Ross A. Laird

I will be in Miami from May 16th to 22nd co-facilitating a Union Institute seminar on doctoral research in Creative Process and the Arts. One of the challenges faced by scholars in this area is that it’s generally difficult to convey the rigor of creative process research to an academic community that is trained to understand the constrained forms of the traditional scientific method. Essentially, Creative Process research is new and different; sometimes it’s hard to sell to a traditional academic audience.

The conversation between Creative Process research and traditional academia plays itself out in many ways. The doctoral dissertation that became my first book is an example of that conversation. Another example (and one that seems to be in the news with increasing frequency) involves the controversial question of whether creativity can be inherited by way of organ transplant.

William Sheridan, a man who recently received a heart transplant from a donor who was an artist, developed sudden artistic ability after the transplant (full story here). This is not uncommon, this mysterious passage of tastes or talents from donor to recipient. Creativity is one of the most complex aspects of human behavior (perhaps the most complex), and its transmission from one person to another by way of tissue is both fascinating and highly provocative.

Traditional researchers seek to explain these types of events by way of behavioral or situational cues. Creative process researchers seek other, more holistic explanations. Personally, I think that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of some type of somatic transmission, something that is beyond our current capacity to understand. That’s what Creative Process research is, essentially: an encounter with the mysterious.