ABSTRACT
In his 1950 American Psychological Association presidential address, Guilford (in Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) reported that until 1950 less than 0.2% of entries in Psychological Abstracts focused on creativity, and that it was a marginal topic. Sternberg and Lubart (1999) noted that from 1974 to 1994, 0.5% of entries in Psychological Abstracts concerned creativity. They concluded that “Creativity is important in society, but it traditionally has been one of psychology’s orphans” (p. 4). One would expect that if creativity were orphaned in the field of psychology, it would have found a home in the visual arts and related educational pursuits that-in the mind of the general publicare synonymous with creativity. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The 2002 National Art Education Convention theme was “An Expanding Vision: Refocusing Content, Contexts, and Strategies.” Of the over 590 sessions in the conference program, only 8 mentioned creativity in an abstract and only a single entry included creativity in its title. This was not always the case in visual arts education.
