C H I A K I I S H I G U R O
T A K E S H I O K A D A
How Does Art Viewing Inspires Creativity?
ABSTRACT
Professional and amateur artists seek inspiration from viewing the works of others to enhance their creativity. This paper focuses on inspiration for artistic creation through art viewing by reviewing psychology
studies on what types of artwork promote individuals’ inspiration for creation (inspiring artwork) and how
they experience inspiration through their art appreciation (the appreciation process). In particular, we claim
that a dual focus—that is a focus on both evaluating the artworks of others and reflecting on one’s own art
making—is a core mechanism for inspiration. Further, we present a theoretical framework to explain the
types of creative outcomes expected in line with such a dual focus.
Keywords: creativity, inspiration, art viewing, aesthetics.
INTRODUCTION
In the literature of psychology, aesthetics and creativity are essential concepts for understanding the
mechanisms of artistic activities such as viewing and making art. These activities are sometimes connected:
Art making promotes aesthetic experiences during art viewing, while aesthetic experiences foster creativity
during art making. However, psychology researchers adopt separate approaches to the two activities. They
focus on art-viewing behavior to examine aesthetic experiences and on art-making behavior to explore creativity. Consequently, there is limited research on the relationship between the two activities. Recognizing
this issue, psychologists emphasize the need for new research to understand the relationship between input
and output activities, and some recent work has attempted to bridge this gap. Pablo P. L. Tinio, a psychologist on aesthetics, highlighted this issue and claimed the necessity to start new studies to understand the
relationship between the two activities (Tinio, 2013). Tinio and his collaborators began conducting studies
from theoretical and empirical perspectives (Pelowski, Leder, & Tinio, 2017; Specker et al., 2017; Tinio,
2013). A paper in the Journal of Creative Behavior also considered the issue. Broekkamp, Janssen, and Bergh
(2009) showed a positive relationship between reading literature and creative writing. In 2011, the Journal
of Creative Behavior published a special issue entitled “Fixation or inspiration: creative problem solving in
design.” The issue focused on designers’ cognitive processes for creative idea generation, which is often
influenced by precedent input. While research on this topic does not focus on art viewing or making, it elucidates the process of converting input into creative output, a critical topic in creativity research.
ART VIEWING INSPIRES CREATIVITY
Art viewing not only moves us but also inspires us to create artwork. It is asserted that prominent artists
have energized their creativity through others’ artworks. It is known that Vincent van Gogh copied various
artists such as Eugene Delacroix, Jean-Francis Millet, and Rembrandt (Homburg, 1996). Similarly, it is
apparent that “L.H.O.O.Q.,” one of the famous works of Marcel Duchamp, was made on the basis of his
encounter with the Mona Lisa. The interaction between viewing and making art transcends cultures and
artistic domains. Pablo Picasso was inspired by collecting and appreciating artwork from diverse cultural
areas such as Japan and Africa (Rubin, 1984). Painters are not the only artists who can be inspired by art
viewing. For instance, the composer Modest Mussorgsky created one of his most famous piano compositions, “Pictures at an exhibition,” on the basis of the artwork of Viktor Hartman.
In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that, like outstanding artists, art-lay people also have
such experiences. A typical example is creative collaborations on the Internet. Through social networking
services such as YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook, users can easily share their works and view those of
others. Such viewing and presentation of art on social media forms a channel of communication that
The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 55, Iss. 2, pp. 489–500 © 2020 Creative Education Foundation(CEF) DOI: 10.1002/jocb.469
489
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
encourages wide-scale collaborative creations (Hamasaki, Takeda, & Nishimura, 2008). Art education is
another field in which inspiration for creation is often observed. Schools and museums encourage learners’
aesthetic experience and creativity through art education. In such institutes, learners are inspired by viewing
others’ artwork to be creative in various domains such as photography or dance (e.g., Ishiguro & Okada,
2018a; Nakano, Shimizu, & Okada, 2017; Parker, 2008; Pavlou, 2013; Wellman, 2012). These studies suggest
that anyone, from outstanding artists to amateurs, can feel inspired to create artworks by viewing art. Interestingly, the resulting creativity is not limited to drawing or painting; viewers sometimes apply their inspiration to other artistic domains, such as music, writing, or dance.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON INSPIRATION AND CREATIVITY
While the phenomenon of inspiration has attracted researchers’ interest (Harding, 1948), psychology
scholars are yet to develop measures of experiences of inspiration other than interviews and observations.
Hence, there is a lack of research that empirically examines the detailed mechanism of inspiration.
An exception is Thrash and his collaborators (Oleynick, Thrash, LeFew, Moldovan, & Kieffaber, 2014).
The authors attempted to understand the feeling of inspiration in various situations, including creative settings, and proposed an empirical method to measure the psychological experiences of inspiration. Thrash
and Elliot (2003) developed a psychological scale of individuals’ trait inspiration, called the Inspiration Scale
(IS). The IS consists of two subscales of inspiration frequency and intensity which include four items, such
as “I experience inspiration” and “I am inspired to do something.” The IS subscales were verified for internal consistency (Cronbach a ≥ .90). The IS was invariant across two-month measurements and in populations of patent holders and university alumni. Such a well-validated measure enabled researchers to start
empirical studies on inspiration despite the self-report scale potentially being subjective (Oleynick et al.,
2014). Applying the IS, it was found that individual differences in the tendency to experience a feeling of
inspiration had positive correlations with personality traits associated with creativity, such as openness to
experience and intrinsic motivation (An & Youn, 2018; Milyavskaya, Ianakieva, Foxen-Craft, Colantuni, &
Koestner, 2012; Thrash & Elliot, 2003).
Thrash and his collaborators further revealed that inspiration had a positive relationship with creative
achievement. Thrash and Elliot (2003: Study 3) administered a questionnaire survey of design patentees and
alumni of a university. The participants were asked to respond to the IS as a measurement of their trait
inspiration and to report the number of patents they held. The results showed that, compared to the
alumni, patent holders experienced inspiration more frequently and intensively. Further, the number of
patents positively related to the frequency and intensity of inspiration. That is, the more patents the holders
had, the more frequently they experienced inspiration. Other research also revealed a positive relationship
between art learning experience and trait inspiration. Ishiguro and Okada (2016), for example, developed a
Japanese language version of the IS (Thrash & Elliot, 2003) and surveyed undergraduates who chose art as
their major and those who did not. The participants were asked to respond to the psychological scale to
measure trait inspiration from external stimuli. The results revealed that art majors experienced inspiration
more frequently and intensively than non-art majors. These findings indicate that achievements and learning
experiences through artistic and creative activities are related to individuals’ traits of inspiration.
Along with these studies on the positive relationship between trait inspiration and creative achievement
and learning, examinations began regarding how inspiration functions during the creative process. To investigate the role of inspiration during creative production, Thrash, Maruskin, Cassidy, Fryer, and Ryan (2010)
conducted an experiment comprising creative writing tasks with undergraduates. Because of its high validity
and reliability, the researchers adopted the IS to measure the participants’ state of inspiration during the
tasks. Upon completion, the researchers asked other undergraduates and graduates to rate the quality of the
writings on several evaluative dimensions, such as creativity, expression and grammar, according to Amabile’s (1982, 1996) consensual assessment technique (CAT) to examine the creative quality of products. The
results of comparing the causal model fits showed that inspiration during the writing process predicted the
judges’ rating of the creativity of products. That is, the more extensive the feelings of inspiration, the greater
the creativity of the sentences created. More recently, An and Youn (2018) showed that inspiration from artwork facilitated participants’ creation in other creative domains. In their experiment (Study 3), the participants were asked to appreciate artworks (e.g., poetry or painting), respond to the IS, and generate creative
ideas related to a business context (e.g., designing a computer keyboard, naming a pasta brand, or thinking
of ways of recycling). The results showed that art viewing promoted the frequency of idea generation (fluency) and the originality of the ideas. Such creative outcomes from art viewing inspiration applied across
490
Journal of Creative Behavior
diverse creative domains (e.g., writing and business). According to these studies, the inspirational effects on
creativity through art viewing may have domain generality (Baer, 1998; Baer & Kaufman, 2005).
Thrash and Elliot (2003, 2004) also proposed a framework to examine the inspiration process. According
to this framework, inspiration comprises a process of being inspired by, which focuses on appreciating the
value of stimulating objects and incidents, and a process of being inspired to, wherein value is actualized and
developed into new objects and behaviors. Previous studies, such as Thrash et al. (2010), have shed light on
the inspired to process for art making, but not on its connection with the inspired by process. Therefore,
researchers should focus on the relationship between the two processes and the specific mechanism to connect them.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
How are individuals inspired to create artwork through art viewing? The current paper proposes
hypotheses relating to this question. Although we assume that art viewing affects creativity in various
domains, as shown in previous studies (e.g., An & Youn, 2018; Thrash et al., 2010), the current paper
focuses mainly on inspiration from art viewing to create works in artistic domains. This is because we also
aim to explain the connection between art viewing and art making. In this paper, we first review existing
inspiration-related literature on creativity through art viewing. Focusing on the inspired by process and the
connection between the inspired by and inspired to processes, we demonstrate what types of artwork promote individuals’ inspiration to create (inspiring artwork), and how they experience the inspiration through
their art appreciation (the appreciation process). Second, we propose hypotheses on the types of creative
outcomes expected according to the connecting process of art viewing and making. Such hypotheses encourage future empirical research aimed at understanding how inspiration through art viewing contributes to
creative production and its quality.
THE LITERATURE ON INSPIRATION
External stimuli provide us a chance to feel inspiration. For instance, social incidents, natural phenomena, and even dreams, memories, nostalgia, and supernatural influences can trigger inspiration (Stephan,
Sedikides, Wildschut, Cheung, Routledge, & Arndt, 2015; Weisberg, 2006). According to Thrash and Elliot
(2004), such anecdotes exist because inspiration is accompanied by a feeling of evocation, which is sometimes unrelated to an individual’s will. When viewing artworks, some people are moved by something and
attribute their experience of inspiration to supernatural causes other than the artwork or their own thinking
(see the review of Oleynick et al., 2014; Thrash & Elliot, 2004). Others may seek their inspiration in certain
activities or spaces. A researcher on learning, John H. Falk, claimed that people can choose what, when, and
where to learn without assistance, especially in informal learning settings such as museums (Falk & Dierking,
2018). For instance, museum visitors can select the types of artwork they appreciate and also how to interpret and be inspired by the works. Although the feeling of inspiration may differ, we assume that both
intentional and unintentional inspirational experiences entail specific psychological processes after the
encounter with artworks. Thus, the current review and proposal of hypotheses focus on both intentional
and unintentional inspiration to create artwork through art viewing.
INSPIRING ARTWORKS
It can be assumed that the experience of inspiration by art viewing is influenced by what kind of artwork
people appreciate. Inspiration sometimes stems from works that include unique characteristics of a certain
culture, domain, or field. Picasso, for example, was inspired by African sculptures, whose visual characteristics were created using techniques significantly different from Western ones. Such visual characteristics can
surprise viewers in different cultures. Moreover, they may force viewers to consider why the creator
expressed the motif in such a way.
Psychology research on product design and fine arts has examined the influence of perceptual and conceptual features on individuals’ creativity (e.g., Chan, Fu, Schunn, Cagan, Wood, & Kotovsky, 2011; Fu,
Chan, Cagan, Kotovsky, Schunn, & Wood, 2013; Okada & Ishibashi, 2017; see also Study 3a in An & Youn,
2018). Creativity researchers proposed the conceptual leap hypothesis that an analogy based on an example
with a different surface but the same structural features induces innovation in creative domains (Gentner &
Markman, 1997; Holyoak & Thagard, 1996; Poze, 1983; Ward, 1998). This hypothesis is often cited when
explaining the various types of creative breakthroughs in the history of creative domains. For instance, the
renowned chemist, August Kekule, discovered the ring-shaped structure of the benzene molecule after
491
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
dreaming about a snake biting its own tail (Rosenberg, 1995). This anecdote demonstrates the effect of an
analogy, particularly the effect of analogizing two objects with a different visual surface but the same structure. This superficial difference seems to promote novel ideas because it can change individuals’ searching
space for a certain problem (Chan & Schunn, 2015b). When discussing the type of exemplars that promote
subsequent creative activities, some researchers compare the impact of exemplars that are superficially different from or similar to the creative task by setting objects in distant and near fields as comparative stimuli.
Researchers in product design have provided empirical evidence supporting the positive effect of superficially
different exemplars on creative task (e.g., Chan et al., 2011; Dahl & Moreau, 2002; Wilson, Rosen, Nelson &
Yen, 2010). For instance, Chan et al. (2011) conducted an experiment to compare the effects of unfamiliar
exemplars on creative product design. During the pretest, they asked undergraduates to design a low-cost,
easy-to-manufacture, portable device that harvested energy from human motion, focusing on developing
and impoverished rural communities (e.g., in India and many African countries). Participants in the experiment analogized the exemplar (i.e., reviewed two unfamiliar patent exemplars, and wrote or drew solutions
or produced ideas while examining the patents), whereas those in the control group continued to generate
concepts without such aid. This exercise was repeated in the post-test. The results showed that less common
exemplars that were not closely related to the task promoted creativity in the participants’ idea generation.
However, these findings may be limited to the specific procedure or environment of the experiment. Therefore, Chan and his collaborators developed approaches to compare ideas in the real world, not as experiments. Chan and Schunn (2015b) and Chan, Dow, and Schunn (2015) performed in vivo studies using a
large-scale, web-based database in engineering design to determine the conceptual distance between the ideas
generated in the database and the example from which the idea originated. The results revealed that near
examples were more likely to improve creativity than far distant ones, which contradicts the conceptual leap
hypothesis. The specific level of superficial difference of exemplars that promotes creativity cannot be
defined, and the level may differ according to the characteristics of each creative task. Furthermore, when
analogizing a far distant exemplar, it was suggested that deep and repeated exploration promoted participants’ creativity (Chan & Schunn, 2015a).
ART APPRECIATION PROCESS: THE CORE MECHANISM CONNECTING THE PROCESSES OF BEING
INSPIRED BY AND INSPIRED TO
What is the deep and repeated exploration of exemplars? Regarding the visual characteristics of artworks,
Okada and Ishibashi (2017) conducted experiments with amateurs in drawing, examining the effect of distant exemplars and the different interaction methods with the exemplars, such as copying and viewing for a
long time. They asked undergraduates to produce original and creative drawings before and after the intervention, in which the students either viewed or copied an abstract drawing that was far distant from their
prior knowledge, or a realistic drawing that was near distant from their prior knowledge. During the intervention, the students spent over 20 minutes viewing or copying, which is much longer than the typical time
spent in front of a painting in a museum (Smith & Smith, 2001). The results showed that the participants
who copied or viewed abstract pieces of artwork (i.e., far distant examples) made more original and creative
artworks than the other participants. An analysis of talk-aloud protocols during the experiment indicated
that when copying an abstract drawing, students actively interpreted the creative process of the drawing.
This process relaxed the constraints of their prior knowledge on drawing (i.e., preconceived thoughts). Furthermore, they obtained a new perspective on artistic expression to produce more creative works. According
to this finding, viewing unfamiliar artworks for a relatively long time or copying them promotes a deep
interpretation of the artworks and reflection on the viewers’ own knowledge and perspectives.
Ishiguro and Okada (2018a) suggested that deep interaction includes a dual focus, whereby viewers try to
compare their interpretation of an artwork and their reflections on their own knowledge and perspectives
(Figure 1). Dual focus was originally a concept of social psychology. According to Festinger (1954), individuals compare themselves with others to determine their relative position within a society, which is called social comparison. Smith (2000) defined dual focus as attention to both others and self in a social comparison
and demonstrated the possibility that a dual focus results in a feeling of inspiration. Ishiguro and Okada
(2018a) assumed that art viewing often includes social comparisons and proposed a framework to address
the process of inspiration to create art through art viewing. In particular, they emphasized that the inspiration process included a dual focus, whereby viewers paid attention to both their own and others’ art making. Ishiguro and Okada (2018b) empirically examined this hypothesis by conducting an online
questionnaire survey with 400 adults. The participants viewed four paintings (two classic and two abstract)
492
Journal of Creative Behavior
and responded to the questionnaire to measure whether, during their art viewing, they evaluated the paintings and/or compared the paintings with their own art making. Finally, they also reported on the intensity
of their inspiration to create art due to their art viewing. The results showed that participants who compared others’ art making with their own during their art viewing experienced more intensive inspiration for
art making. Thus, dual focus promotes art viewers’ inspiration to create art.
It seems that a dual focus can easily occur in certain art viewing processes. First, viewers easily experience a dual focus when given a chance to create something before and after art viewing (e.g., in the experiments in Chan et al., 2011; Fu et al., 2013; Okada & Ishibashi, 2017). Such a procedure motivates viewers to
reflect on their creative tasks. Second, if viewers had to perform their creative tasks after the art viewing (as
in the experiment in An & Youn, 2018), they also recalled their interpretation of the artwork to experience
a dual focus. Viewers who had creative jobs or hobbies (e.g., painters, patentees, and designers) easily experienced inspiration to create through art viewing (e.g., Chan et al., 2015; Chan & Schunn, 2015b; Thrash &
Elliot, 2003).
SPECIFIC PROCESS OF DUAL FOCUS FOR INSPIRATION
However, people do not always experience inspiration when they perform creative tasks after art viewing,
despite experiencing a dual focus and making a social comparison. Langer, Pirson, and Dilizonna (2010)
reported that there is sometimes a negative effect on performance when experiencing social comparison.
Smith (2000) claimed that individuals also experience envy, shame, or resentment rather than inspiration,
depending on the specific process of dual focus. Therefore, the studies highlighted what factors are important to the feeling of inspiration as an outcome of social comparison. A factor determining the resultant
emotions and motivational experiences is whether the person with whom the viewers compare themselves is
superior (upward comparison) or inferior (downward comparison). Social comparison research highlights
that people may experience inspiration during upward comparisons (Smith, 2000; Wood & Van der Zee,
1997). While these findings imply that superiority is a key characteristic of inspiration, individual interest in
a certain goal is also important. Based on experiments with students who aspired to be teachers and accountants, Lockwood and Kunda (1997) showed that inspiration was more likely to occur when they viewed
others’ superior achievements in relation to their goals. More interestingly, the inspiration had a positive
influence on changes in individuals’ goals and self-concept through the creative learning process. Burleson,
Leach, and Harrington (2005) conducted a six-week longitudinal survey of high school students skilled
across several artistic domains, such as animation, writing, and dance. During the survey, the students were
asked to discuss their social comparisons and self-concepts. The results revealed that students who
FIGURE 1. Dual focus for inspiration for creation by art viewing (adapted from Ishiguro & Okada, 2018a).
Note: The layered areas present the dual focus process. The dark gray boxes denote physicallevel inspiration, while those shaded light gray indicate psychological-level inspiration.
493
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
experienced inspiration made positive changes to their artistic identity. In addition, the greater the inspiration experienced during the upward comparisons, the higher the students’ enthusiasm was to become
experts. These findings support the notion that inspiration from upward comparisons with others contributes to individuals’ construction of self-identity and its impact on their creative activities.
Regarding inspiration to create through art viewing, how does upward and downward comparison occur
in the inspired by process? Art viewing environments such as museums often provide a variety of information on each artwork, including the year and method of production, and the name of the artist. Knowing
such information, viewers can discern the causal history of the artwork: What kind of person created this
work, what kind of background they had, and how the work was created and exhibited. Some viewers may
determine the social positioning of the work from the information about the creator, while others may
interpret the commentary to deduce the creator’s superiority as an artist. Such information implies the
work’s superiority, which may inspire viewers’ artistic creativity. The information about the artist’s social
status helps viewers understand the artwork. However, for a feeling of inspiration, it is necessary for viewers
to interpret it by relating it to themselves. Pelowski and his colleagues suggested that a self-related interpretation during art appreciation includes not only recognizing, and later recalling, the motifs depicted in the
artwork. It also includes a level of significance concerning their expectations and goals in viewing art such
as “understanding the artwork,” “enjoying their visit to a museum,” and “deriving inferences from the artwork for their creative tasks” (Pelowski & Akiba, 2011; Pelowski, Markey, Forster, Gerger, & Leder, 2017;
Pelowski, Markey, Lauring, & Leder, 2016). According to Pelowski et al. (2017), individuals’ objectives in
viewing art are set before or at the early stage in their art viewing and relate to their self-image or goals.
Then, in the interpretation process, they assess whether their expectations and goals are attained through
their art appreciation. If their expectations and goals are attained, they may experience positive feelings,
which are called the “assimilation effect” in social comparison research (e.g., Markman & MacMullen, 2003;
Smith, 2000). While Pelowski and his colleagues assumed that, within the framework of art appreciation
research, an individual’s self-image and goals would influence the art appreciation process, the present study
emphasizes the fact that the effect of self-image and goals extends to the experience of inspiration to create
by art viewing. In particular, when viewers set goals such as “deriving inferences from the artwork for their
creative tasks,” their interpretation of outstanding artworks may inspire them to make their own creative
works. Note that viewers sometimes assess multiple aspects of their expectations. Even if they appreciate the
work of Caravaggio and understand the artist’s superiority, they may not be inspired by knowing negative
information about the artist’s private life (e.g., committing crimes or injustice). In such circumstances, the
feeling of inspiration depends on the viewers’ expectations that define the focus of art interpretation. As a
result, viewers with an expectation of “becoming creative” focus on the artist’s creative process or achievements and may experience inspiration; in contrast, viewers who only expect to “enjoy the beauty of the artwork” and “be a good person” may not be inspired to create and may rather experience a feeling of disgust
toward the creator.
Viewers’ feelings of inspiration and creative performance may be influenced positively or negatively by
their interpretation of an artwork or their expectations, such as whether they hope to accomplish a similar
achievement to the artist within their capabilities. Markman and MacMullen (2003) noted that, for a social
comparison to have a positive influence, it is necessary for individuals to establish a relationship between
others and themselves and believe they are likely to reach the others’ achievement level. Lockwood and
Kunda (1997) illustrated this by reporting that participants experience inspiration when they find others
relatable and their achievements attainable. In addition, Ishiguro and Okada (2018a, b) highlighted the
importance of high self-efficacy in assessing one’s own art making in the context of dual focus. By accounting for the impact of self-efficacy in the analysis model, self-efficacy was shown to promote a dual focus in
art appreciation and, subsequently, inspiration for art making. Considering these findings, it is assumed that
people may experience inspiration when viewing superior artworks if they have expectations or goals to be
creative and have high self-efficacy in their creativity. High self-efficacy affords them the belief that they are
capable of realizing the value of others’ works, which enhances motivation in their own creative tasks.
DUAL FOCUS AND CREATIVE OUTCOMES
As mentioned above, our research highlights the importance of viewers having a dual focus by comparing their artwork and creative processes with those of others to feel inspired to create art (e.g., Ishiguro &
Okada, 2018a, 2018b). However, what types of creative outcomes can be expected through such dual focus
processes? The types of creative outcomes from such a comparative process are yet to be fully examined. To
494
Journal of Creative Behavior
address this issue, we set two focus levels in viewers’ evaluations of their own and others’ art making: focus
on the physical level and focus on the psychological level (see Figure 1, adapted from Ishiguro & Okada,
2018a). Next, we propose hypotheses for the types of inspired to outcomes based on the focus level in the
dual focus. For example, viewers may focus on the physical-level features of an artwork, such as colors and
brush strokes. This process emphasizes the processing of the physical aspects of artworks and inspires viewers to apply these physical features to their own creations. In contrast, viewers may focus on the psychological-level features—that is, the interpreted and imagined creative processes—such as the creators’ feelings,
their art concept, and creative thinking methods to develop their own manner of thinking about creative
activities. Viewers may also focus on both the physical and psychological levels in their dual focus, which
may promote more complicated creative outcomes. Thus, the level of creative outcomes depends on the
focus level of the dual focus. In the final section of this study, we describe the types of dual focus and the
various creative outcomes they promote.
We divide dual focus according to the expected outcomes illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2A does not
include dual focus because it ends with art viewing or appreciation, whereas Figure 2B–2E presents different
types of dual focus that provide inspiration through a focus on either the physical and psychological levels,
or on both. Regarding evaluating others’ artworks, the focus on physical-level processes includes the processes of analyzing and categorizing physical information about artworks (i.e., art viewing), while psychological-level processes include the viewers’ interpretation of the artists’ creative process (i.e., art appreciation).
Similarly, when considering the reflection process in viewers’ art making, the focus on the physical-level
reminds the viewer of physical information about their own artworks, such as colors and forms, based on
their memory of creative activities, while the focus on the psychological-level prompts them to consider
their creative theme and concept.
NO INSPIRATION
Evaluating the features and concepts of artwork does not generate inspiration due to the lack of dual
focus. This process ends only with viewing or appreciating art, but is not inspiring (Figure 2A).
PHYSICAL-LEVEL INSPIRATION
Physical-level inspiration requires viewers to analyze the physical aspects of artworks and to reflect on
the physical aspects of their own art making. This type of inspiration leads viewers to change physical
aspects of their creative works. However, a focus on physical-level inspiration may have a different process
depending on whether it happens during art viewing or art appreciation. With physical-level inspiration
derived from art viewing (Figure 2B), the evaluation of others’ artwork does not include a focus on the psychological level. For instance, artists or individuals engaged in creative activities may view others’ artwork,
while considering physical aspects such as colors and forms. In this case, they may not necessarily interpret
the works from the perspective of art history or create meaning in the context of their own lives, and thus,
the art viewing may not advance to art appreciation. Nevertheless, viewers may still compare the features of
others’ art making with their own and apply these observations to their creative activities—a type of inspiration for art making experienced through art viewing. As a result, they may change physical aspects of their
creative works. In contrast, viewers who interpret the historical value of an artwork and its creative concept
and do not compare others’ art making with their own on the psychological level of the creative process
may only experience physical-level inspiration (Figure 2C).
PSYCHOLOGICAL-LEVEL INSPIRATION
Psychological-level inspiration requires viewers to interpret artworks from a psychological perspective.
This process is enabled not in art viewing but in art appreciation, to foster a deeper interpretation of artwork by applying previous knowledge and information, wherein viewers perceive, analyze, and categorize
the features of works. Additionally, the process requires viewers to reflect on their own art making with
regard to the psychological aspects, such as creative process, theme, and perspective. With the dual focus on
the psychological level, viewers may feel the need to change their perspective after comparing the features
and concepts of others’ art making with their own (Figure 2D).
This approach imposes the highest psychological burden on viewers. A typical example is the experiment
by Okada and Ishibashi (2017) with undergraduates who were drawing amateurs. As mentioned above, participants who copied or viewed abstract artwork created more original and creative artworks than the others,
relaxing the constraints of their prior knowledge and adopting a new perspective on artistic expression to
495
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
FIGURE 2. Types of inspiration based on physical and psychological-processing levels.
Note: The white and gray squares contain examples of viewers’ interpretations of the sample
artwork on both inspiration levels.
produce more creative works. In other words, deep interaction such as viewing unfamiliar artworks for a
relatively long time or copying them promotes a dual focus on psychological-level processing to change the
viewers’ creative process, which may result in a psychological-level change in artworks.
PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL-LEVEL INSPIRATION
Physical- or psychological-level inspiration from art appreciation requires both levels of dual focus during art viewing and appreciation. Such physical and psychological inspiration is assumed to induce individuals’ creativity externally and internally and to change their psychological process during creation and the
physical features of their creative outcomes, although the process entails the greatest psychological burden
on the viewers (Figure 2E).
DISCUSSION
HOW DOES INSPIRATION INDUCE CREATIVE OUTCOMES?
Creativity is considered to be an ability observable in ideas, products, performances, and achievements in
creative domains (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Guilford, 1950; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Sternberg & Lubert, 1999). Art
is a representative creative domain in that it has been seen that creators experience inspiration to develop
their own creativity through viewing and appreciating art. Recent studies suggest that inspiration from art
viewing contributes to various types of creative outcomes, including motivation, ideas, and products (e.g.,
496
Journal of Creative Behavior
An & Youn, 2019; Ishiguro & Okada, 2018b; Okada & Ishibashi, 2017). However, few studies have examined
the relationship between inspiration through art viewing and appreciation and creative outcomes. In summarizing previous studies, the current review describes what type of artworks promote individuals’ inspiration to create and their inspirational experiences through encounters with artwork. In addition, the
hypothetical framework proposed in this paper illustrates what outcomes can be expected from the type of
dual focus process utilized during their art viewing/appreciation and categorizes types of inspiration according to the focus levels (i.e., physical and psychological) in the process.
In addition, the inspiration process may impact creative outcomes that contribute to society. Some
researchers have attempted to categorize creativity on the basis of its contribution to, for example, individual lives (i.e., psychological creativity) and the development of creative domains and society (i.e., historical
creativity achieved by domain experts) (Boden, 2004). Studies have also examined experts’ creative processes
(e.g., Lubart, 2001; Mace & Ward, 2012). Kaufman (2014), for example, suggests that specifying the inspiration process contributes to understanding the creativity of experts in various domains. Interview-based
research and case studies report that creators often experience inspiration when they encounter objects and
materials in addition to others’ skilled works (e.g., Botella et al., 2013; Chemi, Jensen, & Hersted, 2015;
Yokochi & Okada, 2005). However, a recent study suggests that experts may have a more aggressive
approach to inspiration for creation. A careful case study reveals that a modern artist experiences inspiration
from artwork through intensive idea explorations, including the drawing of idea sketches and photographing
of related objects, to develop a deeper interpretation of the artwork (Takagi, Kawase, Yokochi, & Okada,
2015). This could be an important aspect in examining creators’ use of their inspiration during creative projects because such examination enables them to transform their creative style and become deviant (Stamkou,
van Kleef & Homan, 2018). The framework of the inspiration process hypothesized in the current paper
allows researchers to examine how artists seek to experience inspiration and how their inspiration contributes to psychological or historical creativity.
Individuals’ experience and utilization of inspiration may vary throughout the development of their creative expertise. As reported, inspiration from prominent works promotes art students’ construction of selfconcepts as artists (Burleson et al., 2005). Inspiration from others and their works is key in developing individuals’ identity in the context of creative expertise. While few studies examine the relationship between
inspiration and identity (an exception is Chadorn & Revsen, 2016), identity as an artist is particularly
important in the context of creative expertise because it increases individuals’ motivation to create artworks
consistent with their identity. Future studies should examine the relationship between inspiration and identity during creative development and the enjoyment of creative life.
Development of creative expertise can be considered as a type of learning in a social context. For further
examination of the process and mechanism of the development, it might be necessary to refer to theories on
learning in a social context, such as the social development theory by Vygotsky (1962, 1978). Future studies
on inspiration integrating socio-cultural perspectives will probably be able to contribute to understanding a
more comprehensive mechanism of learning in creative domains.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has reviewed research on art viewing and creativity to illustrate how individuals experience
inspiration to create artworks through art viewing. We have demonstrated a dual focus, which centers on
both evaluating artwork and reflecting on individuals’ artistic activities, and integrates the processes of being
inspired by and inspired to. Further, the current paper has proposed a hypothetical framework to explore
how this dual focus results in various creative outcomes. In particular, it divides the types of dual focus processes and subsequent creative outcomes by introducing a focus-level aspect. This framework may help an
understanding of the mechanism of inspiration to facilitate artistic creativity through art viewing.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(5), 997.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
497
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
An, D., & Youn, N. (2018). The inspirational power of arts on creativity. Journal of Business Research, 85, 467–475.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity.
Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163.
Boden, M.A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York, NY: Routledge.
Botella, M., Glaveanu, V., Zenasni, F., Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Wolff, M., & Lubart, T. (2013). How artists create: Creative
process and multivariate factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 161–170.
Broekkamp, H., Janssen, T., & Van den Bergh, H. (2009). Is there a relationship between literature reading and creative writing?
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(4), 281–297.
Burleson, K., Leach, C.W., & Harrington, D.M. (2005). Upward social comparison and self-concept: Inspiration and inferiority
among art students in an advanced programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 109–123.
Chadborn, D., & Reysen, S. (2016). Moved by the masses: A social identity perspective on inspiration. Current Psychology, 37(3), 1–
7.
Chan, J., Dow, S.P., & Schunn, C.D. (2015). Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Design Studies, 36, 31–58.
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C.D., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative
design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical
Design, 133, 081004-1–11.
Chan, J., & Schunn, C.D. (2015a). The importance of iteration in creative conceptual combination. Cognition, 145, 104–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.008.
Chan, J., & Schunn, C.D. (2015b). The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 126–155.
Chemi, T., Jensen, J., & Hersted, L. (2015). Behind the scenes of artistic creativity: Processes of creating, learning and organizing. Bern,
Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Dahl, D.W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2018). Learning from museums. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2013). The meaning of “near” and “far”: The impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(2).
Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Hamasaki, M., Takeda, H., & Nishimura, T. (2008). Network analysis of massively collaborative creation of multimedia contents:
Case study of hatsune miku videos on nico nico douga. Proceedings of the 1st international conference: Designing Interactive
User Experiences for TV and Video. 165–168. ACM.
Harding, R.E.M. (1948). An anatomy of inspiration. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons.
Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1996). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Homburg, C. (1996). The copy turns original: Vincent van Gogh and a new approach to traditional art practice. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands; Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.
Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2016). Development of psychological scales for measuring attitudes for art making and appreciation and
their effects on artistic inspiration between art majors and non-art majors. Poster presented at the Tokyo International Symposium 2016 Art Learning and Creativity Contemporary Issues in Formal and Informal Settings, Tokyo Japan, November
19th, 2016.
Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2018a). How can inspiration be encouraged in art learning? In T. Chemi & X. Du (Eds.), Arts-based
methods and organizational learning: Higher education around the world (pp. 205–230). Denmark: River Publishers.
Ishiguro, C., & Okada, T. (2018b). How art appreciation inspired artistic inspiration. Presented at the Creativity Conference 2018
Ashland, US 6th August 2018.
Kaufman, S.B. (2014). A proposed integration of the expert performance and individual differences approaches to the study of elite
performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 707.
Langer, E., Pirson, M., & Delizonna, L. (2010). The mindlessness of social comparisons. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 4(2), 68–74.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.
Lubart, T.I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308.
Mace, M.A., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 179–192.
Markman, K.D., & McMullen, M.N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(3), 244–267.
Milyavskaya, M., Ianakieva, I., Foxen-Craft, E., Colantuoni, A., & Koestner, R. (2012). Inspired to get there: The effects of trait and
goal inspiration on goal progress. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 56–60.
498
Journal of Creative Behavior
Nakano, Y., Shimizu, D., & Okada, T. (2017). Designing a creative dance program for non-dance majors. In A. Manning (Eds.),
Art and design education: Perspectives, challenges and opportunities (pp. 71–102). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Okada, T., & Ishibashi, K. (2017). Imitation, inspiration, and creation: Cognitive process of creative drawing by copying others’ artworks. Cognitive Science, 41(7), 1804–1837.
Oleynick, V.C., Thrash, T.M., LeFew, M.C., Moldovan, E.G., & Kieffaber, P.D. (2014). The scientific study of inspiration in the creative process: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.
00436.
Parker, J. (2008). The impact of visual art instruction on student creativity. Michigan: ProQuest.
Pavlou, V. (2013). Investigating interrelations in visual arts education: Aesthetic enquiry, possibility thinking and creativity. International Journal of Education through Art, 9(1), 71–88.
Pelowski, M., & Akiba, F. (2011). A model of art perception, evaluation and emotion in transformative aesthetic experience. New
Ideas in Psychology, 29(2), 80–97.
Pelowski, M., Leder, H., & Tinio, P. (2017). Creativity in the Visual Arts. In J. Kaufman, V. Glaveanu & J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology pp. 80–109). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P.S., Forster, M., Gerger, G., & Leder, H. (2017). Move me, astonish me. . . delight my eyes and brain: The
Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125.
Pelowski, M., Markey, P.S., Lauring, J.O., & Leder, H. (2016). Visualizing the impact of art: An update and comparison of current
psychological models of art experience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160.
Poze, T. (1983). Analogical connections—The essence of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(4), 240–258.
Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekule’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. The American
Journal of Psychology (University of Illinois Press), 108(3), 419–438.
Rubin, W. (1984). Picasso. In W. Rubin (Ed.), “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern. (Vol. 1, pp.
241–343). New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art.
Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Smith, J.K., & Smith, L.F. (2001). Spending time on art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 19(2), 229–236.
Smith, R.H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In J. Suls & L.
Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 173–200). The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Specker, E., Tinio, P.P., & van Elk, M. (2017). Do you see what I see? An investigation of the aesthetic experience in the laboratory
and museum. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(3), 265.
Stamkou, E., van Kleef, G.A., & Homan, A.C. (2018). The art of influence: When and why deviant artists gain impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 276.
Stephan, E., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Cheung, W.Y., Routledge, C., & Arndt, J. (2015). Nostalgia-evoked inspiration: Mediating
mechanisms and motivational implications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1395–1410.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
Creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takagi, K., Kawase, A., Yokochi, S., & Okada, T. (2015). Formation of an art concept: A case study using quantitative analysis of a
contemporary artist’s interview data. Proceedings. The 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2332–2337).
Pasadena, US.
Thrash, T.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–
889.
Thrash, T.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2004). Inspiration: Core characteristics, component processes, antecedents, and function. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 957–973.
Thrash, T.M., Maruskin, L.A., Cassidy, S.E., Fryer, J.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). Mediating between the muse and the masses: Inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 469–487.
Tinio, P.P. (2013). From artistic creation to aesthetic reception: The mirror model of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the
Arts, 7(3), 265–275.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ward, T.B. (1998). Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: Mental leaps versus mental hops. In K.J. Holyoak, D.
Gentner & B. Kokinov (Eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational,
and neural sciences (pp. 221–230). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University.
Weisberg, R.W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wellman, A. (2012). The art of the matter: The importance of using art in college classroom to promote creativity and reinforce
lessons. Open Education Journal, 5, 27–33.
Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B.A., & Yen, J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies, 31,
169–186.
499
Art Viewing Inspires Creativity
Wood, J., & Van der Zee, K. (1997). Social comparisons among cancer patients: Under what conditions are comparisons upward
and downward? In B.P. Buunk & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being (pp. 299–328). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yokochi, S., & Okada, T. (2005). Creative cognitive process of art making: A field study of a traditional Chinese ink painter.
Creativity Research Journal, 17(2–3), 241–255.
Chiaki Ishiguro, Kanazawa Institute of Technology
Takeshi Okada, The University of Tokyo
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chiaki Ishiguro. Kanazawa Institute of Technology. 7-1 Ohgigaoka,
Nonoichi Ishikawa 921 - 8501 Japan E-mail ishigurochiaki37@gmail.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Ishibashi Foundation. The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the
content of this article.
AUTHOR NOTE
Ishiguro Chiaki. Research Associate, Department of Psychological Science, College of Informatics and
Human Communication, Kanazawa Institute of Technology.
Okada Takeshi. Professor, Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo.
500