Abstract
In the framework of the systemic-informational approach, a typology of elements’ behavior was derived, one of its bases being “neural force.” Every element (subject) can be ascribed either to ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ type (or certain intermediate degree). To measure this feature in application to creativity, two sources of empirical data were used, first dealing with 22-parametric description of 40 outstanding painters (of the 15th – 20th centuries), the second with 10 most important parameters of 200 ones. Both sets of primary data were based on calibrated expert estimations (up to 18 art historians). Several methods of information processing resulted in the ‘index of neural force’ of each painter, this index being capable of practical application in cultural studies, as well as in psychological and sociological investigations.
Keywords: Psychology; Systemic-information approach; Statistics; Neural typology; Painting creativity; Expert estimations; Principal component analysis; Indices
Introduction
About three decades ago, appeared a new vision of the features describing the behavior of any biological object, this universal vision being based on the information theory. (We mean the so-called systemic-informational approach – see, e.g., Golitsyn & Petrov, 1995.) In the framework of this approach, a set of parameters was deduced, proceeding from the very survival of the species (see Petrov, 2019). Among these features we find the so-called subject’s ‘neural force’ characterizing his/her maximal value of the resource mobilization, meaning both the force of nervous processes and usual physical force (see also Golitsyn, 1997, 2013). The heart of the matter consists in that the change of environmental conditions may cause quite different reactions: for ‘strong’ subjects the increasing of the environmental entropy causes the growth of activity and its effectiveness, whereas ‘weak’ subjects show decreasing diversity of activity and its diminishing effectiveness. Such a typology known from the times of Hippocrates, now experiences the ‘second breathing’ due to achievements of the systemic-informational approach. Each subject (or in general, each element of the system) can be ascribed to one of these two poles – or to a certain intermediate degree between them – with various behavioral consequences, both psychological and social. This parameter is universal, and hence, it can be investigated using various kinds of elements’ behavior, including those ones which seem to be rarely met, or even ‘exotic.’ Thus, “in artistic creativity, the difference between ‘weak’ type and ‘strong’ one is nothing else than the distinction between artistic temperaments. Weak type is characterized by low diversity of reactions: laconic, restrained features, stingy expressive means, inclination to small forms, attention to details, preference for nuances, ‘transparence’ of artistic language, and so forth. On the contrary, strong type is marked with violent colors, wealth of expressive means, preference for contrasts, ‘dense ecriture,’ inclination to large forms. <…> Of course, this difference in temperaments is inherent also to recipients, and it determines their reactions to works of art. Thus, for a recipient of a ‘strong’ type, creativity of an artist of ‘weak’ type, may cause the state of monotony, i.e., it seems to be too curt, dull, and languor. On the contrary, a recipient of ‘weak’ type reacts on works of a ‘strong’ artist by the state of the strain, irritation, impression of being too sham, rough, devoid of taste” (Golitsyn, 2013, p. 49) [1].
Previously we studied the indicators of this phenomenon in such specific field of behavior as musical creativity (Mazhul, Petrov, & Mazhul, 2016). Now we can compare these results – with analogous results concerning creative activity in the sphere of painting. Such comparison will hopefully come to some conclusions which would be capable of shading light onto the entire evolution of various systems.
Features of artistic creativity and their principal component analysis
At our disposal there were two sets of empirical data, both being ‘by-products’ of a large-scale investigation focused on hemispheric aspect of artistic creativity (Petrov & Boyadzhiyeva, 1996; Petrov & Mazhul, 2019). Both sources proceeded from calibrated expert estimations (from 8 to 18 experts for each painter), aimed at measuring the degree of left- or right-hemispheric prevalence inherent in the creativity of painters, both West-European and Russian [2].
The first source dealt with 22 parameters, proposed by a group of experts (both psychologists and art historians). Each parameter had a form of a binary opposition (see Table 1), between two poles of which there were 6 gradations. After compiling this list of parameters, a list of hypothetical ‘contrastive’ eminent painters was also compiled. [This set contained names of 40 suggested ‘contrastive painters’: 20 belonging to left-hemispheric dominance and 20 to right-hemispheric one.] Then another group of experts (art historians) was involved, each of them being asked to put his/her estimate to the creativity of each painter. Then all the estimations obtained were processed by the procedure of principal component analysis (Petrov & Boyadzhiyeva, 1996). Some of its results are presented in Table 1: loads of each parameter onto the first four factors. [Loads possessing high values, are italicized: those which are more than 0.8 for first two factors, those exceeding 0.6 for the third factor, and exceeding 0.5 for the fourth factor.] [3] (Table 1).
To read more about this article.....Open access Journal of Annals of Biostatistics & Biometric Applications
Please follow the URL to access more information about this article
To know more about our Journals....Iris Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment