Creativity, Theatre, and Meaning
Creativity – particularly creativity in the arts – can serve as a source of meaning in one’s life. In this chapter, we will explore and apply this concept to the performing arts. The connection between creativity and meaning can take multiple forms. For example, recent conceptions of meaning include three components: coherence, purpose, and significance (Martela & Steger, 2016). Kaufman (2018) links these three aspects to time, with coherence representing our past; purpose being our present; and significance linking with our future.
How different levels of creativity in the arts can help
achieve meaning, legacy, and symbolic immortality
Dana P. Rowe
American Society of Composers and Publishers
James C. Kaufman
University of Connecticut
To cite:
Rowe, D. P., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). How different levels of creativity in the art can help achieve meaning, legacy, and symbolic immortality. In Z. Ivcevic (Ed.), Creativity, emotion, and the arts: Research, application, and impact (pp. 11-16). Santander, Spain: Fundacion Botin.
Abstract
Creativity – particularly creativity in the arts – can serve as a source of meaning in one’s life. In this chapter, we will explore and apply this concept to the performing arts. The connection between creativity and meaning can take multiple forms. For example, recent conceptions of meaning include three components: coherence, purpose, and significance (Martela & Steger, 2016). Kaufman (2018) links these three aspects to time, with coherence representing our past; purpose being our present; and significance linking with our future.
“I’ve never really thought about what my life purpose is. But I know why I’ve been put on the planet: To entertain people, [whether] through a book or a TV show or a musical or a recording or a podcast.”
— John Barrowman (Rowe, 2016)
Coherence is our ability to understand and make sense of our past – can we see our actions and responses as being defendable? Can we understand past decisions, even if we would not make them again? There are so many aspects of our lives that are out of our control and often are a source of negative emotion. Everyone makes mistakes and loses opportunities or loved ones. The deeper question is if we can reflect and understand and – ideally – grow and blossom from such tragic circumstances (Forgeard, 2013). The performing arts can help achieve coherence in that assuming different roles can yield insights into one’s past decisions and make them resound in a new way. For example, consider a young opera singer portraying the title role of Britten’s Albert Herring. Herring’s character arc takes him from being an obedient and subservient young man to finally allowing himself to enjoy life and assert his independence. The singer assaying Herring may gain an understanding into the importance of autonomy (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000) that allow him to forgive himself for past choices that may have otherwise seemed selfish (such as pursuing a career in the arts in the first place).
Significance is whether we can enjoy our lives in the moment. Do we consider our current existence a positive one? Do we have love, joy, social interactions, and a high quality of life? Maybe we experience what Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1996) called Flow, in which we get engaged and entranced in a favorite activity to the point of losing track of time. The act of performing live in front of an audience often gives a similar rush of the excitement that comes with challenge and risk. Indeed, many performers are motivated by this feeling of Flow and passion (Martin & Cutler, 2002).
The third component, purpose, is connected to our hopes and dreams for the future – in our own lives and even beyond. There are many different types of goals, of course, and many of purely personal (such as having a family or traveling the world). Other goals are more career-oriented and different heights one may want to achieve (such as performing on Broadway). Purpose is often intertwined with the concept of symbolic immortality (Lifton, 1979). We are aware of our eventual death and passing from this world. How is it possible to let go of this knowledge and not catastrophize and endlessly worry? One way, as Lifton (2011) notes, is to find alternate ways of metaphorically living forever. Some achieve this symbolic immortality by focusing on children or embracing spirituality. Other ways can be found in the performing arts.
There are both hedonic and eudaimonic pathways (Disabato, Goodman, Kashdan, Short, & Harden, 2016; Tov & Lee, 2016). Hedonia is seeking out pleasure and shorter-term joys. These can include the Flow-like excitements discussed earlier, as well as the rush of applause and praise. The power of hedonism can be to distract one’s self from death; indeed, the arts can improve your mood simply by distracting you from negative thoughts (Drake & Winner, 2012; Drake, Coleman, & Winner, 2011).
Most relevant for purpose are the eudaimonic, long-term benefits. These encompass a deeper sense of contentment and well-being. Awareness of death also plays a role here, but it can be in different ways. One can appreciate the gentle positives by remembering the capricious nature of being. Taking the eudaimonic pathway to its most extreme is to consider one’s eventual legacy after death.
The most straightforward way to think about legacy is to assume a Big-C perspective (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Certainly, genius lives on (Simonton, 2009). In the world of musical theatre, many of the greatest creators are long dead. Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Frank Loesser for example, have all been dead for more than forty years. Yet Oklahoma!, Porgy and Bess, Kiss Me, Kate, and Guys and Dolls continue to be performed all over the world. Many readers would be able to hum a tune from all of these shows.
However, what constitutes Big-C (as opposed to Pro-c) can be quite subject to random and almost chaotic factors. The Systems theory of creativity suggests a method behind the seeming madness of what is remembered and what is forgotten in the world of the performing arts and beyond (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). A creative product represents an interaction between the person (creator), the field (the gatekeepers and decision-makers), and the domain (the members and consumers of a particular area). The product made by the person tends to stay the same. A work in the performing arts, for example, may be interpreted in a different way that represents a new perspective or portrayal (e.g., Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2001). However, other than rare exceptions the core text remains the same. A production of Romeo and Juliet may decide to use costumes and sets from the 1930s or to have everyone use a Southern accent – but rarely does Mercutio defeat Tybalt, cutting the story short.
In contrast, the field and the domain perpetually shift. Over time, the older members age out and retire (or die) while new ones take their place. Decisions made about the best work in a particular year may not hold up today. For example, in 1991, The Will Rogers Follies won the Tony Award for Best Musical (and five additional awards that year). It ran for nearly one thousand performances and had a successful national tour. However, it is rarely performed today and has not had a major revival. In contrast, the musicals that lost the Tony Award that year include Once on This Island, Miss Saigon, and The Secret Garden. All three are regularly produced around the world at major venues. Miss Saigon has been recorded multiple times and has had many successful tours. Once on This Island was not only revived on Broadway but won the Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical. The Secret Garden continues to be a regional mainstay. The critics and audiences regarded The Will Rogers Follies quite highly in 1991, but subsequent generations are less entranced. In contrast, the three losing nominees continue to captivate modern tastes. It is entirely possible that in another thirty years, tastes will have shifted even further.
For every The Magic Flute or Much Ado About Nothing that continues to resonate and charm people hundreds of years after their creation, there are countless works that once were enjoyed and are long-forgotten. Maybe they have been relegated to footnotes because of changing styles, shifting values, topical references, or simply bad luck. Certainly, there is some relationship between a work’s current recognition and the level of its initial success (Simonton, 1998). Most Tony Award winners, for example, are still at least somewhat well-known.
Aiming to be Big-C and find meaning by having your creative work continue to be your legacy after your death is risky. It is more akin to buying a lottery ticket every day instead of investing in a retirement plan. If every reader were to make a list right now of all of the living creators who they believe will be remembered 100 years from now, we would bet nearly anything that several of them will be long-forgotten.
What we argue is that the best path to symbolic immortality is for a creator to focus on mini-c or little-c (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). The impact we have on other people is crucial to every aspect of our life. Indeed, recent theories of creativity emphasize the role of groups, audiences, and interactions (Glăveanu, 2013; Kaufman & Glăveanu, 2019). Our influence on others – family, children, friends, students, or anyone – can be our best hope for a legacy that gives us symbolic immortality. Some of the best advice to an aspiring creator can be to start where you are. Grow locally. Join and support regional creative centers and activities. If one’s talent and passion are met with lucky and opportunity, then it is possible to ascend to greater heights. But if that is not in the cards, there will be still be that local influence. Such an impact can linger and remain, even if it is with those who know and love you.
We will end by describing paintings in each of the authors’ residences. The senior author has paintings by his late mother in his apartment. Some are aesthetically beautiful and others are not. All are replications of other paintings which are actual Big-C contributions. The junior author has two paintings of flowers by his late grandmother in his living room that anchor the room. Objectively, all of these paintings are little-c at best. No museum is clamoring to display them. If the authors saw any of them for sale by an anonymous artist, there would be no desire to add the work to our collections. But for each of us, the paintings are a reminder of a loved one. They make us smile when we see them. They are legacies that grew from personal connections but are rooted in lower-level creative contributions. They are seen as both art and as memories – and this combination can be the most powerful type of symbolic immortality that one can attain.
References
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 13-79.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28, 471-482.
Drake, J. E., & Winner, E. (2012). Confronting sadness through art-making: Distraction is more beneficial than venting. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 251-266.
Drake, J. E., Coleman, K., & Winner, E. (2011). Short-term mood repair through art: Effects of medium and strategy. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 28, 26-30.
Forgeard, M. J. (2013). Perceiving benefits after adversity: The relationship between self-reported posttraumatic growth and creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 245-264.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69-81.
Kaufman, J. C. (2018). Finding meaning with creativity in the past, present, and future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 734-749.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1-12.
Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2019). A review of creativity theories: What questions are we trying to answer? In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd Ed) (pp. 27-43). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lifton, R. J. (1979). The broken connection. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lifton, R. J. (2011). Witness to an extreme century: A memoir. New York: Free Press.
Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-15.
Martin, J. J., & Cutler, K. (2002). An exploratory study of flow and motivation in theater actors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 344-352.
Rowe, D. P. (2016, June). Take it from the Top [Audio podcast].
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Fickle fashion versus immortal fame: Transhistorical assessments of creative products in the opera house. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 198-210.
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Genius 101. New York: Springer.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 75–101.
Tov, W., & Lee, H. W. (2016). A closer look at the hedonics of everyday meaning and satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 585-609.