The paper, published in 1958 in Art Education after an address prepared for presentation to the Pacific Arts Association, is set against a discourse of crisis, a crisis in (western, american, urban) societies that is derived from an expansion of technological solutions and their presence in everyday life. That crisis is intensified by automation, gadgets and specialized services, and produces the alienation of people from many everyday challenges and “the joy of mastery over problems” (Guilford, 1958, p. 4).
The ideia that once we understand the abilities that are more relevant proper materials and methods can be devised is present and connects with the idea that exercises in creative thinking, and opportunities to engage with them, may be introduced not only art, where students “are expected to be creative”, but also in other areas where “creative performance” needs improvement (Guilford, 1958, p. 16). Still, art may have a special contribution, “[g]ranting that instruction in art offers numerous opportunities to teach habits of creativity” (Guilford, 1958, p. 18) that can have effects in (or transfer to) other areas of life. From this, several education and training contexts and technologies appeared devoted to the development of creativity: “special courses designed to improve creativity have been given, by teachers in various fields. The number of such courses has increased enormously during the past few years. (…) Such courses have ususally consisted in lectures on the nature of creativity and on exercises in creative thinking and problem solving” (Guilford, 1958, p. 16). Such courses and technologies, following similar undelying discourses and hopes, have continued until today.
What have decades of reproduction of such educational hopes and technologies produced?
PF