ABSTRACT
Is the popular image of the creative person—in particular the artist—as a long-haired, sloppy, disorderly, Bohemian, half-mad individual correct? Both writers and psychologists have thought and written about what kind of man the creative person really is. Here is what Arthur Koestler, the writer, had to say about it:
Most geniuses responsible for the major mutations in the history of thought seem to have certain features in common; on the one hand scepticism, often carried to the point of iconoclasm, in their attitude towards traditional ideas, axioms, and dogmas, towards everything that is taken for granted; on the other hand, an openmindedness that verges on naïve credulity towards new concepts which seem to hold out some promise to their instinctive gropings. Out of this combination results that crucial capacity of perceiving a familiar object, situation, problem, or collection of data, in a sudden new light or new context: of seeing a branch not as part of a tree, but as a potential weapon or tool: of associating the fall of an apple not with its ripeness, but with the motion of the moon. The discoverer perceives relational patterns of functional analogies where nobody saw them before, as the poet perceives the image of a camel in a drifting cloud. (Koestler, 1959 )
