1.1. Creativity and radical creativity

What makes creativity radical? What’s the difference between radical and incremental creativity?

---

Creativity scholars usually define creativity as a human ability that enables the development of novel and useful products. (Stenberg and Lubart, 1999, Amabile, 2018). Some researchers also claim that the outcome of creativity must have a surprising (Simonton, 2012), authentic (Corazza, 2016), or aesthetic value (Kharkhurin, 2014). Each of these helps assess the level of creativity associated with performances in different areas of expertise and culture. But in the scientific investigations of creativity, the combination of novelty (originality) and usefulness (appropriateness) is essential for an idea, product or service to be considered creative (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines incremental as occurring in small increments, additions, or changes, and the word is synonymous with ‘gradual’ or ‘step-by-step’. Radical is defined as proceeding from the root or related to the origins; it’s synonymous with ‘fundamental’ and, when used positively, is considered ‘cool’. 

So what is radical creativity? An Aalto University staff member defined radical creativity by saying 

‘Radical means that you’re really changing the paradigm of what you’re doing.‘

— Toward Radical Creativity report  

Paradigm change is associated with disruption, with groundbreaking, major changes.  

To Janne Halme, University Lecturer at the Department of Applied Physics, radical creativity is the kind of creativity that ‘people at first, do not understand. If the first reaction is understanding, I think it’s not radical creativity, it’s not so radically new.  

Perhaps a way of thinking is so very unconventional that it catches people by surprise. And this surprise can be positive. I mean, I like to believe that it should be positive, although the word radical often is associated with something aggressive or negative or critical or something like that.’

So, one way to think of radical creativity is as the highest degree of novelty. Kaufmann (2003) proposed that for an idea, work, or object to be considered creative, novelty needs to be complemented by the rejection of previously accepted ideas. According to Hausman (1987), the concept of creativity invokes a sense of radical novelty which differs from incremental novelty that involve minimal differences and variations on the status quo. Diedrick et al. (2015) argue that the more novel an idea is, the more creative it is. If an idea is not novel, its usefulness doesn’t matter much. If an idea is novel, its usefulness determines how creative it’s thought to be. 

Radical creativity leads to action that is useful because it changes existing practices and enables a breakthrough (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). At Aalto University, radical creativity means a bold approach to renewal that fundamentally changes the way people, organisations, industries or businesses operate. When a larger group of people consider something to be radical, we see societal, technological and economic shifts. All in all, radical creativity transforms how society operates.

In the art scene, some of the most famous artists are the ones who radically redefined art itself. Joseph Beuys was a German artist who became internationally famous in the 1960s for his striking contributions (Kharkhurin, 2014). One of Beuys’ most renowned works is ‘Fettecke’ (Fat Corner), created in 1982. It consisted of a mass of fat shaped into a triangle and placed in the corner of a room. The use of fat, a recurrent material in Beuys’ art, was symbolic, relating to themes of transformation and renewal. He reputedly said, ‘Everyone is an artist.’

That also is radical.

Radically creative people

We will now look at some characteristics of radically creative people.

---

Doing research is creative work which consists of discovering subtleties in the studied phenomena that were not considered in the beginning. This also applies to researching radical creativity. Throughout this course, we’ll introduce what is currently known about the traits of creative individuals and how group dynamics and organizational culture affect incremental and radical creativity.

What do scholars have to say about radical creativity? Gilson & Madjar (2011) underline the importance of differentiating incremental and radical forms of creative performance. Incremental creativity results in modifications in existing practices and products, and they define radical creativity as ‘ideas that differ substantially from existing practices and alternatives’ and as ‘new and set-breaking frameworks and processes’.

According to Gilson & Madjar, individuals who are more intrinsically motivated and focused on discovering problems are more likely to engage in radical creativity. By contrast, external motivation makes people more likely to solve problems that are presented to them, engaging in incremental creativity. The source of an idea can also make a difference. Ideas that come from abstract theories are more strongly linked with radical creativity, whereas ideas inspired by concrete practice are more related to incremental creativity.

THIS SHOULD BE BELOW AS A NEW BLOCK

Think about what you consider to be incremental or radical creativity in your domain of specialisation. In an area of expertise that you’re familiar with (e.g., business, chemistry, engineering, nursing, etc), what is an idea/theory/product that you see as an incremental creative achievement? What is an idea/theory/product that you think is a major departure from the existing body of knowledge, norms, conditions, etc?

Recognizing radical creativity

Not all creative or radically creative ideas get recognized or have an impact. Radically creative ideas get recognized in different ways at four levels: by the audience, field, team and individual.

The audience refers is the people who receive the work, such as leaders, work communities, or end users. Sometimes, the audience is already imbued with a sense of radicality at first exposure — as soon as they learn about the new idea or product, they realize that it will significantly change the way they think, work and live.

Recognition in the field happens through the experts in any given area of knowledge or practice. Csikszentmihalyi (2015) introduced the concept of gatekeepers of knowledge as the experts who filter what creative works become acknowledged and included in a specific domain.

The third level is the team. Usually, the development of a creative idea involves a group of people who co-create with complementary skills. A team that’s open to radical creativity will embrace creative behaviours (i.e., risk-taking, experimentation) whenever they detect signs of radical creativity.

Radical creativity can also be recognized by the creative individual themself. For a radically creative idea to really impact our world positively, it needs to be recognized, valued and fostered at all of these levels.

(THIS IS THE REAL-LIFE ACTIVITY, HAVE TO MOVE)

Let’s make radically creative art! This might be difficult, but try to think of some form of expression that’s not currently recognized as art — something like the way Joseph Beuys, introduced in this chapter, renewed art by using fat as a material. Think of something that you can actually make, at least one piece — and then make it. Write what you did and about the creative process you experienced.

References

Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge.

Beghetto, R. A. (2021). There is no creativity without uncertainty: Dubito Ergo Creo. Journal of Creativity, 31, 100005.

Björklund, T. ; Eriksson, V. ; Feng, X. ; Klenner, Niko ; Kuukka, A. ; van der Marel, F. (2022). Toward Radical Creativity report Available at: https://designfactory.aalto.fi/creatnet/ 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer.

Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful?. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 9(1), 35.

Gilson, L.L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21.

Giovanni Emanuele Corazza (2016) Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 28:3, 258-267.

Glăveanu, V.P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 1(1), 10-32.

Hausman, C. R. (1987). Philosophical perspectives on the study of creativity. Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics, 380-389.

Kharkhurin, A.V. (2014). Creativity. 4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity research journal, 26(3), 338-352. 

Mark A. Runco & Garrett J. Jaeger (2012) The Standard Definition of Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 24:1, 92-96, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Simonton, D.K., (2012). Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity research journal, 24(2-3), 97-106.

Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1998). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807916.003

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.