CREATIVITY IN DESIGN: A CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING

Jinghao Xiong, Xiang Zheng, Yuri Nazarov

Abstract


Contextualization: In an era characterized by the growing importance of creativity, design emerges as a central player in shaping innovative solutions and bridging the gap between theory and practice. This article delves into the multifaceted realm of design creativity, exploring its connection to constitutional principles, politics of law, and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence. It seeks to uncover the inherent link between design and constitutionalism while examining its role in transnationality, sustainability, and the production of law.

Objective: The aim of this research was to highlight how the creativity is expressed through design and determine features of the designer's creative personality as a representative of the creative profession.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of psychological and pedagogical studies have been conducted. the article is also aiming to investigate the intricate relationship between design creativity and constitutional principles, elucidating how designers contribute to constitutional innovation.

Results: The results of this study illuminate the constitutional underpinnings of design creativity, revealing how designers operate at the intersection of principles, politics, and innovation. It showcases the pivotal role of creativity in transnational problem-solving and sustainable design practices. Furthermore, the analysis revealed several important features. Firstly, creatives demonstrate independence and a tendency towards divergent behavior, prioritizing their own principles and standards over societal norms. Secondly, they exhibit flexible thinking and openness to new ideas, breaking free from stereotypes to find innovative solutions. Thirdly, motivation for self-actualization and the desire for self-expression are crucial for creative design, as individuality plays a significant role in problem-solving. Lastly, the ability to identify, articulate, and resolve problems is emphasized, with a focus on the practicality and utility of the design outcome rather than solely its aesthetic qualities.


Keywords


Design; Creativity; Culture; Imagination; Personal Capabilities

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ackoff, L., & Vergara, E. (2001). Creativity in problem solving and planning: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 7(1), 1-13.

Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: the magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books.

Barnett, H. (2000). Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. In N. N. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivations (pp. 1-13). New York.

Barron, F. (1969). Creative Person and Creative Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado (pp. 1–30). Atherton Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13117-001

Burk, D.L. (2022). IP and Authenticity in the Age of Automated Creativity, ALTI Forum.

Clain Star, Ed.D. (2001). What Would Happen If I Said Yes?: A Guide to Creativity for Parents and Teachers. D.O.K. Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Fidelman, U. (2005). Visual search and quantum mechanics: a neuropsychological basis of Kantۥs creative imagination. J Mind Behav. 2005;26:23–33.

Gelade, G. A. (2002). Creativity style, personality, and artistic endeavor. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128, 213-234.

Griffin, M. P. (2001). The teacher-artist. The Educational Digest, 54(8).

Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review, 64, 110-118.

Guilford, J. P. (1964). Creative thinking and problem solving. Education Digest, 29, 29-31.

Hulst, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2011). The Political/Process Promise of Policy Framing. Sociological Review, 10(2), 87-113.

Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. International Universities Press.

Lee, H., Kim, J., Ryu, Y., and Song, S. (2015). Do people use their implicit theories of creativity as general theories? J. Creat. Behav. 49, 77–93. doi: 10.1002/jocb.55

Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2010). Fostering creativity: Expert solutions to everyday challenges. Harvard University Press, 42-46.

Lubart, T. (2001). Creativity across cultures. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 339-350). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Margolin, V. (Ed.). (2002). Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. University of Chicago Press, 12-14.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Wiley.

Nicholls, A. (2001). Managing Educational Innovations. London, 8-16.

Ogawa, D., Kuehn-Ebert, C., & DeVito, A. (2001). Differences in creative thinking between Japanese and American fifth-grade children. Ibaraki University Faculty of Education Bulletin, 40, 53-59.

Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2010). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In Who is creative? (pp. 153-167). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Rogers, Carl R. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 11, 249-260.

Rothenberg, A. (1996). The Janusian process in scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2-3), 207—231.

Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Van Dusen, L. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 242-254.

Schon, D. A. (2005). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 41-42.

Simpson, R. M. (1922). Creative imagination. The American Journal of Psychology, 33, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/1414133

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Book Review: Developmental Approaches to Giftedness and Creativity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(4), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328300600410

Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 99–121). Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E. (2001). The nature of creativity as manifested in the testing. In The nature of creativity (p. 45). Cambridge.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual. Lexington, Mass: Ginn.

Ugurel, Y. & Ozcan, D. (2018). Teachers' views on creativity and creative students. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 9(2), pp. 57 – 71.

Wallach, M.A. and Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity-intelligence distinction. Journal of Personality, 33(3): 348-369

Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (2005). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1-10.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21902/Revrima.v2i40.6524

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Brazilian Journal of Law and International Relations e-ISSN: 2316-2880

Rua Chile, 1678, Rebouças, Curitiba/PR (Brazil). CEP 80.220-181