1. bookVolume 5 (2018): Issue 1 (September 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2354-0036
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

For a Good Poet's Made, as Well as Born: The Relational Ontology of Shakespeare’s Genius

Published Online: 25 Sep 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 5 (2018) - Issue 1 (September 2018)
Page range: 26 - 40
Received: 24 May 2018
Accepted: 25 Aug 2018
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2354-0036
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Folk and scholarly conjectures on the nature of creative genius often focus on intrapsychic processes: The explanations centre on the person, the creator, transcending the more prosaic forces that shape everyday, routine cognition. Focusing on the alleged extraordinary character of a creator deflects attention from the emergent, distributed and relational nature of creativity. A more productive research agenda considers a range of factors, operating at different time scales, that guide and constrain the manufacture of creativity. We argue that a transactional perspective is particularly fruitful for the analysis of the dramatic work of William Shakespeare. Drama is an inherently relational art form created by the writer, the director, actors and audience. Further, Shakespeare’s output is a palimpsest of classical texts and writers contemporary to him, and was shaped by practical constraints. Viewing his work as situated in a historical time period and in a dialogue with other voices gives us a fuller account of the ontological locus of his creativity.

Keywords

Bate, J. (1997). The genius of Shakespeare. London: Picador.Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, R. (1988). The death of the author (1977). Image, music, text. essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath, 142-48.Search in Google Scholar

Barzun, J. (1989). The paradoxes of creativity. The American Scholar, 337-351.Search in Google Scholar

Bone, D. (1989). The emptiness of genius: Aspects of Romanticism. In P. Murray, (Ed.) Genius: The history of an idea (pp. 113-128). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Clare, J. (2014). Shakespeare’s stage traffic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139626934Search in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Getzels, J. W., & Kahn, S. P. (1984). Talent and achievement: A longitudinal study of artists (project report). University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Genius : A systems perspective. In R. Steptoe (Ed.) Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record (pp. 39-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity, In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807916.018Search in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995) Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 73-98). Netherlands: Springer10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_7Search in Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer: Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

Crane, M. T. (2014). Framing authority: Sayings, self, and society in sixteenth-century England. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, M. (2016). Authors of the mind. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 5, 157-173.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, U. (1989). The open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962).Search in Google Scholar

Eliot, T. S. (1919) reprinted in Eliot, T.S. (1982). Tradition and the individual talent. Perspecta, 19, 36-42.10.2307/1567048Search in Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14, 133-156.10.1080/13639080020028747Search in Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363.10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 63, 482-512.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014Search in Google Scholar

Florio, J. (1603). Montaigne’s Essays retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/766/Emerson.pdf?sequence=1.Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 79-93.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham/Heidelberger: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-05434-6Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). The status of the social in creativity studies and the pitfalls of dichotomic thinking. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 2, 102-119.10.1515/ctra-2015-0016Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Epilogue: Creativity as immersed detachment, Journal of Creative Behaviour.10.1002/jocb.242Search in Google Scholar

Jowett, J. (2013) Shakespeare as collaborator. In P. Edmonson and S. Wells (Eds.), Shakespeare beyond doubt (pp. 88-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084352.011Search in Google Scholar

Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Ideas of creativity in Western culture. London: Hutchinson.Search in Google Scholar

Malafouris, L. (2008). Between brains, bodies and things: tectonoetic awareness and the extended self. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1993-2002.Search in Google Scholar

Malafouris, L. (2015). Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind, 8, 351-371.10.1080/1751696X.2015.1111564Search in Google Scholar

March, P.L. (2017). Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency. A Material Engagement Theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1-19.Search in Google Scholar

Mardock, J. & Rasmussen, E. (2013). What does textual evidence reveal about the author? In P. Edmonson and S. Wells (Eds.), Shakespeare beyond doubt (pp. 111-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Masten, J. (1997). Textual intercourse: Collaboration, authorship, and sexualities in Renaissance drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Men, W., Falk, D., Sun, T., Chen, W., Li, J., Yin, D., Zang, L. & Fan, M. (2014). The corpus callosum of Albert Einstein‘s brain: Another clue to his high intelligence? Brain, 137, 268.10.1093/brain/awt252Search in Google Scholar

Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35, 69-112.10.1177/00221678950353005Search in Google Scholar

Muir, K. (2014). Sources of Shakespeare's plays. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315823959Search in Google Scholar

Nuttall, A. D. (2007). Shakespeare the thinker. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Petersen, L.B. (2016). Between authorship and oral transmission: Negotiating the attribution of authorial, oral and collective style markers in Early Modern playtexts. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 5, 277-306.Search in Google Scholar

Plutarch. (1909). Shakespeare’s Plutarch: Vol 2. Ed. C.F. Tucker Brooke, New York: Duffield and Company. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1843.Search in Google Scholar

Potter, L. (2014). Shakespeare and other men of the theater. Shakespeare Quarterly,65, 455-469.10.1353/shq.2014.0044Search in Google Scholar

Rosso, O. A., Craig, H., & Moscato, P. (2009). Shakespeare and other English Renaissance authors as characterized by Information Theory complexity quantifiers. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388, 916-926.10.1016/j.physa.2008.11.018Search in Google Scholar

Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96.10.1080/10400419.2012.650092Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, W. (1997). Antony and Cleopatra. In S. Greenblatt (Ed.) The Norton Shakespeare (pp 2619-2708). New York: Norton. (Original work 1606-7).Search in Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K., Taylor, K., & Cassandro, V. J. (1998). The creative genius of William Shakespeare: Historiometric analyses of his plays and sonnets. In R. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record, (pp 167-192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Thematic content and political context in Shakespeare's dramatic output, with implications for authorship and chronology controversies. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 201-213.10.2190/EQDP-MK0K-DFCK-MA8FSearch in Google Scholar

Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity in highly eminent individuals. In J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp.174-188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Steptoe, R. (Ed.) (1998) Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198523734.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: W.H. Freeman.Search in Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W.H. Freeman.Search in Google Scholar

Weisberg, R. (2006). Creativity understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Wells, S. (2006). Shakespeare and Co.: Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, and the other players in his story. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, W.P. (2018). [Review of Taylor, G. and Egan, G. (Eds), The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship companion. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.] In Notes and Queries, 263, 131-134.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo