in mind that our analysis has focused on onearea of art, painting. In the highly diversified, "radical pluralism" (Danto,1998)4 of today's postmodern art wor ld, paintin g con stitutes just one ofmany media av ailable to artists, ranging from audio and video installationsto the human body to the natural landscape. Given that each of these me-4Also referred to , less favorably, as the "post-Warholian nightmare" (Morgan, 1992, p. xvii).40 A B U H A M D E H AND CSI K SZE N TM I HAL Y I


11/12

dia involves unique artistic processes, we should expect the range of traitsfound among artists today to be even greater than our analysis in this chap-ter suggests.

Finally, it should be clear from all we have said that the same argumentholds for any other profession or occupation. A biologist like Friedrich vonHumboldt (1769-1859) was an explorer, adventurer, and naturalist; a cen-tury and a half later, E. O. Wilson (1929- ) complains that the hegemony ofmolecular biology has transformed the domain into an abstract laboratorydiscipline (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). It is unlikely that the personality of in-dividuals attracted to biology in Humboldt's time would be the same as thosewho join the field now. The links between a domain and the personality ofthose who work in it are not rigidly forged but change organically as thedomain itself changes with time.

REFERENCES

Barren, F. (1972 ). A rtists in th e making.New York: Seminar Press.Barton, K., & Cattell, H. (19 72 ). Personality characteristics of female psychology,science and art majors. Psychological Reports, 3 1 , 807-813.Csikszentmihalyi, M . (1996). Creativity. New York: HarperCollins.Csikszentmihalyi, M., &. Getzels, J. W. (1973). The personality of young artists: Anempirical and theoretical exploration. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 91-

104.Csikszentmihalyi, M., Getzels, J. W., & Kahn, S. P. (1984). Talent and achievement(Report). Chicago: Spencer and MacArthur Foundations.Cupchik, G. C. (1974). An experimental investigation of perceptual and stylisticdimensions of paintings suggested by art history. In D. E. Berlyn e (Ed .), Studies

in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 235-257). New York: Wiley.Danto, A. (1998). After the end o f art: Contemporary art and the pale o f history. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.Dudek, S. Z., & Marchand, P. (1983). Artistic style and personality increative painters.

Journal of Personality Assessment , 4 7 (2 ) , 139-142.Freeman, M. (1993). Finding th e m use . Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.Fromm , E. (1978). Pr imar y and secondary process in wakin g and in altered states ofconsciousness. Journal of Altered States of Consciousness, 4, 115-128.Getzels, U. J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). T he creative vision: A longitudinal

study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.Greenberg, C. (1940). Towards a newer Laocoon. Partisan Review, 3, 296-310.Gruber, H. (1988). The evolv ing systems approach to creative work. Creativity Re'

search Journal, 1(1) , 27-51.THE A R T I S T I C PERSONALITY 41


12/12

Harrington, D. M. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychological per-spective. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 143-169). N ewb ury Park, CA: Sage.Hauser, A. (1951). The social history of art. New York: Vintage.Kimmelman, M. (1998). Portraits: Talking with artists at the Met , th e M od ern , th e L ou-v r e , and elsewhere. New York: Rand om House.Kubler, G. (1962). T he shape of t ime. New Haven: Yale U nive rsity Press.Loomis, M., & Saltz, E. (19 84). C ogn itive styles as predictors of artistic styles. Jour-

na l of Personality, 52(1), 22-35.Lucie-Smith, E. (1999). Lives of th e great twentieth century artists. London: Thames &Hudson.Ludwig, A. (1998). Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research

Journal, 11(2) , 93-101.Lyons, L., & Storr, R. (1987). Chuck Close . New York: Rizzoli.Martindale, C. (1990). T he clockwork m use . New York: Basic Books.Morgan, Robert. (1998). The end of the art world. New York: Allworth Press.Rosenberg, H. (1972). T he de-definition of art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Seuphor, M. (1961). Ab stract painting: F i f t y years o f accomplishment, from Kandinsky to

the present (H . Chevalier, Trans.). New York: Harry Abrams.Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after

a century of research? Psychological Bullet in, 104,163-180.Simonton, D. K. (1990). Political pathology and societal creativity. Creativity R e-

search journal , 3(2),85-99.Simpson, C. R. (1981). SoHo: T he artist in the city. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.Solomon, D. (1987). ]ackson Pollock: A biography. New York: Simon &. Schuster.Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36 , 311-322.Stein, M. I.(1963). A transactional approach to creativity. In C. W. Taylor &. F.Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity (pp.217-227). New York: Wiley.Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the s e l f . New York : Free Press.Vasari, G. (1959). Lives of the artists. Oxford, England: O xford Un iversity Press. (Origi-

na l work p ublished 1550)Vollard, A. (1986). Degas, an intimate portrait. New York: Dover.Walker, A. M., Koestner, R., & H u m , A. (1995). Perso nality correlates ofdepressivestyle in autobiographies of creative achievers. Journal o f Creative Behavior, 29(2) ,

75-94.Warhol, A. (1975). T he philosophy of Andy Warhol . San Diego: H arcourt.Wolfflin, H. (1929). Principles of art history: The problem of the development of style in

later art (7th rev. ed.).New York: Dover.

42 ABL/HAMDEH AND CSIKSZENTMJHALYI

Documents

9.the Artistic Personality_ a Systems Perspective