You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In his great dictionary, Johnson defined the word create as to form out of nothing, to cause to exist. His spiritual descendants, the lexicographers who put together the latest edition of Webster's dictionary, likewise defined create as to bring into existence. Insofar as popular works of literature and dictionary definitions accurately reflect accepted usage, one may say that the words create and, by extension, creativity, are loaded words. They impute truly magical powers to those who do the creating: the power of making something out of nothing, the power of bringing into existence, as God is supposed to have done according to the opening of the book of Genesis.
In addition, the adjective creative implies a significant value judgment. It is complimentary. Shakespeare was creative. So were Newton and Einstein, da Vinci and Michelangelo. One would not ordinarily call Genghis Khan, Hitler, or Stalin creative, even though each was instrumental in bringing into existence an organization that profoundly affected the lives of millions. To call someone creative is to imply admiration and approval, not the reverse.
Few people and even fewer scientists today believe that something material can be created out of nothing. What do seem to appear from nowhere, what do seem to be literally brought into existence, are thoughts and ideas. They and the objects to which they give rise—literature, art, scientific theories—are what deserve the adjective creative.
Freud's first approach to the problem of creativity was his monograph on Jensen's Gradiva (Freud 1907). In it he wrote that a writer of fiction