Abstract
In this chapter, I will explore how rules can aid the creative process. Often seen as limiting factors, whether self- or other-imposed, rules can also act as the foundation upon which the creative process is built; within rules, limitation can turn into opportunity. Indeed, it is my premise here that rules might not be antithetical to creativity and, instead, facilitate it. If there is no frame to create within, there can be no creativity; rules are meant to set these frames. As shown in this chapter, various creative practices have their own ‘rules’ where skilled creators cultivate habits and routines precisely in order to work creatively. This ‘Janus head’ — the dialectic relationship between rules and creativity — will be explored from the perspective of a socio-material and distributed approach to creativity (Glăveanu, 2014; Tanggaard, 2013).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management. London, UK: Blackwell.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Health.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham: Springer.
Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
John-Steiner, V. (1997). Notebooks of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McWilliam, E. L. (2007) Is creativity teachable? Conceptualizing the creativity/pedagogy relationship in higher education. In 30th HERDSA Annual Conference: Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, 8–11 July 2007, Adelaide.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2010). Commentary: Intersubjectivity, interobjectivity, and the embryonic fallacy in developmental science. Culture & Psychology, 16, 465–475.
Stadil, C., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). In the shower with Picasso. LID Editorial.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347.
Sternberg, J. R. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87–98.
Tanggaard, L. (2013). The sociomateriality of creativity. Culture and Psychology, 19(1), 20–32.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 Tue Juelsbo
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Juelsbo, T. (2016). Rules. In: Glăveanu, V.P., Tanggaard, L., Wegener, C. (eds) Creativity — A New Vocabulary. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137511805_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137511805_17
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-70246-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51180-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)